“Off template” isn’t really an excuse. Another way to say to same thing is “completely misjudged to the point of absurdity”. It’s the work of a truly delusional narcissist and misogynist who isn’t smart enough to realise just how laughably naive, cartoonish and self-serving his worldview is, and his technical incompetence only magnifies those issues.
Imagine scoring 0% on a multiple choice exam where the expected score is 20% just by picking answers at random. It becomes something like an inverse talent to pick the wrong answer every single time. That’s what The Room feels like–a film where the writer/director/star managed to defy the odds by making the single worst creative decision every time.
I’m not disagreeing with that. He was not competent in the standard dimensions. Normally, being thus incompetent leads to a bad work. But in this case it led to a good work. There are plenty of examples of this, such as the Shags in music.
You misunderstand me, I think Ed Wood, and people like him, were genuine with their attempts to make a movie. Unlike Tommy Wiseau, their focus on genre movies proves that, on some level, they had a somewhat maybe, if you squint and cock your head, realistic view of what kind of film they could make with their skill and budget.
Your opinion doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s crap of the highest order, but it’s still crap. The only amusement it gives is the pointing and laughing at how bad it is.
This is not a good work OP. It’s insanely awful, which is what makes it fun. My friends and I have have seen it at least 20 times. We talk to each other in dialogue from the movie. Actually just two weeks we saw it on the big screen. It’s even crazier that way because you really pay attention and see even new horrors that have been missed.
The best part was using the same sex scene twice… and the neighbor kid that was a freaky perv (older than all the other actors in the movie btw) Bonus was seeing Tommy’s naked butt.
I wouldn’t ever call it a good movie, but it is a much more fascinating movie than many good ones. There are many movies that come out every year that can best be described as competent. Everyone does their job, you are entertained for around two hours, but if someone asked you the next day what happened in the movie you’d have a hard time remembering. While if someone asked you the next day after watching The Room you’d remember but have a hard time describing what happened. Most Hollywood directors know what movies should be like, and can fit things to the template. While if you told me Tommy Wiseau has never seen a movie and only heard one described years ago I would believe it.
If in a good movie you are expecting good directing, camera work, editing, writing, coherent story, music, production design, then The Room doesn’t meet any of that criteria. But if the only thing you need to describe a good movie is entertaining then The Room definitely fits.
The general theme of “woman as evil temptress” is a start, as well as Mark’s discussion of the woman who got raped after sleeping around. It’s all pretty ugly when it comes to the portrayal of women.
I love my daughter, too, and think Tom Brady seems like a boring dumbass, but I know which one is a good NFL quarterback and which one doesn’t even know the rules of football.
ETA: It’s a little tough for me to be glib about this movie given my hypothesis that it was made solely for the purpose of money laundering and that paying money to see it in some fashion is probably rewarding an illegal enterprise. You’ve heard how Hollywood Accounting can keep any film from showing a profit? It works in reverse, too.
