DESPERADO (1995) - Review

Desperado

Action/Crime/Thriller
1 hour and 44 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Robert Rodriguez
Directed by: Robert Rodriguez
Produced by: Elizabeth Avellan, Bill Borden, Carlos Gallardo, and Robert Rodriguez

Cast:
Antonio Banderas
Joaquim de Almeida
Salma Hayek
Steve Buscemi
Cheech Marin
Quentin Tarantino

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Along with his good friend Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez is one of the few directors that got his start from the 1990s indie-film-boom and is still today, enjoying a respectable reputation among the Hollywood elite. Sure, there are others - Kevin Smith comes to mind - but Rodriguez is unique in that he earned his fame with considerable talent, and rather than shift into large budget feature films (i.e. Tarantino), Rodriguez continues to stick with the low-budget, tight-scheduled flicks, proving that he is most likely the only man in Hollywood that can successfully pull off being an indie filmmaker and part of the Hollywood elite at the same time. Rodriguez earned this fame very early on with his first film, El Mariachi, but he solidified his creative talent with his second motion-picture, Desperado, its sequel.

Desperado is by no means a perfect motion-picture. It is a complete fantasy, nothing more than an entertaining tale of revenge. While revenge based movies have been done so many times that the majority of them prove to be stale, Desperado triumphs mainly for its pure entertainment value. When the plot is examined under the microscope it becomes clear that it most likely isn't the greatest revenge film ever written, but none of this in the end really matters.

The performances within the film are handled so terrifically that it is apparent that all of the actors assembled had just as much fun making this film as the audience is undoubtedly having watching it. Banderas is charming as ever, and I'll be damned if I ever hear that his most memorable role as an actor isn't as El Mariachi (yes, I've seen Zorro and no, I didn't like it nearly as much). Salma Hayek is stunning, but her believability as a naive girl caught up in the middle of the action just further shows her talents as an actress are just as rounded as her figure. Steve Buscemi has some memorable moments, although his screen time is both too much to be an enjoyable cameo and too little for him to really deserve his top billing. The opening monologue Buscemi gives sets the entire tone for the film - fun, campy, over-the-top, and just an all-out riot. Danny Trejo and Quentin Tarantino also have memorable cameos - although Trejo unfortunately is given no dialogue (not a bad thing considering how menacing he manages to appear).

The film's star though is undoubtedly its captain, Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez wrote, directed, produced and edited - all of which are handled terrifically. It is clear he told his performers to have fun with the film, or else the audience wouldn't be willing to take this wild and campy ride with them. The editing is handled wonderfully, and Rodriguez is truly a believer in old-school methods. He uses steady shots within the action scenes, spliced together with quick cuts. None of that shaky camera work nonsense that is all too common in today's action films. Perhaps the only issue, as stated before is the so-so storyline, but again, Desperado manages to pull the audience past this and into the violently fun universe it has created.

While not the greatest revenge film to ever be told, Desperado overcomes its generic storyline by showcasing an extremely violent and fun fantasy that audiences surely will love. It remains one of the best, if not the best, of Rodriguez' films and shows perfectly his talent as a filmmaker.

9/10

JUST CAUSE (1995) - Review

Just Cause

Action/Crime/Drama
1 hour and 42 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Jeb Stuart & Peter Stone
Directed by: Arne Glimcher
Produced by: Arne Glimcher, Steve Perry, and Lee Rich

Cast:
Sean Connery
Laurence Fishburne
Kate Capshaw
Blair Underwood
Ed Harris

Buried deep in the Florida Everglades is a secret that can save an innocent man or let a killer kill again.

The 1990s was a decade that saw a slew of "whodunnit" murder-mystery films being forced upon the public thanks to the wonderfully brilliant The Silence of the Lambs. With filmmakers like David Fincher emerging from this genre resurrection, it would appear to be enough to make Dario Argento assume he'd achieve an overdue Academy Award nomination. However, as is often the case when one genre cash cow is milked to its fullest excess, not everything produced therein could qualify as an instant classic. Such is the case with Just Cause.

The film starts off as a slow-burn-legal-thriller, and it remains that way for almost its entirety. It isn't until the very end that the motion picture takes on a dark, Silence of the Lambs-type atmosphere. This disjointed writing is seen throughout the film, and it proves to be perhaps its largest obstacle to which it never overcomes. Whether this is a result of the film having more than one writer is certainly possible - Sean Connery apparently even contributed to the film's script. Even key plot points seem to be completely disregarded. For example, early in the film Connery's character is informed that the murder victim had the murderer's blood in her mouth - meaning she fought back, but this is later contradicted when Laurence Fishburne's detective character tells him that she was unconscious while murdered. Perhaps the "logic" of the story wasn't what the writers wanted the audience to focus on - meaning that they just wanted them to be entertained and enjoy the ride - but whether in legal thrillers, or giallo-esque serial killer movies, both of which Just Cause tries very hard to be, the logic and realism of the story needs to be what's most important in order for it to be an excellent entry of said genres.

None of the other technical qualities are too troublesome within the film. Although, it should be said that the stock footage of Everglades' landscapes - alligators, whooping cranes, mangrove trees, etc. - cut in between the scenes makes the film feel more like a television program attempting to fill an allotted time frame. Whether this decision was the director's, the director of photography's, or the editor's is unknown - but regardless, it was a poor one.

The film's most favorable aspect is its actors. I'm sure with the amount of experienced performers within it, not much was needed in the way of direction. Blair Underwood does a convincing job, remaining levelheaded during all the right moments - and then slipping quickly to hateful and crazy. Laurence Fishburne is also terrific, but unfortunately his character never seems to fully develop into as interesting of an individual as he is introduced to be. In the beginning of the film he's showcased as a negrophobic, violent, African American, officer of the law. As the film fizzles out, his character is anything but this. An unfortunate misstep considering that this may have been a fascinating road to have gone down and explored - even more so in retrospect considering the racial tensions between law enforcement and African American communities today. The film's leading man, Sean Connery, neither embarrasses himself nor sets himself apart from the heard. Just Cause is certainly not his worst film, but it is unquestionably not a film one would use if they'd want to defend him as an outstanding actor.

The real scene stealer is Ed Harris. Harris, undoubtedly, had a blast performing this role of a deranged, Albert-Fish-like, serial killer. His scenes with Connery prove to be the least boring within the movie (and that includes the car chase, and final climax in the Everglades). Alas, one could fault Harris with overacting - but after the stamp Anthony Hopkins left on our minds, it is probably tough for many of us to picture serial killers as anything but cool, calm, and collected madmen. 

With an extremely convoluted story that is nowhere near as intelligent as it is trying to pass itself off as being, Just Cause remains neither memorable nor a complete waste of time thanks to the amount of talent its terrific cast can conjure up.

5.5/10

GONE IN 60 SECONDS (1974) - Review

Gone in 60 Seconds

Action/Crime/Drama
1 hour and 38 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: H. B. Halicki
Directed by: H. B. Halicki
Produced by: H. B. Halicki

Cast:
H. B. Halicki
Eleanor
Marion Busia
Jerry Daugirda
James McIntyre
George Cole
Ronald Halicki
Markos Kotsikos

Let the wrecking begin.

With warmer weather on the way, several of us cinephiles are beginning to experience what I always refer to as: drive-in nostalgia. Tis the season to want to spend your summer nights under the stars, behind the wheel of your, with a big bucket of buttery popcorn, enjoying some of the more obscure selections that the art of cinema has to offer. Nothing cures these moments of drive-in nostalgia like a good low-budget exploitation flick from the 1970s.

Gone in 60 Seconds may just be the most perfect car-chase film to come out of the carsploitation craze of this era in cinema. The film boasts its exploitation formula to its own benefit - keep the plot simple, the dialogue minimal but entertaining, and add in as much car chases and car crashes as humanly possible. Where else in the history of cinema are you going to find a motion-picture that gives top billing to one of its vehicles?

Obviously, this type of film making presents multiple issues, and perfection can hardly be achieved from it. The film dives right into the central plot without much in the way of introduction to any of the characters. While this is the norm, considering the focus of carsploitation movies is simply the cars, it presents an issue within the story itself. When our hero (played by writer, director, producer H. B. Halicki) is double-crossed by a friend just before the film's explosive forty-minute climax, one can't help but feel that it'd be a more effective film if we truly cared about our hero being ripped off by his close friend. Similarly, there is clearly a love connection between the hero and the character played by Marion Busia, but this too seems to be abandoned rather than explored in order to make room for car crashes. None of this is really a bad thing that negatively hurts the film. It makes it less effective, but the beauty of Gone in 60 Seconds is that it's a film that never tries to be anything more than what it is: a made for shocks, carsploitation film.

The dialogue throughout the film is actually well-written. There are very few circumstances of dialogue, but what is present either drives the main storyline forward, or presents comical situations between the main protagonists. An especially effective scene involves a stolen car full of heroin nearly being discovered by a friendly police sergeant. In another sequence, one of the film's more likable performers is nearly mauled to death by a tiger after he discovers it asleep in the back seat of a vehicle he is trying to steal (hello future reference in The Hangover?). 

What remains clearly the most astounding thing about Gone in 60 Seconds is exactly what is meant to be the most impressive thing about it: the car chases and car crashes. Prior to the climax even, the film boasts some awe inspiring moments, including a theft gone-wrong that leads to a midnight car chase. Unquestionably, though, it is the forty-minute climactic car chase that will stick with audiences in regards to this film whenever it is mentioned. With Halicki doing most of the stunt work himself, and real police cars, pedestrians, bikers, and plenty of others who were at risk - the final result may be the most spectacular car chase to ever be recorded on film. Edited together with such technical precision by the film's editor Warner Leighton, and photographed from almost every angle imaginable by cinematographer Jack Vacek, the climactic chase is bound to keep any viewer's heart rate well above its average beats per minute.

Despite a paint-by-numbers exploitation formula, Gone in 60 Seconds manages to be an incredible motion-picture due to its embracing of its simplicity, and its really going for it attitude when it comes to its carsploitation moments. And with a plot that manages to be fun and entertaining enough, the film remains a likable staple of 1970s exploitation cinema that deserves much more recognition than it has earned from just its awful Nicolas Cage remake alone.

8/10

HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES (2003) - Review

House of 1000 Corpses

Horror
1 hour and 29 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Rob Zombie
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Produced by: Andy Gould

Cast:
Sid Haig
Bill Moseley
Matthew McGrory
Sheri Moon Zombie
Karen Black
Erin Daniels
Chris Hardwick
Jennifer Jostyn
Rainn Wilson

The most shocking tale of carnage ever seen.

The film that introduced Rob Zombie's horrific visions to horror fans everywhere. Zombie's heavy metal background led him perfectly into the world of horror - as there is quite frequently a crossover of fans from the rebellious genre of music to the equally rebellious genre of film. With White Zombie, Rob Zombie proved he could handle directing within the medium of music videos - but does that make him qualified as a director of narrative film?

House of 1000 Corpses was apparently an absolute nightmare when it came to the actual production of the film. Executives didn't have faith in their debut director, and were deeply concerned with the direction of the violence within the film. Worried that an NC-17 rating would be inevitable, the film was shelved for a few years. Luckily for Zombie, the film found a foothold with Lionsgate who at the time was making a name for themselves within the realm of horror, just like Zombie.

What seems to be the biggest issue with House of 1000 Corpses is its central identity crisis. At its core, the film is a blatant knockoff of Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). A group of friends traveling cross country on a road trip through 1970s America stumble upon a hitchhiker who ultimately leads them back to a house full of maniacs, sadists, killers, and, oh of course - cannibals. This generic storyline is juxtaposed to a psychedelic, kaleidoscopic world that showcases the true genius of Rob Zombie. The film is clearly the work of a heavy metal music video director. There are moments throughout the film that just seem to be placed there because Zombie enjoyed the psychedelic look they had. They serve no purpose to the story. The strongest, most creative, part of this film ends up being its hypnotic climax that occurs within an underground labyrinth. This moment, however, is unable to undo the damage done by the first seventy minute Texas Chain Saw ripoff storyline.

The cinematography - the work of Tom Richmond and Alex Poppas - is excellent. The color scheme can only be described as vibrant and kaleidoscopic, really showcasing that brilliant psychedelic feel that Zombie undoubtedly was going for. At the same time, the film feels dirty, and homegrown. A lot of the shots are handheld, and with quick editing by Kathryn Himoff, Robert K. Lambert, and Sean Lambert, the scares within the film do elicit more than one moment with the "jump factor".

Much like the story and visuals, the performances too within House seems to be very split. The then newcomers: Rainn Wilson, Chris Hardwick, and Erin Daniels give rather bland performances that don't ever make their way out of the archetypical horror film victim. Perhaps the issue is the audience isn't given enough time to get acquainted with these characters in order to really feel any sympathy for them. In fact, this is why House of 1000 Corpses fails to be a scary film. The audience identifies much more with the film's killers - who are unquestionably interesting characters - than they do its victims. Not shockingly, it is the performances of the genre legends that stand out as excellent within House. Sid Haig is clearly having fun portraying what has easily become his most idolized character of his lengthy career. It's fun to hear him deliver one great line after another. Karen Black gives what is probably the most spectacular performance of the film (and of her career). She's sinister, diabolical, and yet there's something sweet and relatable underneath all of this that really makes her character that much more real. Walton Goggins and Tom Towles are excellent, but are not given enough screen time, unfortunately. Towles shares a brilliant scene with Haig about halfway through the film. And finally, Sheri Moon Zombie comes across as just annoying and clearly inexperienced. Her scenes with Karen Black and Bill Moseley are the most painful, where her inexperience is juxtaposed to their brilliant delivery.

In the end, House of 1000 Corpses is an incredibly conflicted film that can truly be said to be a cinematic mess. It has some truly creative and brilliant moments, but these are ultimately buried by the film's paint-by-numbers horror film storyline and characters. Its saving grace is the brilliant casting of genre legends, who truly give it their all in this one and deliver some of the best performances of their careers.

5/10

THE TERROR (1963) - Review

The Terror

Horror
1 hour and 21 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Leo Gordon & Jack Hill
Directed by: Roger Corman
Produced by: Roger Corman

Cast:
Boris Karloff
Jack Nicholson
Sandra Knight
Dick Miller
Jonathan Haze

There's No Rest For The Wicked ...

Jack Nicholson has retroactively referred to The Terror as being "hopeless". His frustrations were later shared by his costar Jonathan Haze who stated that there is no story to the film. Roger Corman himself has said the film had more directors than it boasted - including Jack Hill, Francis Ford Coppola, and even Jack Nicholson for some scenes - adding to the problem of the film's jumbled storyline.

The Terror came about while Corman was in the process of shooting his famous Edgar Allan Poe films. While shooting The Raven, Corman informed Nicholson that the sets would be lying around dormant for a weekend or so, and that he wanted to shoot something else on them while they were still available. Hence, The Terror.

The film has the same atmosphere as Corman's Poe films, or even Mario Bava's contemporary gothic horror chillers - but it lacks in quality in comparison to the two. For starters, the film is horrendously photographed. It could be that later copies are just in such poor shape, but it'd be a shocker to learn that the original negative isn't in as rough of shape as these modern day copies. Cinematographer John Mathew Nickolaus, Jr. is ultimately responsible for this major downfall of the film. There are moments where the color appears either over saturated or under saturated - never quite reaching the place where it needs to be. The f-stop settings are all off, not helping with this dilemma. In fairness, this distortion of the color and lighting - in an accidental way - helps to set the film's creepy atmosphere. The distortion compliments nicely the distortion of the story.

Editor Stuart O'Brien is wise in the ways of Corman, meaning that he pulled together some interesting moments on a next-to-nothing budget. There is one moment where Nicholson's character is caught in a landslide. Two different reaction shots are showcased multiple times against shots of boulders collapsing down the mountain. This happens just quick enough for most not to notice, but not quick enough for a cinephile to miss it. All the other action-oriented scenes are cut together well, it should be mentioned, including an opening sequence where Nicholson's character is attacked by an eagle.

The special effects are what can be expected out of this era in Corman's filmography. Due to the film's incredibly low budget, there's hardly any scenes that require effects. The first of two is actually relatively gory. When an eagle plucks out the eyes of Jonathan Haze's character, the blood effects are not disappointing. What is disappointing is later in the story when the witch is struck by a bolt of lightning. Not cheesy enough to bring the entire film down, but it is still enough to make a viewer's eyes role.

The story is an absolute jumbled mess. While saying it's nonexistent or "hopeless" is perhaps an exaggeration, it isn't a gross one. There is a solid story that can be pulled out of the film, but it has enough twists and turns to lose any distant viewer. Perhaps what is the cheesiest thing about the film is its own understanding of its jumbled story. Dick Miller's character is afforded a moment towards the end where he attempts to recap and explain everything that has happened. Something that a decent film would never consider doing.

This all having been said, the film isn't a complete catastrophe. The performances (not surprisingly) are quite good. Boris Karloff is as elegant as ever, and is right at home in this creepy gothic atmosphere. It's absolutely not his greatest performance, but it is undoubtedly far from being his worst. Nicholson - in his very early years - manages to hold his own, especially in scenes involving himself and Karloff. The only distraction being seeing him play a French lieutenant with an American accent. It's still not as distracting as Dick Miller's strong New York accent on his butler character. These mishaps are easily forgiven though, and neither Nicholson nor Miller manage to embarrass themselves.

The saving grace of the picture is its sets. Leftover from The Raven, the castle setting looks to be much more expensive and elaborate than it undoubtedly was. The exterior sets are also remarkably chosen, mainly the setting on the rocky coastline.

Even with top notch actors and beautiful set pieces, The Terror manages to be a rather uneventful gothic horror film that suffers from a confusing and hastily put together storyline, and poor cinematography.

4.5/10

NIGHTMARE CASTLE (1965) - Review

Nightmare Castle

Horror
1 hour and 30 minutes
Unrated

Written by: Mario Caiano & Fabio De Agostini
Directed by: Mario Caiano
Produced by: Carlo Caiano

Cast:
Barbara Steele
Paul Muller
Helga Liné

A mad, sadistic scientist on the loose!

In the annals of Italian horror cinema, there have undoubtedly been several films over the years that have fallen out of relevance and into obscurity. These films were the ones being pushed out quickly so that they could make a profit on the coattails of another more successful film. Mario Caiano's film Nightmare Castle, is a good example of all of this.

Nightmare Castle has "mocksploitation film" written all over it. The film follows templates put into place by two incredibly successful Italian horror films that came before it: Mario Bava's 1960 film Black Sunday, and Riccardo Freda's 1956 film I Vampiri. With Black Sunday, Mario Bava perfected the gothic horror film over thirty years after it having gone out of style - using the then unknown British actress Barbara Steele in two different roles. Nightmare Castle also boasts Steele in two separate roles in a gothic setting. Caiano unquestionably knew this would draw in fans of Bava's film and generate more revenue.

Freda's I Vampiri is one of the first films ever to place the idea of vampirism in a modern context. Indeed, the idea that young blood transfused into an older body could regenerate youth had been around before, but it was never connected with the traditions of horror. This storyline of a scientist pumping a young person's blood into an older woman to regenerate her youth is recycled by Caiano in Nightmare Castle. 

These elements of mocksploitation are not surprising in the least, especially considering Nightmare Castle's 1965 release date. The 1960s was a time where low-budget films were thriving on grind house and drive-in theater screens. Many of these low-budget films used these mocksploitation tactics to appeal to mainstream audiences in order to draw in more viewers. It worked less often than filmmakers would have hoped.

Despite the blatant similarities to Black Sunday and I Vampiri, Nightmare Castle contains some really incredible, and creative moments. For starters, the film is quite violent - even more so than anything Bava was producing at the time. Its still tame by today's standards, but viewers might be shocked to see just what is shown in this older gothic chiller. A brutal flogging scene, Steele's character subjected to acid being dripped on her body, a brutal blow to the head, and finally an intense electrocution. The effects are done quite masterfully, and are even more amazing to witness in the film's beautiful black & white framing.

Enzo Barboni was the film's director of photography and the film is beautifully captured. The black & white really creates gorgeous and haunting shadows within the film's castle setting, and is most effective during the dream sequences. Steele's character is over saturated with white - a white dress, her pale skin and bleach blonde hair. While it may not be as detail oriented as one of Bava's films, Barboni did a masterful job capturing the film in a beautiful manner.

The film's score was composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone, who is most famous for his work on Sergio Leone's Man with No Name spaghetti western trilogy. Morricone's talent shines through, even at such an early stage of his career. The delightful, and even cheerful, piano score works effectively in contrast with the scenes of horror. And a organ-based piece is present to the pleasure of all gothic horror fans everywhere.

Despite the dialogue being dubbed, the performances are all standard for a 1960s gothic film. Steele does a wonderful job - as is expected. Her talent really shines through with her performance of an innocent and tormented young girl - something vastly different from her usual typecast performances.  Paul Muller is also excellent as the sadistic scientist husband of both of Steele's characters.

The film's strongest asset is its tie in with the supernatural. While the I Vampiri-plotline plays a major part of the story, it is intertwined with an incredibly haunting ghost story. This subplot showcases Nightmare Castle's creativity within a mocksploitation context. And the climax - involving Steele donned in complete burn-make-up - is truly a standout moment in gothic horror and Italian horror cinema.

Even with its now forgotten status, and its elements of mocksploitation, Nightmare Castle is able to triumph over its flaws by boasting outstanding special effects, beautiful cinematography, an outstanding score, and performances by iconic actors all set within a creatively told ghost story.

6.5/10

FOUR ROOMS (1995) - Review

Four Rooms

Comedy
1 hour and 38 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
Directed by: Allison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino
Produced by: Lawrence Bender

Cast:
Tim Roth
Antonio Banderas
Jennifer Beals
Paul Calderon
Sammi Davis
Valeria Golino
Madonna
David Proval
Ione Skye
Lili Taylor
Kathy Griffin
Marisa Tomei
Tamlyn Tomita

Comedy, Confusion And Chaos... Compliments Of The House!

"What a cast! What a waste!" read film critic Leonard Maltin's initial review of this 1990s indie-comedy anthology. I hardly ever find myself agreeing with the "big" film critics, who make their living critiquing a medium of art which they themselves have never had the courage to participate in, but in this case - I'm willing to make an exception.

For most film junkies, especially those who are enticed by the indie-boom of the 1990s, Four Rooms may seem like the holy grail. The four filmmakers attached as well as the cast are a cinematic wet-dream. The film also marks the first collaboration (behind the camera, anyway) of filmmakers Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino - who went on to give us such gems as From Dusk Till Dawn, Sin City, and Grindhouse. Four Rooms, however, just simply cannot live up to the high expectations set by its talent.

Even though the film is meant to play out as the continuous story of Ted the Bellhop's (Tim Roth) New Year's events at the Hotel Mon Signor, each story (written and directed by one of the four filmmakers) is so vastly different from the other that the idea that the audience is watching one film instead of four is completely lost by the second story. This can be attributed to the talent of the four filmmakers in question. Each one is (or was if we want to be specific about Rockwell and Anders) so uniquely talented that their collaborating with others of the same caliber is undeniably out of the question. Whereas the whole film is supposed to be a comedy, one finds themselves only laughing at one (or maybe two, depending on one's humor) part of the story.

The first part, directed and written by Allison Anders, follows Ted the Bellhop as he is needed to partake in a coven of witches' ceremony to bring about a dead goddess. This first story should've set the tone that Four Rooms is a laugh-out-loud comedy, but instead we're given a bizarre scenario cut with plenty of film-school editing techniques. Tim Roth is shown to have all the charm and mannerisms of a silent movie star (this continues in Rockwell's segment, but thankfully disappears for Rodriguez' and Tarantino's segments), but in a motion-picture that has sound his over-the-top gestures and panicky, high-pitched voice are just annoying and get in the way of things. Madonna has a nice cameo as herself (and by herself I mean a middle-aged witch that's still trying to cling on to a shred of youth by having platinum blonde hair, and wearing a leather dress that's so tight she is given the physique of a blood-sausage).

The second segment, written and directed by Alexandre Rockwell, suffers from many of the same ailments as the first. Rockwell tries to go for a unique story that involves few new characters to be introduced, but once again all humor that should be present is totally lost. The saving grace of the scene is Jennifer Beals, who is unquestionably a greater actress than most of her films would suggest.

Part three, written and directed by Robert Rodriguez, is the only story that can truly be called a "comedy". Where Rockwell fell short, Rodriguez succeeds. Using few characters, and one location he is able to create some truly humorous situations. Antonio Banderas is in fine form, delivering Rodriguez' dialogue as if it were second nature. The child actors are truly gifted and Rodriguez' talent of working with child actors (with the later Spy Kids franchise) is clearly apparent. Even Tim Roth, who before was obnoxious, is brought back to a realistic performance that makes his delivery and timing of dialogue hysterical and believable. The only thing flawed with Rodriguez' segment of the film is its attempt to be tied with Rockwell's. The little girl calls Ted the Bellhop at the front desk and then immediately calls the room where he is being held at gunpoint in Rockwell's scene. How did Ted manage to be in two places at once? Especially when the phone call came halfway through Rockwell's story. It just doesn't work.

The final movement, written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, is questionable. Fans of Tarantino will undeniably appreciate it for what it's worth. Tim Roth, Bruce Willis, Paul Calderon and Tarantino himself deliver lengthy monologues pertaining to 1920s silent films, 1960s television shows, the differences between champagne and cristal, and the simple things in life such as being drunk and making outrageous bets. What makes this scene questionable is also its lack of humor. For a comedy, this scene is too bloated with dialogue that sets up the characters and situation for it to be funny. While it works - enough suspense to keep us entertained until the quick and brutal climax - it's just not funny. 

Other wasted performances include Kathy Griffin as Roth's boss. If you're going to showcase a standup comedienne in a cameo within a 1990s indie-comedy, wouldn't you want to give her some dialogue that's actually funny? Griffin has little more to do than tell Roth what it is he should be doing. Marisa Tomei (an Academy Award winner) pops up in the same scene as a stoner chick. Her performance serves as nothing more than a catalyst that allows our leading man to recount the events of the film thus far. Salma Hayek also appears in lingerie on a nudie-television channel in the background of Rodriguez' segment.

Four Rooms should have been a cinematic masterpiece of 1990s indie filmmaking, but ultimately it stands as a train wreck of a motion-picture with only a few redeemable moments. In the end, the film just couldn't handle the amount of unique talent which it boasts.

4/10