Roomies

I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, "In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House..." After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean "spirit" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. "Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked!

I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.

First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.

This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.

Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.

See something else.

This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen. EVER. The characters are exaggerated to the point that they flaws become really annoying, the acting is sub par and the ending most definitely is the worst ever. I mean, they could at least make the characters stay in their roles through the end of the movie... the Girlfriend who was very reluctant to have oral sex with his future husband then gets to do a threesome with their 2 roommates when she was supposed to be enraged by their actions? WTF, where did this come from?

I don't recommend this movie to anyone except... well, except no one. I just don't recommend it.

A tedious mixture of puerile efforts at humour with romantic relationship melodrama fails to provide this weakly made film with any flavour of reality. As action opens, Reno (A.J. Buckley) enters his apartment, there discovering his girlfriend in flagrante delicto with his roommate, who gloatingly tells Reno "Well, at least it's with someone you know", resulting in Reno's decision to never have another roommate, this decision told to viewers by means of a soon abandoned voice-over. The storyline then proceeds ten months where we find that Reno is indeed true to his word concerning avoidance of roommates, although this appears to beg the question due to his garnering of a live-in lover, Holly (Holly Fields), with whom he has generated marital plans. The plot briefly shifts to a sleazy Hollywood strip club, wherein Reno's Uncle Charley, enamoured of a "dancer" whom he finds eminently desirable, keels over dead atop the club's bar after seeing the unadorned charms displayed by the object of his affections. It is apparent that Charley had been aware of the flawed condition of his heart, because he created a video tape during which his commentary bequeaths his large (and mortgaged) residence in Hollywood to Reno, and we see the latter deciding to, contrary to his vow, interview applicants for two roommates as tenants, with he and Holly sharing the selection process in an organized manner. Following an inane sequence involving bizarre renter candidates, all of whom Reno and Holly unsurprisingly find unsuitable for living along with them in their house they, unknown to each other, each select a renter of the opposite sex, with the lovers manifestly cool toward the choice of their partner. The newcomers (Chad and Nicole) would seem to have little discernible point to their existence other than highly aural fornication with a broad range of partners, and it is not long before jealousy mars the harmonic relationship of Reno and Holly. Reno is bent upon patenting and merchandising a type of sporting travel bag and, as he has given an engagement ring to Holly, the potential success of this entrepreneurial adventure is of great financial significance if he intends to advance his marital plan. Unfortunately, the rapacious team of Chad and Nicole, whose every action is ostensibly laced with lust, is likely to disrupt any future wedding intentions of Reno. Direction is slack, plainly far from fulfilling basic needs of the players, although an erratically composed script provides scant material with which actors may work, and ad libbing falls embarrassingly flat. As a result, the performances are undistinguished, not aided by spotty editing, while the manner of camera-work changes as abruptly and often as a firefly's tail light. Filmed with a low budget and on location, only a modicum of skill is required for the designing processes, but a larger measure of value might have been placed upon the tasteless D.J. background soundtrack, generally blaring and nearly always invasive. A good deal of discussion has been stimulated by the movie's final sequences that are apparently not expected by a viewer based upon what has come before, but in reality these comprise probably the only thoughtful portions of a poorly cobbled screenplay, and bids fair to make the work almost watchable, despite the shabby quality of the production as a whole.

There seems to be quite a few comments on how bad this movie is.

I can see how it won't appeal to a younger (people younger than 30's) audience who may feel that the "occasional" straying from your girl/guy is okay and understandable, so what's the big deal?

I agree that the movie is slow and nothing much (or meaningful) happens until the "famous" ending. After watching it for about half an hour, I turned my attention to other things (computer, etc.) and didn't get back to the movie until at the ending. I picked it up again where Reno leaves for his out-of-town trip, and watched through to the end. I must say the ending disturbed me a lot - that is it made me really really sad. Reno and Holly had a potentially very good relationship, and obviously loved each other a lot (This shows even at the end when Holly was watching Reno being interviewed on TV in a bar - oh she was so sad) This ending raises a deeply philosophical question: Can one partner trust another after such an act? Even though I don't have a partner, I wondered after watching the movie how I would react if I were in Reno's shoes! Can one give up a potentially beautiful yet perhaps unlikely to be long-lasting relationship (one who strays once likely may stray again)? This movie failed because the producer did not know what audience he/she wants to, and therefore, target. It is - as some reviewers have said - not a comedy (particularly the ending). It does however - also as some reviewers said - have some funny moments. It has no nudity to attract male audiences, at least what I'd call nudity anyway. And certainly no "actions" - but then it is not intended to be an action movie.

I only gave it a 7 because of the "deep" ending - as much as it left a big lump in my throat for a long time....