“The Disaster Artist” Is Well Done But Not Entirely Necessary

 
Direction
7.0


 
Acting
9.0


 
Plot
7.0


 
Execution
7.0


 
Total Score
7.5


User Rating
no ratings yet

 


0
Posted January 10, 2018 by

 
Full Article
 
 

I am one of the biggest fans of Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room”. It is the greatest thing I have ever seen. It’s to the point where if you give me a couple minutes with someone who hasn’t seen it, I will get so excited while telling them about it, they’ll either try to track down their own copy or feel that they’ve actually watched the movie because I just quoted and acted out most of the film for them. I’ve listened to as many interviews with Tommy and his friend Greg Sestero that I can get my hands (ears?) on, Greg’s book “The Disaster Artist”, the Tim and Eric episode directed by Tommy, if these guys are involved in something, you can guarantee I’ll get my hands on it. That being said, the film adaptation of “The Disaster Artist” is well acted and more of a complete movie than other reviews have given it credit for, but it still begs the question, “Is it necessary?”

If you’re like me and have digested everything their is to know about the film, the making of the film, how Greg and Tommy became friends and creators with one another, and what it’s like to actually have a conversation with both men, “The Disaster Artist” feels like someone telling you all of those things again, albeit with the best Tommy impression there is probably ever going to be. With fans of the movie and of Tommy and Greg being the target market for this film, however, there’s nothing new here. Nothing you didn’t already know. My favorite parts of this movie were seeing them recreate scenes from the original, but I feel like that could have been done in 4 minute internet clips as opposed to an hour and forty minute movie.

They do a great job at making the mysterious Tommy Wiseau a sympathetic character. They are able to deliver a fully formed story that doesn’t necessarily demand a viewing of “The Room” to be necessary to enjoy it. But that begs the other question to be asked: if you’re going to see this movie because you’re a fan of Franco/Rogen collaborations and haven’t seen the original work they’re portraying, are you going to enjoy this movie at all? I feel like you won’t. I have a friend that thinks everything Seth Rogen and James Franco do is instant gold, and he was let down by “The Disaster Artist” because it wasn’t the setting he was used to both these guys being in when it came to a movie they starred in.

In summation, “The Disaster Artist” doesn’t really appease either audiences that it can relate to, leaving it in this weird limbo where I can appreciate what they’ve done and what they’ve created, but I don’t see the need for it. The film consists of great acting, and a great attention to detail, and you definitely don’t need to have seen “The Room” to enjoy “The Disaster Artist”. In fact, I recommend this movie for anyone that doesn’t know the story already and hasn’t seen Tommy’s epic film. I think you’re the ones that will get the most out of this movie.


DavidRyanM

 


0 Comments



Be the first to comment!


Leave a Response


(required)