Greatest Directors: Woody Allen, Part 5: Annie Hall (1977)


Hello people, this is Part 5 of my Greatest Directors series, in particular focusing on incredibly seminal satirical comedy auteur Woody Allen. After trawling through some of the film’s that started Woody Allen’s career, finally we reach a real turning point in his career, 6 years down from his first solo Directing debut Bananas (1971) we take a look at the film that got critical acclaim for Allen, the one that put him on the map so to speak. At least for a little while, I can’t really judge this is all written as I discover it. So, Annie Hall (1977) is a satirical comedy, starring Woody Allen himself in the title role, along side Diane Keaton. This is an important thing to mention, as together they star in this, and Woody’s preceding 2 films, and Play it Again, Sam (1972), as a result by the time Annie Hall’s released quite a serious romantic drama, the chemistry is really solidified, it feels as if they’re reading off the script a lot of time, and Diane Keaton and Woody Allen are only good actors, not fantastic so the real chemistry between the two characters in Annie Hall is nice to see.

Alvy Singer reliving his childhood days.

Alvy Singer reliving his childhood days.

The narrative follows Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) as he recounts his romance and time spent with Photographer and singer Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). It’s sort of a recount, as the first shot we get is Alvy addressing the audience in close-up, talking about how he’s had many marriages but his romance with Annie Hall reigns above the others, and how he can’t stop thinking about it as he recounts the story. The story’s told in vague chronological order, but has flashbacks to kind of flesh-out the characters showing numerous stages in their relationship. Showing as their an established couple with problems first, flashing back to how they first met, and how they grew from then on, inevitably building until they part ways, and remain friends. The use of shifting the chronology, but using it logically to really contrast different points in the relationship, like the early loving stage, the routine, the break-up is really effective, and relate-able to the relationships we’ve all been in. At points it also has split-shots for example contrasting Alvy and Annie’s families, or contrasting how Alvy once believed school was important, and then denouncing it as a joke, the ultimate statement that people change constantly. The real effectiveness comes at the end of the story, when the storytelling makes you realize that the two characters we once knew are now completely contrasting people.

Use of the split  juxtaposition shot I mention.

Use of the split juxtaposition shot I mention.

The humor in Annie Hall is slightly different from the medium he’s established in the 4 films I’ve watched prior to this of his, and at the point I last reviewed Love and Death I thought of it as incredibly formulaic.  There isn’t as much stupid slapstick, him being strangled by a hose, his weapons disassembling in his hands, slip-slapping around being all funny-like, it’s very much a serious tone, for a movie that has serious moments mixed with some really smart, high-brow literary gags as opposed to the latter audiences were probably used to. In addition there’s a lot of moments where he just takes the audience to the side, and talks to them, adding to what’s happening in the scene which really adds a characteristic to the narrator of the story, makes it feel unique and personal which is odd really. It feels personal even though he’s addressing the audience which usually breaks any idea of theatrical elements, however Woody Allen on screen is always a likable character and it’s hard to not think of him as a friend when he addresses you in such in a jovial fashion.

Alvy and Diane 'Wicked witch of the west' Keaton.

Alvy and Diane ‘Wicked witch of the west’ Keaton.

Annie Hall was certainly praised at that year’s oscars gaining 4 awards in total, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and of course Best Actress for miss Diane Keaton. Thing is, Annie Hall certainly doesn’t feel like a best picture film, if anyone understands what I mean by this. I think it’s because it took a very dull genre that hadn’t been explored incredibly well by that point in time (Romantic Comedy) and gave it depth, gave it cinematic insight on many levels with two characters that felt unmistakably human.  That’s really a hard sell in the genre, giving you a man and a woman, a romance that’s believable, and ultimately flawed because that’s what hooks audiences in, I mean sure some people do just want the happy ending ala Tim Robbins in The Player (1992), but every stage felt incredibly real, and the dialogue was at a level of Allen’s humor where it was still witty, satirical, and pulled off 3rd wall gags, but it still maintained the overall pace and composure of the film. Compared to Sleeper, or Love and Death where it just got awfully tedious towards the end, and kind of forgot themselves as films.



As for Allen, seeing Bananas, Love and Death, the absurdly long one about sex, and Sleeper, I’m not entirely surprised to see a really well-written, well thought out film like Annie Hall in his filmography. He certainly had the potential, and the knowledge of the cinematic elements given his heavy use of homage and reference. However, it makes me incredibly curious to see what happens next with Interiors (1978) given a lot of things I’ve read about it bill it as ‘Ill received’, or ‘imperfect’ and some jargon about it being rushed, and incredibly confused. A lot of people regard Annie Hall as the peak of Allan’s career, some judge it as a turning point. Needless, I look forward as always as I leave you now with often praised scene with an odd cameo from Film and Communications critic Marshall McLuhan. Until next time, you can follow me on Twittor @Sams_Reel_Views  and I would appreciate it if you like/follow/comment if you like what you saw. Adios!

Imdb Addendum:

Annie Hall (1977) is a satirical romantic comedy from witty auteur Woody Allen. The film feels like a last hurrah in some ways, given his filmography and the very artistic direction he took following the success of Annie Hall. The film follows a comedian who recalls one of the greatest loves of his life, and how he fears he may never be able to forget her. Woody Allen stars as his comedic persona once again, alongside long time collaborator Diane Keaton. The story is told in a very vivid, and complex way as to make it feel a lot more fluid and snappy as opposed to melodramatic. I’m not so certain about Annie Hall’s conclusion in the Top 250. I can see it’s appeal, and how it it’s kind of the pinnacle of the rom-com.  However I feel mostly opposed to it, just because some of Allen’s other work has so much more soul. I suppose that’s just personal bias.

Judgment – Debatable


Greatest Directors: Woody Allen, Part 4; Love and Death (1975)


Back again, with part 4 of greatest directors, as we delve another notch deeper into Woody Allen’s directing career, as we look at satirical period drama spoof Love and Death (1975). I did no background reading, or had no prior knowledge on this one at all, and was quite surprised when it turned out to be a period drama. I was optimistic at first, but Love and Death didn’t really deliver for me, in any of it’s basic functions.

The old bent sword gag, might have been funny if I hadn't also seen it in Bananas.

The old bent sword gag, might have been funny if I hadn’t also seen it in Bananas.

In brief summary, Allen plays Russian oaf Boris, who harbors feelings for his cousin Sonja (Diane Keaton). Boris then is sent to war, reluctantly, but somehow survives and is heralded as a war hero. Meanwhile it shows a basic subplot of Sonja married to a herring-monger. Afterwards Boris is challenged to a duel, as he sleeps with a stern, noble gun-fighters wife. He shows him pacifism, and basically succeeds and as a result Sonja agrees to marry him, believing he’d be shot dead by the duel. Then Napoleon threatens to invade Russia, as Boris and Sonja formulate a plot to assassinate him.


Only a brief synopsis, but fairly suiting for a film that doesn’t really have a narrative. Love and Death feels absurdly generic, it doesn’t feel as textured and satirical as Bananas, as wacky or absurdist like Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Sex, or as genuinely interesting as Sleeper and it’s set pieces. The film follows a very bland parody structure taking the setting and topic matter of the Period Drama, and just using it as a vehicle for relatively bland jokes and an absurd amount of screen-time for Allen. It might have also been the fact that Period Drama doesn’t exactly mix well with comedy, the humor often comes out more surreal than anything else because the context is kind of malleable. The wit isn’t as evident here, as he very much relies on slapstick, and crude humor involving the kinder sex. It just doesn’t have that blend of narrative cohesion, witty quips, slapstick, and amusing presence his earlier films had. However, in Diane Keaton’s second appearance in one of Allen’s films she does bring a relative amount of humor to it, and is a good compliment to Allen.


There’s not really an entirely big amount to say about Love and Death other than that. Also on that note, the social commentary is not evident at all here, the sly tongue in cheek, left-wing shenanigans are nowhere to be seen. Love and Death wasn’t a ‘bad’ film, just incredibly dull. It’s very shallow,  it feels like it’s been written for the sake of making a film, in terms of generic mainstream production. That’s it for today I suppose, can’t always have a lot to say. Hopefully I’ll be able to amuse you all a bit more with Part 5 as we take a look at Annie Hall (1977), a big Oscar-winner and supposed turning point in the career of Mr.Allen. Tomorrow’ll be an Actor Study piece, as I start a new series detailing an actor’s career and performances, focusing heavily on characterisation, but also being a review in it’s self. So thanks for reading, please Like/Comment/Follow if you feel inclined, and until next time. Cheers!

– Sam. 

Greatest Directors: Woody Allen: Part 3 ‘Sleeper (1973)


Look like it’s a double wahaaammy today people, as I continue my director series, as I delve deeper into the satirical works of Auteur Mr.Woody Allen as I take a gander at often forgotten Science-Fiction spoof Sleeper (1937). I wasn’t sure what to expect when I first read about Sleeper, before sitting down to watch it, but at a moderate guess at what he’s known for, and the two films so far, I generally guessed that it’d be a satirical comedy, with hints of romance, masquerading in a science-fiction shell while it plays lightly on inter-textuality and the conventions and tropes of the sci-fi Genre. It turns out that’s pretty much what Sleeper is, a fairly cliche’ but interesting sci-fi context that’s essentially a contemporary rom-com at it’s core.

He's a robot now. How kooky.

He’s a robot now. How kooky.

Miles Monroe (Woody Allen) is a health-food store owner, and a musician who is involuntarily frozen using cryogenic technology for 200 years. Scientists illegally unfreeze him, in order to use him as a tool to rebel against the corrupt government and it’s leader, as everyone is scanned and identified on a database, but Miles will have none due to his non-existence in that time period. The scientists who unfroze him are taken away, before telling him he must stop the ‘aries’ project. He meets Luna Schlosser (Diane Keaton), A poet who is at first deeply scared of the ‘alien’ as she claims, however in fairly stereotypical fashion they begin to get along, as Diane shows affection for Miles, and Miles the same. Miles then gets taken as police officers surround the house, as they assimilate his brain, and replace his personality with a new one. Luna thrives in the wild, and joins the resistance who eventually save Milo, as they formulate a plan and conveniently restore his brain. They sneak into an important government building, pretend to be scientists and steal a nose that’s intended to clone the now dead leader of the oppressive state, as they escape in comic fashion and kiss, as the narrative climaxes relatively abruptly?

The elements of Science-Fiction are handled relatively well in terms of scenery and setting.

The elements of Science-Fiction are handled relatively well in terms of scenery and setting.

The sleeper is interesting at first, with it’s unusual hybrid genres of Comedy and Science-Fiction. While the script is interesting, the story often drops flat, and is terribly conceited as opposed to Bananas, which was just clever in it’s narrative progressive. Allen’s and Keaton’s chemistry is interesting, and certainly humorous yet while Allen’s witty quips and dialogue never cease to entertain, the over reliance on slapstick border-lining on the absurd and ridiculous in Benny Hill-esque fashion is a bit much, and really starts to dilute the overall tone in Sleeper. It has some reasonable special effects, make-up, yet fairly dull clinical interiors going for the whole dystopian bland aesthetics. There’s a lot of intertextuality in Sleeper, and various homages to fairly notable science fiction literature, and overall the sci-fi does it’s job of livening up an otherwise generic film. Beyond the sci-fi, the film is essentially just a romantic comedy, in a science-fiction shell, following the formula of a male and a female who don’t get along at first, and then they do, but something complicates why they can’t be together as the relationship expands to a love triangle via the introduction of the rebel leader who Luna is quite taken with. I understand the film is a comedy, but any semblance of real storytelling is discarded during the last half an hour of screen or so, with no real ending? they simply run away with the nose, then embrace? I’m not entirely sure why this is a climax in any way? Sure, many romantic comedies have the typical oh they’re together audience assumes happy ever after ending, but I just expected more from what was apparently a science-fiction tale, and I definitely expected more from Woody Allen who’s shown a real affinity for unusual storytelling and intrigue so far, but I was honestly quite disappointed by the climax of Sleeper. 

Yum, instant pudding.

Yum, instant pudding.

As for symbolism or social commentary, Sleeper didn’t have a whole lot considering it’s an Allen film. At most you could claim the sheer malleable nature of the characters, that Luna becomes so inverted from her ritualistic, technologically dependent life and at one point seems incredibly stubborn before making a completely unprovoked change of heart. There’s an interesting contrast as Allen becomes the one integrated in society when he is brainwashed, and Luna is the rebel like Allen at the beginning of the film. As I continue to watch Allen films I’m finding really badly written female characters. They’re always love interests, and usually the butt of many jokes, and not much else. I guess you could imply it’s a product of it’s time in some ways, but it’s often grating, although it could be said in Bananas and Sleeper there’s not really any vaguely important characters other than Allen and his prospective mate. As for consistency and the overall style  i’m starting to find the storytelling of Allen’s films merely as homage and decoration for his humor, merely a casing for his quips. He certainly has directing talent, but hope to see more of a narrative based approach with perhaps less self-indulgence.

I do appreciate a good HAL reference.

I do appreciate a good HAL reference.

I didn’t dislike Sleeper, but I didn’t actively like it either. I found Bananas actively funny, and Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About sex mildly humorous, but with Sleeper i smirked a few times at the quips at beast, as I found the slapstick mostly poor in taste. However, I still look forward to the next installment, however i’ll be taking a break with some other film I’ve been meaning to watch for a while. So until next time film fans! Cheers!, and please Like/Follow/Comment if you so choose.

– Sam. 

Greatest Directors: Woody Allen, Part 2: Every Thing You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask).


Due to a lack of other things to watch, the series continues! With Woody Allan’s Every Thing You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask) (1972). It’s a comedy film, which is kind of a loose satire of Dr.Reuben’s book of the name same which was a bestseller in 1969 (Oh the irony). The film is split into 7 sections with headings, which are completely unrelated segments all based around a loosely formulated topic of sex and sexuality. It’s interesting that this is only the second Woody Allen film I’ve seen in this series, and he’s already experimenting with style, and substance, but the whole concept and delivery leaves me rather skeptical. 

Yes, why that is Gene Wilder. In bed. With a Sheep.

Yes, why that is Gene Wilder. In bed. With a Sheep.

1) Do Aphrodisiacs work? A court Jester (Woody Allen) plots to seduce a queen, by befriending a shaman who gives him a potion, however he is foiled by her chastity belt, as the King has him executed.

2) What is Sodomy? A doctor (Gene Wilder) is bemused as a patient enters his office and urges him to talk to a sheep, so that he might rekindle their relationship. At a twist of fate, Gene Wilder also falls for the sheep.

3) Why do some women have trouble reaching an orgasm? In an homage to Italian cinema, particularly Federico Fellini’s work (So i’m told, not much experience on the topic if i’m honest) it deals with the issue of a couple, who can only orgasm while in public, starring Woody Allen, and ex-wife Louise Lasser

4) Are Transvestites Homosexuals? An elderly man puts on women’s clothing, then has his purse stolen, as his wife and friends realize it’s him.

5) What are Sex Perverts? In a parody of game show ‘What’s my Line’, What’s my Perversion is a show in which contestants must guess a mystery guests perversion, followed by a segment in which a viewer in invited on to the show so they can live out their fantasy, as a Rabai is tied to a chair and whipped, as his wife sits at his feet and eats pork.

6) Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate? In an odd b-movie frankensteinish patishe, a biologist (Woody Allen) and a Journalist (Helen Lacey) travel to Dr.Bernardo’s house, who is a sex scientist. They soon learn he is insane, as the two escape, however a giant breast escapes the house and begins to ravage the country side, and murder.

7) What happens during Ejaculation? In a sci-fi spoof, we see a literal simulation of the human body from the inside, with humanised characters are functions of the body, starring Bert Reynolds as the brain’s switchboard.

So. Every Thing You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask) does try a lot harder than Bananas, in the way that it doesn’t have Woody Allen’s wit to carry across every scene. In addition there’s no real slapstick, and the film very much relies on homage, satire, and wit as opposed to anything else. The vignettes idea is more of a frequent in TV, with sketch comedy being an absurdly popular format in the comedic genre on television. However, i’m not too sure it suits cinema. On the big screen you can’t really afford to hit and miss as much on such a grand scale with comedy, where with television the criticisms aren’t so important. My favourite vignettes were 5, 7, and 2. 

Well that's a...giant boob. Yep. Well. Yep. Uh-Huh. Yep.

Well that’s a…giant boob. Yep. Well. Yep. Uh-Huh. Yep.

What is Sodomy? is a fantastic concept, if not a bit too controversial, with Gene Wilder pulling off his classic crazy shtick as ever to great effect and I found the thing quite hilarious. However, i’m not so sure as many would find ideas of bestiality no matter how ironic, or silly, funny. The TV spoof, what are Sex Perverts? was incredibly satirical, with great direction, everything about it felt so authentic, and well-executed as a sketch.  What Happens During Ejaculation? is an odd comedy sketch. It’s very clever, and thought-out and very well executed, however it’s really interesting and thought-provoking as a concept, and is a great watch, but it’s not actually that funny because it’s just quite interesting instead. I’m not overly sure if this a good thing, or a bad one? Either way it’s definitely my favorite of the segments. The other stories I found either ridiculous, or rather waffley and inherently not that funny. As for seeing more of Allen’s directorial style, I’ve seen more of an affinity for satire, and wit, and with his writing of all of the stories we see a real creative mind behind Allen, specifically one not afraid of controversy or afraid to offend. We also don’t really see any social commentary, as opposed to Bananas which was very much full of it. In regards to his style we also see a real affinity for homage, and a very clear understanding of genres and convention, with him parodying the medieval, sci-fi, game show formats, a monster movie, and the work of Federico Fellini (someone who very much inspires Allen).

Burt Reynolds!? What're you doing here!?

Burt Reynolds!? What’re you doing here!?

In summary, I liked Every Thing You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask). It wasn’t directly as funny as Bananas, with it losing momentum jumping between stories. However it was the better made film, showing how Allen directs actors and not just himself as he only features in it, with him not evident in many of the scenes. In general I found it more interesting, particularly with the different homages, and definitely in his choice of cast. Given so far i’ve seen a fairly traditional situational comedy, and now a segmented sketch comedy, I look very much forward to the next installment Sleeper (1973). Thanks for readin’ folks, and please Follow/Like/Comment if you’ve liked what you’ve read, and thanks for your time. Cheers!

– Sam T. 

Greatest Directors: Woody Allen, Part 1: Bananas (1971)


Hey there, i’m trying something a bit different this time, and in addition to my normal miscellaneous reviews, and some case studies i’ll be writing soon, I decided to do a series. Basically, alternating between Directors, watching all of their films in vague chronology, and tandem to really get a taste for their style, to really observe the continuities, differences, motifs, and tropes in one director’s specific style of writing, and direction.  So for my first i’ll be looking at Director Woody Allen’s films first starting with one of his more famous films, often cited as his first ‘real’ production, Bananas (1971). To clarify I haven’t recently seen any of Woody Allen’s films and I’m basically doing this blind without having read any material, reviews, ratings, or otherwise, thought it’d be much more interesting for a fresh perspective considering it’s not exactly just a review. Obviously as I get deeper into a director’s filmography I can more properly contrast and compare titles.

A parody of the cinematic elements here, as Fielding opens the closet to find a harp-player playing what was previously non-diagetic score.

A parody of the cinematic elements here, as Fielding opens the closet to find a harp-player playing what was previously non-diagetic score.

Fielding Mellish (Woody Allen) is a product tester, who finds himself alone, wanting the company of a woman. Nancy, an activist knocks on his door, and asks him to sign a petition, as he befriends her and soon starts to date her, before she dumps him, claiming he’s too dull. As a result, he becomes more engaged in activism, and goes to the country of San Marcos, and after a rather comedic attempted assassination of him, he reluctantly joins the rebels, eventually becoming the president of San Marcos. He goes back to the states, as more hijinx ensue resulting in him going to court, as he’s outed as a traitor to the united states. He’s relieved of his 15 years of jail service (I can’t remember the punchline of why?), as he reunites with Nancy, and eventually marries her as the film reaches a happy ending.

New Testament Cigarettes, he'll forgive you.

New Testament Cigarettes, he’ll forgive you.

Allen is hilarious as you’d expect with his very awkward body language and dialogue, making any form of slap-stick unbearably funny. However what’s more to talk about is the heavy use of satire in ‘Bananas’. Bananas is very much a comedy, however in it’s parody of the U.S’s foreign policies in such a turbulent time given the U.S’s relations with Cuba, the cold war, and Vietnam, Bananas definitely has small elements of radicalism lurking beneath the humor. Evident here in the opening scenes as the leader of San Marcos is publicly assassinated. 

Don Dunphy: Good afternoon. Wide World of Sports is in the little republic of San Marcos where we’re going to bring you a live, on the spot assassination. They’re going to kill the president of this lovely Latin American country and replace him with a military dictatorship. And everybody is about as excited and tense as can be. The weather on this Sunday afternoon is perfect; and if you’ve just joined us, we’ve seen a series of colorful riots that started with the traditional bombing of the American embassy – a ritual as old as the city itself.

Howard Cosell: This is tremendous, Don, just tremendous. The atmosphere heavy, uncertain, overtones of ugliness. A reminder, in a way, of how it was in March of 1964 at Miami Beach when Clay met Liston for the first time and nobody was certain how it would turn out. The crowd is tense; they’ve been here since ten this morning. And… and I think I see… the door beginning to open. El Presidente may be coming out. The door opens. It’s he… it’s El Presidente waving at the crowd. A shot rings out! He turns… he runs back toward the building, trying to get in. This crowd is going wild. He’s caught in a crossfire of bullets. And down! It’s over! It’s all over for El Presidente!

I do understand the humor in this, but in the same way the dialogue is very condemning of foreign policy in other countries and Woody Allen’s satire of this is incredibly evident in ‘Bananas’.  The comparison of sports to an assassination, and the fact ABC covers it in the film is quite a big indictment of the American media, but it’s very possible i’m just reading the dialogue too deeply. Either way, I think ‘Bananas’ sets a precedent in the very early days of Woody Allen’s career, of slapstick and wit, coiled with a lot of satire, and often comedic satire always has to be ripe, fresh, and current and that’s why you could see ‘Bananas’ being a lot more appreciates in it’s original social context than now. I think if something similar was made today in America, providing social commentary and satire of the whole middle-east saga it’d be received horrendously badly.

This really doesn't need a caption.

This really doesn’t need a caption.

I enjoyed Bananas, I found it very funny, which really justifies the script and shows it’s not just cheap contextual gags but honest wit, and humor from an incredibly funny man. However, beneath that we also see a very keen directorial eye. For now I’ll leave you with this clip from Bananas, and hope you’ll join me next time for Every Thing You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex (1972). Please Like/Comment/Follow if you feel like it. Cheers!

– Sam.   

Fool’s Day Bonanza The Wicker Man (2006)/The Room (2002)

'No, I definitely can't see that giant wooden effigy that's fucking right behind me'

‘No, I definitely can’t see that giant wooden effigy that’s fucking right behind me’

So, The Wicker Man (2006) is a um.. its uhhh.. ummmm. It’s a film. That’s what it is, it’s certainly a film, by Director Neil LaBute (Never heard of him either), Starring Nicholas Cage (REJOICE). I’m reviewing it primarily for your amusement, and no other reason, as most of us will know by now it is pretty awful.

Mmmm...Jeff Goldblum's Nipples. <3.

Mmmm…Jeff Goldblum’s Nipples. <3.

The uhh..narrative. Involves.. Edward Malus (Nicholas Cage) receiving a letter from his former wife Willow who left years ago with no explanation as she explains their daughter Rowan has gone missing. Thus Edward sets out for the small mysterious isle in order to find his annoying small child. That’s um, that’s pretty much the entire story. No really, that’s pretty much it. Oh, and Willow invited him there primarily so they could have a sacrifice in their pagan ceremony, in which they set fire to a giant Wicker Man, with him inside. However, as opposed to the original version, this one doesn’t have any real plot, double meanings, mysterious symbolism or interesting characters, it’s pretty much just shit. You may ask, ‘well why is it shit Sam?, Tell us!’, well I suppose I can. The film has basically no gumption, cohesion or direction on it’s way to it’s fairly expected set piece climax, that basically is the only thing in the entire film which vaguely ties it to the original film. Between the last ten minutes, and the first, it’s basically just Nicholas Cage mainly beating up pagan women, and girls, whilst trying to find his daughter. Also the whole ceremony, and the ‘mystery’ is pretty much entirely obvious due to the hideously overacting talents of the horrible extras that appear in this film. The music is also horribly cliche. So basically the entire film in microcosm is in that clip right there. So in summary it is shit, watch it for a laugh, if you want. But probably don’t. Umm. Well that was quick. Ummm..suppose i’ll review something else? for you lovely people. Ummm.. uhhh..


Yep, this is actually happening. Rather like this poster, against all odds.

The Room (2002) is a ‘Romantic Drama’ film. Yep, that’s it’s genre, and i’m sticking to it. From Actor, Director, Producer, and Writer Tommy Wiseau. The film follows banker Johnny (Tommy Wiseau), as he begins to expect Lisa (Juliette Danielle) of cheating on him, with trusted friend Mark (Greg Sestero). Sure, I could go into the film’s many, many sub-plots are they’re pretty immediately abandoned as soon as they’re mentioned. The whole drugs thing with the Chris R character was just completely ignored and unfinished, with no real clarification of what happened. Peter’s character who is apparently quite important to the narrative and was reportedly supposed to bring some sort of twist or important catharsis to the finish, didn’t. This was apparently because he ran out of time, and he was unable to film the last scenes so his dialogue was just wiped. Why this was remotely a good idea? who knows. Not to mention with Lisa’s mother getting breast cancer, only for it to NEVER BE MENTIONED AGAIN. That’s pretty much the narrative, couple, man suspects woman cheats, and she does, etc.

Chris Tucker at the Oscars 2013, receiving an award for Best Actor. Well done Chris. <3

Chris Tucker at the Oscars 2013, receiving an award for Best Actor. Well done Chris. ❤

Right..Textual analysis. Okay. There’s an incredible amount of hilarious irony in The Room. Johnny’s suspicious of his girlfriend cheating on him, when basically every male in the film comments about her being attractive, in particular one character who appears in frame, to say one line about her, to then never say anything again. The film could arguably be incredibly misogynist through several lines, just a sample for you here:

Mark: Yeah, man, you’ll never know. People are very strange these days. I used to know a girl; she had a dozen guys. One of them found out about it… beat her up so bad she ended up at a hospital on Guerrero Street.

Johnny: Ha ha ha. What a story, Mark

Mark: Yeah, you can say that again.

Yeah….wow. What a story, MARK. Ultimately the film does manage real romance, and sexuality, with some really naturalistic, sexually-charged dialogue.

Lisa: I just wanted to hear your sexy voice. I keep thinking about your strong hands around my body. It excites me so much.

Yep, that’s good stuff. While this maybe slightly laughable, the ending scene is very serious, and does manage to really pull some emotion and reaction from the audience during it’s shocking tense conclusion :O

Lisa: I’ve lost him, but I still have you, right? Right?

Mark: You don’t *have* me. You’ll *never* have me. You killed him.

Lisa: Mark, we’re free to be together. I love you. I love you!

Mark: Tramp. You killed him; you’re the cause of all of this. I don’t love you. Get out of my life, you bitch!

Wow! What a great script and dialogue, MARK. Pahahaha. In summary, watch the Room it’s hilarious, and definitely worth the 90 minutes, because it’s fucking hilarious that someone thought this was a good idea. I might even go as far to say, it’s one of the best films ever ma-

Almost lost my head for a moment there, what was I thinking! So A bit of a silly piece for today, but that’s all in good fun! hope you enjoyed it! please comment/follow/like, and be sure to let me know if you liked it, and maybe i’ll do a few more silly reviews. And right-o Major, Time for a cartoon!