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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism