Skip to main content

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms
(1995)

(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

The concept, such as it was, was to present a unity of independent spirit (the Sundance “Class of 92”), overseen by that bastion of the same – unless your movie “needed” cutting, that is – Miramax. Alexandre Rockwell, director of second sequence Room 404 – The Wrong Man, referred to a “New Wave feeling” among the filmmakers (including Richard Linklater, who must count himself lucky to have dropped out), and it’s Rockwell who must cop the blame for the premise, that of a bellhop getting into scrapes with different guests on New Year’s Eve. Those involved opine that the picture became a different beast once it was snapped up by the mini-major, eager to have a chunk of whatever Tarantino was involved in; it was no longer a collaboration of equals, but of Quentin and whichever nobodies he brought along with him.

If the results seem scrappy, that’s a reflection of the making; Anders observed that the first draft was accepted as the final, while Rockwell noted that, on a wave of Pulp adulation, all approvals for everything had to go through Tarantino’s people. Miramax, unsurprisingly, acted like oafs, cutting the movie down, mainly at the expense of Anders and Rockwell’s segments. Harvey said “You know what the problem with this movie is? We’re working with two geniuses and two hacks”. Yeah, I know he really was including Rodriguez in the former category (Peter Biskind, in Down and Dirty Pictures, from which I’ve sourced most of these anecdotes, cogently summed him up as “a delayed adolescent”).

Miramax, as Anders saw it, were doing exactly the opposite of the idealistic intent of the exercise, pitting the filmmakers against each other in test screenings where audiences were asked which room they liked best. As such, while it may be a little uncharitable to say it, Anders’ and Rockwell’s are the inferior segments, which isn’t to suggest any of them are anything to write home about.

Honey Moon Suite – The Missing Ingredient

Anders’ room finds a coven of starry but otherwise unexceptional witches (Madonna, Alicia Witt, Sammi Davis, Lili Taylor, Ione Skye, Valerie Golino) intent on reversing a spell cast on goddess Diana (Amanda De Cadenet, bizarrely). Skye has to procure some semen, and with little spare time focuses on Ted the bellhop.

It’s worth emphasising straight off the bat that Tim Roth’s performance throughout is quite dreadful, the kind of frantic mugging that suggests he should never be let near a comedy script. For some reason, there seemed to be a lot of bellboys in movies around this time from Cinqué Lee in Mystery Train to Steve Buscemi’s Chet in Barton Fink and even Bronson Pinchot in Blame it on the Bellboy. It emphasises how bad Roth is when I say that even Pinchot is more watchable. If they’d wanted someone to gurn and put on a silly voice, they should have had just thrown caution to the wind and cast Lee Evans, the latter-day Jerry Lewis (it figures, however, that it was written with Buscemi in mind).

It’s difficult to critique this in any way as it functions as an airless waft of nothingness, and presumably, since Anders had it cut from under her with a script she wasn’t happy with, she’d probably agree. At least Madonna doesn’t get a chance to be terrible despite her Razzie recognition, because you’ll barely remember she was in it. Aside from bringing her own outfit.


Room 404 – The Wrong Man

Rockwell’s premise feels like it has more potential, at least, with Ted mistaken for a role-play participant in an uncomfortable “hostage” scenario, with a gagged-and-bound Jennifer Beals at the behest of her husband David Proval. It’s ultimately no less tiresome than the opener, though, and mostly notable for someone nearly vomiting over Ted from the room above as he attempts to escape through the bathroom window.


Room 309 – The Misbehavers

Rodriguez ropes in Antonio Banderas, as the latter and wife Tamlyn Tomita leave Ted in charge of their kids, who inevitably run amok when he leaves them unattended. Rodriguez undeniably injects some energy into his room. However, it’s expectedly as tonally shot – the kids discover a dead prostitute under the bed – as everything he does, as well as telegraphing his future capacity for kids’ movies no one wants to see (Spy Kids and their endless sequels). There’s also a weird coda with Kathy Griffin and Marisa Romei where Ted wants to quit; I thought for a moment that it might be the part of the next segment. Which is, of course…


Penthouse – The Man from Hollywood

Tarantino, as Anders pointed out, is basically offering an autobiographical piece. One in which he’s surrounded by sycophants (Paul Calderon, Bruce Willis, Beals pops up again). Plus, he gets to indulge his yen for being taken seriously as an actor. There’s a mention of a “tasty beverage”, and structurally it can’t help but be more engaging than anything preceding: various requested ingredients for a task as yet unspecified, which turns out to be cutting off Calderon’s finger, which Ted duly does for a fee. Accordingly, it also includes the requisite Tarantino violence, however minimal that may be. It is however, as noted, a Tarantino acting showcase, and so can only be so engaging.


So what’s there to summarise about Four Rooms, other than its anecdotal failure (it cost $4m and made only a tad more than that), and the trashing of various filmmaker friendships? Biskind notes that anthology films rarely work, and he isn’t wrong. The portmanteau horrors of the ‘60s and ‘70s tend to be exceptions (although, even then, they’re hit and miss) and the Coens recently pulled off a western with something approaching aplomb. Four Rooms ought to have worked, to the extent that its self-imposed limitations (one bellhop, one room) spurred creativity. Instead they seem to have clogged it up. Only Tarantino really gets the right idea of the twist element common to the form – that there should be a satisfying reveal or gag that justifies the indulgence – and that’s because he’s ripped of Roald Dahl’s The Man from the South (sorry Quentin, homaged it). And in his case the indulgence is barely justified by his indulgent performance.

Overall:

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. I was really glad to see you do Four Rooms, even if we don't really agree on it, since it's usually just straight-up forgotten.

    For the record, the Anders segment is the only one I'd call truly weak, and it's not that bad, just kinda pointless, and Rodriguez and Tarantino's are both top-tier (you know, especially for Rodriguez).

    It does help that I find Roth funny rather than annoying in this, though I can see why the consensus gravitates heavily toward the latter. And yeah, if Roth sucks, the movie kind of by definition sucks. But I like 'im.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

You're a dead tissue that won't decompose.

Collateral Beauty (2016)
(SPOILERS) Will Smith’s most recent attempt to take a wrecking ball to his superstardom, Collateral Beauty is one of those high concept emotional journeys that only look like a bad idea all along when they flop (see Regarding Henry). Except that, with a plot as gnarly as this, it’s difficult to see quite how it would ever not have rubbed audiences up the wrong way. A different director might have helped, someone less thuddingly literal than David Frankel. When this kind of misguided picture gets the resounding drubbing it has, I tend to seek out positives. Sometimes, that can be quite easy – A Winter’s Tale, for example, for all its writ-large flaws – but it’s a fool’s errand with Collateral Beauty.

Now we shall keep our mysterious rendezvous.

Ice Station Zebra (1968)
The fourth big screen adaptation of an Alistair MacLean novel, Ice Station Zebra was released in the same year as the more successful Where Eagles Dare. 1968 represents probably the high water mark for interpretations of the author’s work, although The Guns of Navarone remains the biggest hit. As with most movie versions of MacLean novels (or, let’s face it, movie versions of anybody’s novels) fans of the book find much to gripe about; the latter half diverges greatly from the page. Those who complain about the languid pace are onto something too. To be sure, there’s an array of valid criticisms that can be levelled at Ice Station Zebra. But it also has a factor going for it that elevates John Sturges’ movie, and keeps me coming back to it; the über-cool presence of Patrick McGoohan.

The man who played The Prisoner (he filmed Zebra during a break from the TV show, which helps to explain the only truly hopeless episode in the run; Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, …