The Room (2003), Tommy Wiseau



If you live anywhere other than LA, chances are you have never heard of The Room. In the past 5+ years, this film has taken on a life of its own. It's our generation's Rocky Horror Picture Show. Perhaps that is a bold statement, but it's certainly not an exaggeration. People show up at midnight screenings dressed as their favorite characters, throw things at the screen, yell out insults directed at the film, and act out their favorite scenes. This film has a pretty impressive list of celebrity fans: Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, basically the entire cast of The State, Tim Heidecker, Eric Wareheim, Kristen Bell, Edgar Wright, and David Cross, to name a few. It's about to blow up, thanks to Adult Swim. Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job! had Tommy Wiseau direct and star in a recent episode, and they showed the film as an April Fool's joke all day last week, with the rampant nudity censored by large black boxes.

So where do I begin with this movie? It seems to be a vanity film gone very wrong. Or right, depending on how you look at it. A friend recently described it as "either the best or the worst movie ever." Tommy Wiseau serves as the director, writer, star, executive producer, and financier of The Room... does that tell you anything? Most of the cast doubled as crew, and it's rumored the cast/crew turned over about 3 times during shooting, probably due to everyone in the world being confused as hell by Tommy Wiseau as a person, not to mention as a boss. Somehow, Wiseau wrangled a mysterious (as in he won't divulge his sources) $6M to make this movie, yet it looks like it was made for about $6.

Though this movie was made in 2003, the costuming puts it at roughly 1998. The frumpy hair and dark, unkempt eyebrows of the "sexy" (read: kinda chubby, with weird boobs and ugly clothes) femme fatale character certainly don't help. The soundtrack is awful, generic R&B crap ("I will stand in the way of a bullet/I will run through a forest of flames," for example) that burns itself into your subconscious, preventing you from ever being able to get it out of your head. The acting is on par with your average Skinemax movie, with the exception of maybe "Chris-R," the crazy drug dealer guy. Yes, this movie "deals" with such serious topics as drugs, infidelity, terminal illness, and home decor (placing your TV behind a chair, or putting up countless framed photos of spoons).

There is no way Tommy Wiseau is 40 years old (I'm thinking 50+), or from New Orleans, as he likes to claim. I'm not even sure that he's of this planet. Wiseau has an odd presence, like the antithesis of charm, but it somehow works for him. "A half-drunk, Croatian cyborg," is probably the most accurate description I have come across. Based on watching The Room as many times as I have, there are a few things you can deduce about Tommy as a person:

• This man has never seen a nude woman. (He is clearly having sex with Lisa's mid-torso region throughout the film. This is not Videodrome. That is probably why she prefers his best friend, Mark.)
• This man hates women. (The casual misogyny of this film is acknowledged by LA fans screaming "BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN!" after practically every sentence.)
• This man has never had an alcoholic beverage in his life. (That is the only way "scotchka" and the awkward drunk scene can possibly be explained.)
• This man genuinely sees himself as a Christ-like figure. (Paying Denny, the possibly autistic man-boy's rent and tuition, bringing Lisa roses every day, the position in which he dies. Oh, did I spoil it for you? Oops.)
• This man is a genius. (He had the terrific idea to purchase billboard space advertising the film on an extremely busy LA freeway for 4 years, probably where most of that $6M went to. I would recommend watching interviews with him to see how he skillfully deflects any questioning of his motives in the making of his film. I almost thought about maybe believing that he so casually dropped the subject of Claudette's breast cancer on purpose.)

This is a movie that you simply cannot watch alone. It practically begs to be watched with lots of other people, preferably strangers. If you get really into it, here's a guide on how to view it interactively. Everything I want to say about this film has probably already been said, and said better, so I am going to direct you to a few articles that will convince you to see this film if I haven't already:

Entertainment Weekly- The article that introduced the rest of America to The Room!

NPR- Pictures AND video!

LAist- An interview with Wiseau himself!

So Much Fun It Hurts- Another blogger's obsession! (Bonus: The Room in NYC, complete with David Wain appearance!)

Cult Media Studies- A more academic review.

Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job!- An episode directed and starring Tommy Wiseau!

If you'd like to submit your own The Room review, please do so at tinydrinks@gmail.com. I'll post it.

The Jerk, Too (1984), Michael Schultz



In a perfect world, Steve Martin would be my older, wiser, charming, intelligent, and HILARIOUS boyfriend. We would eat dinner at 4:00 with a senior discount. He could introduce me to Tina Fey, maybe even Bill Murray. So what if he's old enough to be my grandpa? Have you seen him lately? He's still a babe. It's no secret that I worship Mr. Martin, and that The Jerk is my all-time favorite comedy. So, a few weeks ago, I noticed that Cinemageddon had a featured torrent entitled "The Jerk, Too." Without even reading about it or thinking twice, I downloaded it. Bad choice, my friends. Very. Bad. Choice.

The Jerk, Too pretty much, for lack of a better term, donkey-punches its predecessor. Navin Johnson goes from being a sheltered, naive jerk in the original film, to being a mentally handicapped, possibly autistic man-boy in The Jerk, Too. Navin is played lethargically by Mark Blankfeld, whose IMDb reads like a "Worst Movies Ever" list. He does somewhat resemble Steve Martin from certain angles, if you glance at him via your periphery when you're drunk or hanging upside down from your ceiling. He pretty much phones this one in anyways, so I wouldn't recommend going to the trouble.

I understand that this was intended to be a "reworking" of the original, but it's not even in the same spirit. It seemed as though, judging by the cutesy theme song and opening credits, that this was intended to be some kind of pilot? Thank your lucky stars that it never got picked up. It was kinda like a comedy, but someone forgot to write jokes. This "movie" insulted my intelligence and sullied my already outrageously high opinion of Steve Martin, due to his credit as executive producer. One can only assume that my Stevey had some alimony payments to make or something. This was TORTURE to sit through. This abomination is the kind of thing that the devil has playing on a loop in hell. Maybe this should be my new tagline: "I sit through shitty movies, so you don't have to."

Grade: Z

Watchmen (2009), Zack Snyder

The most anticipated film adaptation of a comic of the past 25 years has finally arrived. The graphic novel, which just happens to be my favorite book of all time, has been deemed unfilmable even by Terry Gilliam's standards, not to mention caught up in litigation and Hollywood bullcrap pretty much since the book came out. Even this version of Watchmen was nearly doomed to never see the light of day at the last minute. Although this adaptation is sufficient, in my opinion, I can't help but wonder what it would have been like in the hands of Darren Aronofsky? If I were him, I'd have taken directing this over The Fountain any day. But I digress.

It's a good thing that this movie was not made before 2009, simply because the technology we have now makes it possible for Dr. Manhattan to look the way he should look, and for Archimedes to fly. And maybe because comics are now beginning to be seen as more than merely "kid's stuff."

The movie could not possibly have looked more like the book. Why use storyboards when the entire comic practically is a storyboard? You could pick out specific frames of the comic in some scenes, which is pretty much the most exciting thing ever for a nerd like myself. The costuming was pretty good. Rorschach's certainly stole the show, with his constantly morphing mask and an outfit to match his noirish demeanor. Too bad I hated his stupid Christian Bale voice. Dr. Manhattan was pretty much mind-blowing. He could not have looked more perfect. Jeffery Dean Morgan was shockingly good as The Comedian. Why do I only ever see him playing dead people? Malin Akerman was just awful- wooden, and most certainly nowhere near old enough. The music was a bit obvious, sure. But what do you want? Subtlety in a comic movie? Surely you jest. All things considered, I'd say Snyder did the best he could with a comic that NEVER should have been turned in to a movie. It was much more a superhero movie than the book was a superhero book. Snyder lost a lot of the Alan Moore's subtle social commentary in the translation from page to screen.

This is very much a fan's movie. That's not to say that the uninitiated won't enjoy it. In fact, my mom went with me to the midnight screening. She followed the story pretty well, and liked it enough to ask me if she could borrow the comic. But to get the full experience, it helps to be familiar with the book. I am super excited for the director's cut. I heard that it is possibly going to be released in theaters this summer? I can't really see non-fans lining up for that one, considering it will like be 4 hours long. This is not something that I'd want to see on a TV screen, so I'd like to see it a few more times before it goes out of theaters.

Meet Wally Sparks (1997), Peter Baldwin


Holy crap, this movie sucks. It actually kinda blows my mind how much it sucks. (Wait a minute- no, it doesn't.) I don't even really feel like going into the suckage specifics but I suppose you, the reader, have the right to know.

I'm very much a fan of Rodney Dangerfield but this movie was cheap (I'm talking both budget and jokes here), completely nonsensical (in a bad way), and was so boring that I ended up pausing it and researching other movies I could wash the taste out of my mouth with for about 20 minutes at one point. There is a ridiculous amount of cameos in this movie, from Michael Bolton to Tony Danza, none of which are interesting or funny enough to really perk up the movie though.

If anyone would like to take this piece of crap off my hands, I will mail it to you, free of charge. Contact me at tinydrinks@gmail.com if you're interested.

Il Portiere di notte (1974), Liliana Cavani
The Night Porter


Charlotte Rampling plays Lucia, a former concentration camp prisoner, who was "involved" with Nazi officer Max (Dirk Bogarde) during her imprisonment. Their involvement was more emotionally and mentally sado-masochistic than physically. The war ends, Lucia is released, and goes on to marry a famous orchestra conductor. Meanwhile, Max is waiting hand and foot on wealthy people as a fancy hotel's night porter. By some crazy coincidence, Lucia and her husband end up staying at Max's hotel. She and Max stalk and spy on each other, she tells the husband to leave without her, and Max and Lucia start where they left off. They probably would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for Max's meddling Nazi friends hoping to keep the dream alive. It's kind of a Romeo and Juliet story for people who really love being bored.

I watched this as part of my ongoing quest to see every movie in the Criterion Collection. It seems as though this is a well-liked and highly regarded film in the "controversial mainstream S&M-lite" genre. It is often compared to Last Tango in Paris. I'd have to agree in the sense that they were both shocking in the 1970s, but 30 years later, they're just dull and pretentious. The infamous "Concentration camp prisoner dresses as a topless Nazi and sings a song in German to entertain a roomful of Nazi officers" segment is usually hyped up as the pinnacle of the film. It sounds at least kind of interesting, right? Well, save yourself two hours, because it's not.

I can't even really see why this is in the Criterion Collection. I don't see how it is important enough to be preserved in such a manner. The cinematography was amateurish and the acting wasn't all that great. Just because a movie gets banned doesn't make it good.

Grade: C-

Man with the Golden Arm (1955), Otto Preminger

First off, let me just say that this film has one of the greatest posters, not to mention opening credits sequences, I have ever seen in my life. Man with the Golden Arm was directed by noir master Otto Preminger. It stars Ol' Blue Eyes himself, Frank Sinatra, and Kim Novak plays his woman on the side. Watch closely for Darren McGavin of Billy Madison and A Christmas Story fame as one of the most evil drug dealers in film history. Yeah, you heard me. This is a drug movie. Starring Frank Sinatra. In 1955. Mind blown yet?

Sinatra plays Frankie Machine, an aspiring jazz drummer and full time card shark, fresh out of rehab for heroin addiction. Zosch, his high-strung, constantly nagging, wheelchair-bound wife is sort of the femme fatale of the film. No wonder he runs right into another less annoying, much more attractive, presumably younger woman's (Novak) arms. He may be able to escape his wife, but he can't seem to shake the bad influences in his life. Just when he thinks he is out, they pull him back in. Soon he is back dealing cards to in a shady poker game, with his former H dealer practically breathing down his neck. How's a guy supposed to practice the jazz drums and make it with his broad under that kinda pressure?

Extremely controversial at the time of it's release (delayed a year due to the MPAA being a bunch of tightasses), Sinatra is surprisingly convincing as a helpless junkie. Almost a little too convincing, if you ask me. Reportedly, he literally jumped at the chance to play Frankie Machine, ousting the studio's original choice of Marlon Brando. I bet if Brando was in this movie, it would be a bit less obscure.

The entire thing was obviously filmed on a soundstage. Some would consider this a drawback, but in my opinion, it just adds to the claustrophobic feeling of the film. It's one of the first movies of its kind, as most drug movies up to that point were of the "roadshow" variety: preachy, holier-than-thou, horribly written/acted/shot. This is more like a proto-Requiem For a Dream. Man With the Golden Arm is now in public domain, so it can be easily and cheaply obtained. I saw a copy at Big Lots, for Christ's sake. However, this also means that most copies are pretty poor quality. Like, sub-VHS quality. If you can overlook that, I think you'll be pretty pleased!

Grade: A

Southland Tales (2006), Richard Kelly

Southland Tales is Richard Kelly's trainwreck of a follow-up to 2001's Donnie Darko. After watching this, I can safely say that Donnie Darko was probably just a happy accident. There is no way- NO WAY- that Kelly made that movie on purpose. I personally am not really a fan of Donnie Darko, but I can certainly see why people are fans. It's weird, but not too weird. Indie, yet accessible. It makes you think, but not too much. And the performances are, admittedly, pretty damn good. But this is not a Donnie Darko review! Oh no. From here on out, it's all about Southland Tales.

It seems as though Southland Tales was intended to be a blockbuster, due to the heavy volume of famous actors involved, but ended up as something quite... different. I'm sure all of these people signed on because they loved Donnie Darko so much. I bet none of them actually read the script. Throughout the entire movie, I couldn't help but wonder what sort of direction Kelly had given the actors, and how they managed to get any takes in which the actors weren't laughing at the horrendous dialogue they had to deliver.

Everything about this movie is over the top. The plot of the movie is self-indulgent, half-baked, and hard to follow. The special effects must've been at least 80% of the budget. Kevin Smith is in this movie somewhere- can you find him? Oh, probably not, because he's covered in prosthetics and fake hair. I wonder if that's because he was embarrassed to be involved?

Go into this movie with an open mind. Southland Tales is a MUST SEE for anyone that likes a little epic fail in their movies. It wants to say so many things, but Kelly is not nearly proficient enough in his craft to be able to say them, especially not in a reasonable amount of time. I kind of feel that way about this review. There are so many things to say about this movie, but why say them? Just go along for the ride. It is definitely not unwatchable, despite what this review may have implied. The original cut was apparently four hours long, but thankfully Kelly paired it down to 2 1/2 for theater release. The lowest rated film at Cannes in 2006, this film is confusing, poorly written, yet unfortunately not Kelly's final film. From the looks of his IMDb, he's got two movies in the bag for '09. Lucky us!

Grade: A (for Effort)