i bought the screenplay for four rooms way back in the day. it actually came out like two-three months before the film made it in theaters. funny thing is, there were pictures in the book that were suposedly stills from the movie. a few of these pics were not in the film, but in the screenplay so they obviously filmed it (i know this happens with a lot of films but it seemed a little fishy).
then i found out that they delayed the release of four rooms and when i finaly saw the film, it was only 90 mins. i bet it was originally 2 hours but it got such bad reviews that they re-cut it. Alexander Rockwell's film lost almost the entire ending. Also, the sequencing wasn't interconnected as it used to be in the script. the ending was also different and the witch from the first room wasn't supposed to be resurrected until the final shot. does anyone know anything about this? i would love to see the film with all the original stuff, including Ted's interview at the beginning and all the former glory (the third and fourth rooms were the only things not really cut) of the theatrical cut. the film wouldn't seem as quick and i think this would add to the experience, let you get lost in the fucked up hotel.
-sl-
it's been a while and no responses. are you just not taking me seriously? lol...
anybody please :wink:
mac do you know anything?
man, i don't know what the fuck you just said!
But you special man.
you hit me right here. :oops:
LOL
This was a funny way to start the day. Oh, by the way, I've read the script for Four Rooms and I noticed the differences, but I have no ideia if they shot those scenes or if they edited like we read in the script. Anyway, I think Four Rooms is not asbad as "they" say.
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumAnyway, I think Four Rooms is not asbad as "they" say.
Agreed. I just caught it on cable a month or so ago (prime New Year's Eve viewing, IMO) for the first time in a few years, since its first video release. Sure, it didn't exactly set the world on fire ("did ya, Jackie?") but it was as good or better than a whole lot of other indie releases that came out in the mid 90s. I think that its greatest sin, at least as far as the critics were concerned, was that it wasn't "Pulp Fiction II."
i agree, i really enjoy the last three stories. the first one is garbage (horrible, just horrible) but the rest are fun. i'd love to see a 2 hour cut of the film
-sl-
can somebody PLEASE tell me why nobody likes this movie? it's hilarious!
i like it except for anders' segment
yeah, but without that segment you don't get the line...
"you were fucked by an oven of witches?"
lol true......
I thought the first two segments were lacking but the Rodriguez and Tarantino segments were great. I was especially surprised by how much I enjoyed "The Misbehavers" because I'm not a huge fan of Rodriguez's other work.
Quote from: taz.can somebody PLEASE tell me why nobody likes this movie? it's hilarious!
First off, there's Madonna. Do I need to go on? Oh, all right I will.
1.) Not a fan of Anders's work, and then the Madonna factor.
2.) I actually don't remember this one all to well, and there's probably a reason for that.
3.) The best of the rooms. Funny, nicely done.
4.) Like a phoned in work for QT. The story is just a retread of an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode based on a Roald Dahl story. QT is not the best actor either, and in this role, he's just playing his ego. The subjective camera POV's and long takes were too distracting, as if QT is saying, 'This is my homage to "Rope."'
Quote from: taz.yeah, but without that segment you don't get the line...
"you were fucked by an oven of witches?"
and:
"You're not my mother."
"Yes, I am."
"Then why are we sleeping together?"
big interogation point
4 rooms is great. great soundtrack too, but that, my friends, is a story for another thread