I suppose this deserves some explanation.



Once upon a time, there was a movie called The Room. This was a movie made as something of a vanity project by a man named Tommy Wiseau. He wrote, directed and starred in the film. It's about a great guy (named Johnny) who lives in a room with a woman named Lisa. Lisa is a bit selfish and is basically using Johnny, doesn't love him, and -- in fact -- carries on an affair with his best friend, Mark. Johnny is a great guy, as previously mentioned, and everybody likes him, but the betrayal of Lisa tears him apart mentally, bringing it all to a "tragic" conclusion. In theory, and intention, this movie is a "great drama".


However, in execution, it is so hideously poorly executed that it has become a cult "bad movie" classic. The thing about The Room is that, like Troll 2, it's essentially a well-made, nice-looking movie... with a nonsensical script that feels like it was written by aliens, and exceptionally poor acting. At times, it feels like a fake movie... except, nobody could really fake a movie at that level. But, like I said, it's become a delightful and "respected" bad movie, enjoyed by all, so (on many levels) Tommy Wiseau is a huge success. (If you like "good-bad" movies, I highly recommend The Room.)



Several years later, the guy who played the "other man" in the movie, an actor named Greg Sestero, decided to write a book about his experiences. He called this book The Disaster Artist, writing all about the weird enigma that is auter Tommy Wiseau. Tommy is, if anything, far stranger in real life than he comes across in his movie (and he comes across as very strange in his movie). It's a wonderful book -- very well-written. At times sad, at times hilariously funny. (I highly recommend the book, The Disaster Artist).


THEN, in a final twist, real Hollywood actor James Franco loved the book so much that he decided to make it into a movie about the book about the movie, with himself playing Tommy Wiseau, his brother playing Greg Sestero, and all his Hollywood friends (like Seth Rogen, etc.) playing the other players in the story.

I thought this sounded like a horrible idea. Why? Because, for one thing, I'm just not crazy about James Franco. I've seen Franco in quite a few movies, and in my opinion, he is consistently and damagingly miscast. I would say that, what parts of the film Oz: The Great and Powerful weren't already destroyed by the horrible writing (which basically defamed the entire, beloved land of Oz), were destroyed by his hideous miscasting. I've been very angry about James Franco ever since I saw that movie, because I really wanted to like that film.

So when I heard that he was going to make a movie from a) a book I really like, about b) a film I really enjoy watching, I was downright disturbed. And when I saw the trailer, I didn't feel a whole lot better. The last thing I wanted to do was watch two hours of a bad Tommy Wiseau impression followed by Seth Rogen over-explaining the jokes in The Room, rendering them unfunny.


So, I had to be somewhat enticed into seeing this movie. Right before Christmas, we saw Star Wars: The Last Jedi -- and it was so criminally unsatisfying, we decided almost anything must be better than that -- and went to see The Disaster Artist.

As it turns out... my fears were wholly unfounded. In spite of the fact I'm not a fan of James Franco, I thought he did an excellent job as Tommy Wiseau. It was more than just an impression, because he wasn't just repeating lines from the movie (although he does plenty of that); he also has to act out scenes that were only in the book and bring them to life and make it seem as though it's really Tommy acting them out, and he succeeded. I cannot praise James Franco's performance enough. He was a delight to watch as Tommy Wiseau. I would go as far as to say it's his best performance.

I suppose, at times, I could argue that he doesn't quite achieve the dead-eyed quality that Tommy has in his movie... but that's okay. He still did a good job. And Seth Rogen doesn't explain all the jokes in the movie.

Issues
The movie has been compared to the movie Ed Wood, and I can understand why. It's a similar theme in both cases; acting-struck boy befriends old weirdo, they make movie(s) together, become friends, learn lessons, and finally create their "masterpiece" (which is a really, terrible film, but this in itself earns them fame). Ed Wood is an excellent movie, and one of favorites -- and I wholly agree with the people who compare this movie to that one, and somewhat unfavorably.

The movie isn't entirely flawless; the book is far better. Which is not to say that watching the movie was a bad experience; it simply left a few things to be desired. For a start... I didn't think that the actor playing Greg Sestero (performed by James Franco's brother) captured Greg Sestero the way that James caught Tommy (although, it must be said, Tommy is definitely a broader and easier to imitate "type").

For another thing... some of the bits of the book that they chose to leave out of the movie were pretty mystifying to me. They would include an entire scene from the book -- and then leave out the part of the scene that I thought was the funniest. For instance...

They included a scene where they were driving, but left out this weird bit of commentary from Tommy, which was by far the funniest part of it. Also,
...So, they included the pug dog scene from the movie, but not this hilarious behind-the-scenes moment. There were several things like this, where I thought they left out the best and funniest moment of the story, which left a few scenes a little bland and "not as funny as they could be."

They also left out some of the motivations and story behind things that Greg Sestero does in the story, which (honestly) makes Greg's character pretty bland, and kind of inexplicable at times. I don't always know why he does the things he does, or why he doesn't get more upset by things that Tommy does -- while, in the book, Greg's reactions to things always make perfect sense.

Ultimately...
That said... did these things ruin the movie for me? No! I quite enjoyed watching the film. It was no Ed Wood, and not a flawless adaptation of the book, but it wasn't a waste of my money (like a certain unnamed Star Wars film). It was a light, enjoyable little movie about the weird, backside of the classic Hollywood story. Now, whether or not I recommend it is very conditional; mainly, I don't recommend this movie if you haven't seen The Room. I don't think the movie would be unwatchable if you haven't seen The Room ... but I think there are nuances that you just wouldn't appreciate as much. (I have a friend who hasn't seen The Room or read the book, and still saw this, and thought it was great -- so I'm not saying watching it without reading the book or watching The Room is impossible. Just not wholly desirable in all cases). So, in the end, despite the film's flaws I still have to say...

RECOMMENDED