The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and
television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality
for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews
that are positive for a given film or television show.
From the Critics
From RT Users Like You!
The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.
The Tomatometer is 59% or lower.
The Tomatometer is 75% or higher, with 40 reviews (movies) or 20 reviews (TV). At least 5 reviews from Top Critics.
Percentage of users who rate a movie or TV show positively.
To be fair, this is more of an 85%. But still, it's a great rockumentary. Yes this was during the 80's heyday of actors hiring a band, cutting an album and pretending to be rock stars (Don Johnson, anyone? Patrick Swayze Like The Wind?), but at least Bruce Willis brings his goofball sense of humor to things and never takes himself too seriously.
The real kick is the number of heavy hitters in the music biz who did some great straight-faced interviews about the legendary (and imaginary) Bruno Radolini. Billed as "another" episode of ROCK HEROES hosted by Dick Clark, it chronicles Bruno's rise from the clubs in Trenton NJ (around the time he helped form the Beatles) through his American Bandstand days, the psychedelic era, his sadly overlooked performance at Woodstock, etc.
The last twenty or thirty minutes are concert footage of Bruce Willis basically having a good time. And for what it is, it's fun - he can sing, the music's pretty good, and his drummer is.... probably gay. Or at least firmly in the 80's.
But the concert is skippable. The real gold is the mockumentary itself. Well-written, well researched and shot (the fake footage is all shot on similar stock to the time period to great effect) and very funny.
Unavailable on DVD unless you can find somebody hawking a home-rip online.
Ironically, this 2 hour and 44 minute film could have benefitted from an extra ten minutes of footage. While I loved the scope of the project and most of my story and filmmaking quibbles are minimal, the first half of the film rushed all of the story, editing character scenes down to within an inch of their lives. Things happen way too quickly and oftentimes something as simple as an establishing shot in between scenes would bring either more clarity or at least time for a breath. I have little doubt that this was dictated by the studio who wouldn't want to release a 3 hour summer movie, but it's also reminiscent of some of the editing in DARK KNIGHT. But relationships were given time and weight in DK (and we were given a full, fun Heath Ledger performance whereas here we aren't given nearly enough of Anne Hathaway as we should), here we need a few extra minutes to marinate in order to not feel cheated of what really matters in these movies - character relationships. But on the whole, a solid, solid ending with the best final five minutes I've seen in a film in YEARS.
I..... hesitate to give this a rating. The problem is this: THE ROOM really IS so bad it's hysterical and I highly suggest everyone at least watching the best of the major moments. But it's gotten so much attention that it now makes money which gives Wiseau some semblance of a career which should be avoided at all costs. Somebody like him should not be given the option to do this as a career.
That being said, I laughed so hard at some moments that it's up there with TRAPPED IN THE CLOSET. The difference is that I STILL don't know if R. Kelly was kidding or not, while I KNOW that Wiseau thought he was making a great drama. From an experience standpoint, this is a 70% - totally worthwhile on a so-bad-it's-good scale. But judging it as an actual film really can't be done - it's so beyond bad that being forced to take it seriously is akin to cinematic waterboarding.
PS. I give this a 1%, but I'm not allowed to give it a 0% apparently.