Review of The Room (2003) by Jluis_001 — 12 Sep 2017

After so much noise about The Disaster Artist, I decided that it was finally time for me to see The Room, I will be honest, I wasn't really excited or interested, I had been putting it off for quite some time and it is not because I was worried to see a garbage film, I have seen many movies that could earn the nickname of the worst that cinema has given quite easily, but it's very simple, the movie has nothing to attract you, absolutely nothing.

But anyway, I did it and the damage is already done but what can I say? How can I avoid releasing a torrent of anger wrapped in objective criticism?

The Room is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen in my life and yes it is probably one of the worst in history, this movie is an argumentative and narrative vomit that lacks of all the basic rules of cinematic language, it is as disconnected as stupid and boring, is as unsuccessful as indescribable and lets say it, the background story of the script has a thematic full of clichés but any screenwriter with some talent could have made something respectable from it, but Wiseau's script is a **** disaster. A **** disaster to which he gave a beginning and an ending but everything else is just crap.

Believe me, unless you are someone like me who always finishes a movie or worse you enjoy it, I do not know how a regular audicence could find reasons or excuses to continue after the first twenty five minutes.

And it's not only the lousy script or the bad direction, The Room is also plagued by such miserable performances that I cannot understand how they moved forward when they were editing. Everything looks neglected, false, overacted and most importantly, everything looks lost and out of focus, not only is the stupidity of the dialogues and the abandoned narrative threads, it's the way in which these things come out of the mouth of the actors. What was their motivation? I ignore it, maybe I should read the book or Franco's movie will throw some answers, otherwise it will remain an incredible mystery for me.

Leaving aside the film a little, what concerns me now is what the film has become, because for those who do not know this movie is now considered a cult film, yes a cult film, with special screenings in which Wiseau finally has some success and hhe embrace it without any kind of reluctance, let's say that it was the success he longed for, but it's worth asking if it's valid to find success in mediocrity.

Who are to blame for it? Who creates it or who consumes it? And don't get me wrong, I always advocate for what people enjoys or love, but you have to be able to draw a line, because if they convert this type of mediocrity into success what does it says about the spectators? What about the great films that are ignored annually and are condemned to the dark while this is the object of admiration and success? What do we aspire to? Failing in order to achieve fame by being a joke? Honestly with what I've seen in the trailers and the interviews, that's precisely what Franco is doing, maybe Wiseau ignores it or if he doesn't, he let it go, in one way or another the recognition is already his.