heffay111

This movie is painfully bad. What is truly sad about this, besides the fact that I wasted two full-priced movie tickets on it, is that both leads are charming and likable. Unfortunately, the script here is about as terrible as one can be.

Seriously. The FIRST SCENE features dialog that makes you squirm in pain. It is simply awkward, unnatural, and unfunny. It makes you think, "Should I get out and ask for refund?" The answer is yes. There a few decent moments during the 75 minutes that this movie actually runs, but it is difficult to appreciate them because there are so very many BAD moments. (75 minutes? Yes. Imagine what was left on the cutting room floor.) And not just bad moments, moments that fall flat on their face which are made worse because you know that they (the writers, director, producers) thought these were going to be great laughs. Of course, I could be wrong and the professionals mentioned above simply didn't care. They were getting a paycheck whether this movie was awful or not.

I would have given this movie 1 star, but I gave it two because both Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel impressed me. It makes me sad to think that it is possible these young, promising actors are going to have this terrible movie on their resumes. It would be even worse if some studio doofus who didn't see this movie ends up saying, "That Kristen Bell, she can't carry a movie. 'When In Rome' proved that." Such a shame to waste talent like that.

Wait to see this wreck on cable, and when you see it on cable I bet you don't make it through the whole 1:15.

There is much to admire in this film.

The acting is superb. In fact it is Oscar worthy, whether from Clive Owen or either of the young actors playing his sons. (I fear the 6 year old will get all the praise, but the 14 year old's performance was simply brilliant and more difficult.)

The story is honest, fresh, and touching. This isn't a, "What happens if..." movie. This is not just a true life story, it is a true to life story. You can see that Scott Hicks had one goal, honesty. He succeeds at every level and this is perhaps the most honest film you will ever see.

So why did I debate giving this film a 6 or 7 and not an 8 or 9 or 10? Because in this quest for truthfulness, it often fails to satisfy. It is, in many ways, a movie that only asks questions and provides no answers. They did their best to reach inside this story and create a beginning, middle, and end, but the truth is that at the end you are left without any of your needs met. I absolutely did not want Hollywood elements tossed in, but the story is simply incomplete. It is real. And real stories are incomplete. I suppose I want to praise this movie for being brave enough to not satisfy while warning friends, "Look, this is a very good film, but it's focus is honesty even if that means ignoring your needs as an audience."

Perhaps over time I will come to see this as brilliant. The characters are often not getting their needs met, and neither does the audience. But how do you recommend someone pay $10 to not have their emotional needs met? At the screening I attended, there was a Q&A with Scott Hicks and Clive Owen. Many people joked about a sequel with their questions, because clearly there could never be a sequel. Even Clive joked about sequel titles. You know what? I believe all the sarcasm about a potential sequel came from the truth that this story is unfinished.

So...

If you feel like seeing honesty and emotional truth, if you want a break from Hollywood BS, if you want to see a slice of real life without any pretense or falsehood, rush to this movie. And I do hope you enjoy it more than I did because of these warnings.

There are more than enough reviews of this movie that tell you in wonderful ways how absolutely perfect the awfulness of "The Room" is. What I found terribly interesting when I was brought to a Los Angeles midnight screening of this movie, besides the fact that this damn thing was on five screens at once, is that this movie provides the moviegoer with the rare opportunity to absolutely mock terrible cinema.

I see several movies per year, often from the major studios, that I long to shout at in disgust. "The Room" is terrible to the point that the audience has agreed to do just that. It is liberating and hilarious and downright therapeutic to shout, when a character who has never been established suddenly appears on screen, "Who are you?"

Wiseau shows up at these Los Angeles screenings and revels in what he seems to think is adoration, almost psychotically not in on the joke.

You do not go to "The Room" to see a movie. You go to get even with that screen that promises entertainment and often disappoints. Finally, you get to mock mediocrity. It's enjoyable and liberating. How lucky is Wiseau that he gets rewarded for being awful? At least he is a good sport about taking the abuse.