Silvester in fremden Betten (1995) Online

It's a pity that the critics gave 'Four Rooms' as hard a time as they did back in 1995, because, for everything that can be said to be wrong with it, it really does sparkle with creativity and a desire to stand out from the rest of the crowd. And let's face it, there was enough popular talent involved, including Alison Anders, Alexandre Rockwell, Robert Rodriguez and, last but not least, Quentin Tarantino, for it to have been hailed as an instant cult classic. Instead, it was bashed into submission and retreated very quickly to the back of nearly everyone's resume. With retrospect most of this reproach was probably ill-deserved - 'Four Rooms' does have its blatant moments of weakness, but then again so do a lot of the more half-baked cookie-cutter comedies which have somehow garnered more admiration than this. On the whole it's a very unusual and interesting combination - an offbeat, frisky and strangely feel-good comedy with some sinister undertones and lots of weird, intricate little details. Consisting of four 20-minute segments, each assembled by a different director's hands, it takes us through the various happenings inside separate rooms of the same hotel on New Year's Eve, as experienced by Ted, the only bellhop still left standing for the night shift. There is the slight feeling of inconsistency in moving from one directing style to the next, and a couple of attempts to interconnect the segments are a little self-contradictory. Some of it works and some it doesn't, but the end result is an episodic anthology that, if nothing too spectacular, still proves itself to be very likable in the long run.

'The Missing Ingredient' and 'the Wrong Man' are often credited with constituting the weaker half of the film, and I can't really say I disagree. 'The Missing Ingredient' tries hard to be risqué, but falls pretty short - for a story concerning a coven of bare-breasted witches trying to extract an unwilling man's semen for use in a ritual, it's remarkably innocuous and fluffy, and the visual effects only add a layer of tackiness to boot. 'The Wrong Man' is a tad more snappy and sports some stylish direction (the shot where Sigfried grabs the ringing telephone is right-on), but is ultimately swallowed up in its frenzied editing. We can vaguely understand what's happening in this segment (if not, then Ted does drop a pretty big hint later on in the film), but it makes itself unnecessarily incoherent, with bizarre imagery that adds nothing but extra confusion (the baby flashback, anyone?). It's almost as though Alexandre Rockwell isn't sure whether he wants us to be in on the whole set-up with Sigfried and Angela, or confused and in the dark like Ted, and in the end tries to accommodate both perspectives, which doesn't really wash.

It's once we reach the second half that the true quality really starts to seep its way in, and the film suddenly becomes very rewarding. 'The Misbehaviours' is a spirited little contribution that combines a moderate dose of macabre darkness with its cartoon-like innocence. Antonio Banderas certainly hits a good spot as the no-nonsense father who appoints Ted to keep an eye on his two young children while he's out, whilst the children themselves are rebellious but not irritating, all making for a surprisingly sharp and sophisticated slice of knockabout. 'The Man from Hollywood', meanwhile, is equally brilliant - Tarantino's vibrant, well-scripted take on Roald Dahl's chilling short story, 'the Man from the South', which pits Ted in the same room as cocky Hollywood director Chester Rush (and it's always a treat to see Quentin himself tackle such a winking, self-depreciating role). It manages to be tense and enjoyable, with the usual smart direction that any Tarantino fan should be able to appreciate. Overall, there's enough vitality in these particular segments to just about redeem the shakiness of the first half.

Besides, we have Tim Roth playing our hapless protagonist throughout, and, yes, that is a lot. He proves himself to be very capable in a comic performance, bringing enough gentle magnetism to his character Ted the bellhop, through his good intentions, perseverance and various neurotic mannerisms, to get us genuinely attached to him. It is hard not to come away with the impression that all four directors had a slightly different take on Ted's disposition - he goes from being timid and impressionable to obtuse and jumpy, then highly-strung and a little devious, and finally composed and relatively rational - but Roth does well in single-handedly bridging these gaps and, with the many mishaps his character has to endure over the course of the night, ensures that all changes in temper seem understandable. He retains his good-natured lovability for the entire running time, and, for anyone who can really relate to poor Ted (like yours truly), he'll have you rooting for him to the very satisfying end.

To my knowledge, there was never any other film quite like 'Four Rooms' and, judging by just how unwelcome this one was made to feel when it arrived, there probably won't be another for quite some time. It remains an ambitious and not entirely successful little sleeper, but has a good deal going for it nonetheless, and I urge all fans of Tarantino, Rodriguez and Roth in particular not to be put off by the bad press and to give it a chance. Who knows? One day, it might just make a fresh start and find the cult audience that appreciates it yet.

I really don't understand why this movie got such bad reviews! Overall, this is a creative and refreshing movie. It is not Pulp Fiction but it is still a good performance. Tim Roth, especially, is the best thing in the film. Out of the four I like Robert Rodguize's misbehavior the best. The missing ingredient was indeed a bit cheesy but the rest are still above average performance. If you are interested in this movie but discouraged by the movie critics, I ensure you that you won't regret seeing it.

"Four Rooms" is far more entertaining than you would expect from its generally negative reviews. Which is not to say that any of it is a masterpiece but if you enjoyed "Love American Style" on television and are not put off by a raunchy take on that anthology concept you should make an effort to view this film. Each story is taking place in a different room of a hotel the same night. It was made between the time Tarantino made "Pulp Fiction" and worked on "Dusk Till Dawn" with Rodriquez. Many in the large cast are Tarantino and Rodriquez regulars. Here are a few of the reasons to watch each of the four stories:

"The Missing Ingredient" - Madona has simply never looked better and her "come get me" dress will burn your eyeballs. Alicia Witt plays her stock alienated teen and delivers sarcasm as only she can.

"The Wrong Man" – Alexander Rockwell directed this segment shortly after directing "In the Soup" so he already knew how to get the most out of Jennifer Beals. Her diatribe about Ted's sex organ is a cinema classic.

"The Misbehavers" – Rodriquez directs his favorite actor Antonio Banderas in something that is a throwback to classic Laurel and Hardy. Not only do his two kids misbehave when left alone in their hotel room, but their misbehavior is so comprehensive that the closing shot reveals a room of total anarchy. It is wonderful slapstick on a huge scale, with comic timing worthy of the Laural and Hardy and the Marx Brothers.

"The Man From Hollywood" – This has the best script with Tarantino reserving the best stuff for his own character. He even reprises the "tasty beverage" line from "Pulp Fiction. Beals has already found her way to this room by the time bellboy Roth arrives and she delivers more good lines. I was impressed that Tarantino built up his suspense "before" the contest began and then did not try to extend the suspense but ended things on the first attempt.

The best bit in the whole film might be Roth's phone call to his boss. Marisa Tomei answers the phone in a room full of comatose post-New Years Eve partygoers. She then does a version of her "My Cousin Vinnie" expert witness routine, this time concerning types of handguns. In the foreground the entire time are the only other conscious (but totally stoned) inhabitants of the room. They are playing against each other in a video game. One just stares in stunned fascination at the screen, holding the controller but not using it as the other player maniacally manipulates his controller throughout the entire phone conversation.

It's impossible to analyze this film without breaking it down into its four segments for separate comment. It would also be improper, since it was not intended to be anything less than an anthology from four notable independent filmmakers: Alexandre Rockwell, Alison Anders, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin Tarantino.

The first episode is exactly the sort of thing that someone in a high school drama production would want to do, but can't get away with in a high school drama production. It's juvenile, unfunny, and lifeless, but it has the (pointless) nudity and lines of dialogue like:

Witch #1: "I am your mother."

Witch #2: "Then why are we sleeping together?"

that sound like the screenwriter is giggling and thinking, "I can't believe I'm getting away with this! I'm so clever!"

Nothing is at stake in the first episode; it's generally expected that a story must have conflict in order to BE a story. This has none. Just some half-baked jokes and a pair of topless women (If I wanted that, I'd skip renting a movie and go out instead.)

Second episode is a hair better, but you'll find yourself crying "Why doesn't Ted the Bellboy do [insert plot resolution here] and get the bloody hell out of there!" When it finally does end, you're disheartened to find that it had no reason to exist. Two snips with a pair of scissors, a bit of tape, and we wouldn't know the difference. Roll opening credits, go straight to the Rodriguez segment.

Third episode has some structural support to keep it from caving in on itself. The surprise in the middle (I won't give it away, don't worry) is horrifying enough to give the segment some heft. Rodriguez and his d.p., Guillermo Navarro, move it along dexterously and (as usual) have a good handle on visual comedy.

The last segment is the best. I think it's safe to say that Quentin Tarantino has, officially, never disappointed me as a director or screenwriter. My heart leapt as soon as I heard his trademark dialogue coming from the lips of Marisa Tomei as "Four Rooms" segued from "The Misbehavers" to "The Man From Hollywood." I wasn't sure if his take on Ted the Bellhop's misadventures was going to be any good, but I knew that if he wrote it and helmed it, it wasn't going to be all bad.

What a pleasant surprise (still just talking about the fourth segment here). This part of the movie, with its ridiculous premise (lifted form an old Hitchcock episode, which it acknowledges out loud), moves along speedily, and the actors take to it as naturally as any other movies by Q.T. Basically playing himself, Tarantino is hilarious. If anything, he knows A) how people really act when they're drunk (i.e. not like Dudley Moore caricatures) B) why people think he's so obnoxious, like a real-life, fast-talking Jar Jar Binks and C) how to put some bang in his visual storytelling. It's low-rent Tarantino, don't get me wrong, but it's also the best part of "Four Rooms."

All in all, the first film I've ever seen that starts out with a loathsome, horrifying badness, gets incrementally better with each passing fifteen minutes, and ends as good as one would like. Just don't make me watch it again.

Four Rooms was concocted like one of those many, many collaborative efforts from directors in the 60's and 70's (i.e. The Witches, Ro.Go.PaG, Boccaccio '70, etc), except this would revolve around a bell-hop on New Years Eve. It disqualifies itself as being any kind of masterpiece or classic in independent film-making, and sometimes the filmmakers (Alison Anders, Robert Rodriguez, and Alexandre Rockwell, and Quentin Tarantino, the last two also serving as executive producer) look like they're relishing too much in their (limited) clout and exuberance to concentrate. As was with many others who viewed the film, I found that the first two segments were the lesser ones, and the last two were the best ones. It all comes down, in this case, to which two were funnier. So, let's break each one down:

Allison Anders' film is a quirky, quasi-lesbian take on a coven of witches, featuring the likes of Madonna and Lily Taylor, are the first to shake up (perhaps for the better in this one) Ted the bell-hop. Ted, by the way, is played with a continuous, nervous-type of fervor that goes from being innocuous, to annoying, and then acceptable again. It's also interesting to see how his character goes through different motions when under each director (for example, in Rodriguez's film he's more of a cartoon-type of character, and in Tarantino's film he hearkens slightly to his previous collaborations with the director, quieter, on edge in a particular way). Some of the laughs are surrounded by a kind of attitude put forth by the director that seems a little off. Maybe I'm the wrong audience for it, though- the women in the audience may appreciate it, or rather amused by it, more than I. I give it a B-

Alexandre Rockwell's The Wrong Man is my least favorite of the bunch, as Ted gets stuck with a couple of crazed fetishists (David Proval and Jennifer Beals). The problem here lies with two things- the fact that the comedic timing/chemistry is a little iffy/off with the three actors, and that the writing doesn't come off like it's naturally funny. When Beals' character Angela runs off about Ted's private parts, this could be funny, but it's more 'ho-ho' than 'ha-ha' to me. Some of the tension from Roth brings some laughs, but not enough to compensate the uncomfortable atmosphere around the whole segment. I give it a C-

The third segment, The Misbehaviors, displays how clever and quick Rodriguez can be with physical comedy (slapstick) as well as in getting laughs from kids (as he did here and there in his Spy Kids movies). It is also a boost that the whole segment comes off as though it's like a live-action Looney Tunes short- it's so ridiculous that in some scenes I burst out laughing (i.e. Ted's reaction to the corpse). The set-up with the parents was also amusing in how Banderas and Tamlyn Tomita act towards the kids. Then the pay-off knocks it out of the park. Grade: A

Then we come to the closure, featuring the indie wunderkind at the time, Tarantino, as he takes on two sources of inspiration- Rohald Dahl's "Man from the South" short story, later translated through Alfred Hitchcock's television show. It's a smart, hip little piece of Hollywood satire from Tarantino, as he himself plays an overly obnoxious Hollywood filmmaker, with two guys by his side (Paul Calderon and Bruce Willis), as they take a gamble right after the stroke of midnight. It took me a couple of time to watch this to really get into it, but when I did it was even more promising. The camera-work in the scene (via 'Dogs' and 'Pulp' cinematographer Andrzej Sekula) is deliberately paced, and it's perfectly leisurely for the pace of the last segment. That much, if not all, of the dialog is funny it's because of the skill and chemistry between the four of them. Plus, a little prologue with Marisa Tomei and Kathy Griffin gives the indication of what insanity is in store. Grade- A.

So, is this film a success? For it's time, I'm not sure. With the power of four million off the success of each director's previous efforts (Tarantino with 'Dogs', Rodriguez with El Mariachi, Anders with Gas, Food, and Lodging, and Rockwell with In the Soup, all from the 92 Sundance place), they did whatever they wanted, and it's not the success it could've been. On the other hand, when one looks at the films in perspective, it could've been a lot worse, and it wasn't. At the least, it works as one of the quintessential party movies for fans of the 90's "new-wave" crop.

Four Rooms (1995/Allison Anders; Alexandre Rockwell; Robert Rodriguez; Quentin Tarantino) **1/2 out of ****

Welcome to the Mon Signor Hotel! Once a major hang out spot for movie stars of the 30's, 40's and first part of the 50's, it is now an out of date fire hazard, and it is falling apart! But on New Years Eve, a new bellhop will have the craziest night of his life in this very hotel.

When I was thinking of Tarantino flicks to purchase, "Four Rooms" came to my mind. At first I was hesitant, and for good reason. After all, I had read nothing but bad reviews for this film. But what I found in it was a bizarre little comedy that wasn't so bad after all.

"Four Rooms" is an anthology film with four 'episodes' about a fading hotel on News Years Eve, and with a quirky bellhop named Ted (Tim Roth) and his misadventures on this one crazy night. The first episode entitled "The Missing Ingredient" is about a group of witches staying in the hotel who need some sperm in order to complete a spell. And guess who knocks on the door...Ted the bellhop! The next episode, "The Wrong Man" is a shorter episode about Ted getting mistaken for another man. This is certainly the strangest of the episodes. Then next comes the hilarious "The Misbehavers". Ted is asked to babysit two kids of a Mexican gangster (Antonio Banderas in a parody of himself), and how everything possible can go wrong. And the final episode, "The Man From Hollywood" (the best) is directed by Quentin Tarantino. It is about a cocky Hollywood new-comer (Tarantino also in a parody of himself) who rents out the Penthouse for New Years Eve, and then plays a dangerous game that ends the film in a very funny way.

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with this film. After reading all the bad reviews, I was afraid I wouldn't like this it, but it wasn't as bad as they said. Rent it if your curious or bored, but don't buy it expecting it to be like other Tarantino films. Not bad, not great, just average.

-30-

An anthology film is often an interesting watch. Seeing as how multiple directors come together to create a project, if often gets people curious as to how each director's individual style meshes with the others, and what the finished film is like because of that. Sadly, most of the time, anthology films fail miserably, as the styles of each director are too different from one another to truly gel, meaning that while there may be standout parts here and there, they often don't work as complete films. Four Rooms unfortunately is one of the prime examples of this. While nowhere near as bad its initial hostile critical reaction would have you believe, the film is still very problematic.

The story is that Ted the Bellhop is asked to look after a hotel during New Year's Eve and while there has to deal with multiple situations including a convent of witches, a hostage situation involving an angry husband, babysitting for a gangster's children & a bunch of drunken Hollywood stars and directors having a very dangerous bet. That is the basic story of the film, with four segments in the film directed by a different person for each. Connecting these stories is Ted the Bellhop, who is one of the film's major problems. Tim Roth delivers one of his worst performances to date as Ted, hamming it up every chance he gets, and gets annoying rather quickly. While the film is a comedy, it isn't as wacky or as farcical as Roth plays it, lacking the restraint and subtly that all the other actors have, which clearly shows that he wasn't well directed, acting like something out of Fawlty Towers, and considering the seriousness of some scenes, feels widely out of place. All of this makes Ted not only not funny, but very annoying and hard to care for, and you'll wish for him to go away as soon as possible.

Each story varies in quality, although none of them are better than decent. The first one is The Missing Ingredient (directed by Allison Anders), whereby Ted has to have sex with a witch in order to create the ingredient needed in order to reverse the spell put on the coven's goddess Diana 40 years prior. It's about as ridiculous as it sounds. While it may appeal to some art-house fans, it is very corny, silly and cheesy. It is watchable though, acted well enough (Roth being the exception) and has a quirky charm to it that keeps you entertained throughout.

The second segment is The Wrong Man (directed by Alexandre Rockwell), and is honestly the worst segment of this film by a country mile. I'll go as far as to say it is one of the worst things ever put on a cinema screen. It consists of Roth going into the wrong room for delivery service and encounters an angry husband with a gun, and believes Ted to be the one who slept with his wife. Everyone acts way over-the-top in a non-comedic scenario (making the piece tonally confused), has multiple plot holes (Why does the angry husband go into the bathroom during a hostage situation, giving Ted the perfect opportunity to free his wife or call the police? Why doesn't Ted take advantage of this either, or after he leaves for that matter? Why does the wife mock and taunt her angry gun-wielding husband?) and has some forced ambiguity about the husband's homosexuality that is never explored. It is frankly unwatchable, and considering that Rockwell was the one who had the idea for the film in the first place, leads me to believe that he made a terrible film, knew it and dragged in the other directors to make other segments to hope no-one would notice it. Sadly, they did and it is no wonder that Rockwell hasn't worked much since the film came out.

The other two are the closet thing this film gets to decent. The Misbehavers (directed by Robert Rodriguez) is about Ted looking after some gangster's kids, with the instruction of not letting them misbehave. They do, and what follows maybe a one-joke skit, but it is quite funny, and the child actors are very good (Roth is thankfully restrained). It's unpleasantness towards the end (a dead hooker being found for example) may stop it from becoming great, but this is the best segment and it's punchline is priceless.

The final segment is The Man from Hollywood (directed by Quentin Tarantino), whereby Ted goes to a room of famous Hollywood actors and directors playing a drunken bet to chop off someone's finger for a $1,000 and Ted gets involved in the process. While funny and well acted, this is the most pointless segment in the film as it builds up to the bet and then just ends very aburptly, as if nothing happened. Yeah, no negative psychological side effects can come from chopping off from someone's finger. Makes sense to me.

Overall, this is just a failed experiment whose segments are widely uneven in terms of quality, the film is really smug at points and the thing connecting them together is really irritating and hard to care for. All of this combined makes this film something which while OK and not as bad as the critics at time would have you believe, isn't very good and it's no wonder why everyone involved has been actively trying to forget it ever happened. Sadly, it does and stands as a strong example as to why anthology film often don't work, as despite the talent behind camera, you often get overcooked messes like this. For curiosity's sake only.

I really don't understand why this film hasn't got a better rating. I mean, it's got everything: Women, cars, weapons, alcohol and Tarantino. It's just style itsself which made this film. Seriously, Tim Roth is so damn good in this film, his acting, his expressions and his behavior, all is perfect. You can have a good laugh about without even following the storyline (which is worth doing that, but anyway). The film is profound and the and the different parts of it are linked. Great film.

Four Rooms, the 4 part directed, 4 part written mix-matched movie turns out to be an awesome combination. With Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino working on this film, you seem to expect a trigger-happy film festival with plenty of bombs and explosives to spare. But what the final product turns out to be is a laugh-out-loud comedy which follows a bellhop's mishaps one night as he scrambles to keep his hotel in order. Tim Roth is always a great performer and in this movie there is no difference. Kudos indeed.

Even from the start, we have the Tarantino vibe here, although he's only partly responsible for the film. Different room, different writer/director. Tim Roth is to carry this film, and he really does get on your nerves, and even though he acts absurdly, over the top, off the wall, in a totally unrealistic (well, he's not the only one) character, it's what the role calls for, and in that context, he succeeds brilliantly. Watching him lose it, was the strongest moments. It's New Years Eve, and being the new bell boy, like the Gekko Brothers at The Titty Twister, Ted (don't call him Theodore) (Roth) he's got one hell of a night ahead of him. Lets start with the covern (not oven) of witches, where we get to see Ione's Skye's slightly pathetic boobs. A ceremony of bologne is in in the waiting. This is the weakest one of the four stories. Things get weirder and much more intense, as we move onto the lover's quarrel, where poor Ted as just having pashed Ione Skye, hits more serious waters, unwittingly getting in the middle, of this mad couple problems of infidelity, where the husband holds Teddy at gunpoint. Finally surviving these two nutjobs, where we do have a second serve from one of them (the less threatening) later on, we move onto The Misbehavers which provide a bizarre and stylishly different scenario, I liked, where finally we come to the main story we've all been waiting for, about a director, played by.... have a guess? and his entourage, who really set a good example of what stupid things people do, when they're drunk, minus a pinkie. Tarantino really steals the moments here, acting not like an actor, but a director acting like a director with a lot of CU shots, where his presence holds are complete attention. He's eloquent and his body language is fantastic. I just love watching him trying to act, but he's just being him, comparing movie's what not. He shows up the other writers with his input of dialogue, though of course, more suited behind a camera, despite his awesome confidence in front of it. Yes, that was the worst club sandwich I've ever seen too. Four Rooms is certainly different with same truly impressive performances, which I will note because they deserve credit, beside Roth who's wonderful of course. Refer by Surname: Skye, Proval, Beals especially, Wills especially, Banderas, Tomei. If a QT fan, don't pass it off. It's animation in the opening credits is a killer.

Quite different, with an unexpected story made up between four consecutive narratives. An incredible welcome of the new year with absolutely no predictable ending. Persons which appear on the screen surprise us one after another with their reputation and professionalism.

Starting from the topic of the flesh immediately grabs our interest by asking us to assume more vulgar development. Then stuns with a familiar image in an atypical role and carries us into the world of children garnished with a dead hooker. And the end is even more unexpected, especially if you do not know anything about the movie. The action takes us to the top floor of the hotel room where we find him. This time, there is almost no blood, though the focus again is on death and pain.

Maybe a little overstated but still I use it to make advertising of the place where I found out about it (https://www.facebook.com/sofest?fref=nf). I was impressed by the level of knowledge and headlines of movies that are shared there and decided to do an experiment whose result was quite successful. That is why I am moving on! You?

http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/

Short story anthologies can often suffer from being only as strong as their weakest link. This fact almost destroys Four Rooms, an anthology seemingly organized by Tarantino picking some of his favourite up-and-comers of his generation at the time. Allison Anders and Alexandre Rockwell has since faded into obscurity, but two of the directors on the bill, El Mariachi's Robert Rodriguez and the man himself, Quentin Tarantino, are now two of my personal favourite working directors. Four Rooms has too many weaknesses to fully recommend, but the final two segments almost fully redeem it.

The stories are mostly unconnected, save the presence of Tim Roth's Ted the bellhop character. As such, each segment should be reviewed individually.

The movie opens with Anders' The Missing Ingredient. A coven of witches convene in the honeymoon suite with a cauldron and nudity at their disposal, attempting to revive a fallen comrade. When one of them fails to obtain their sacrifice of semen, she must get it from the only man in sight...the bellhop.

This segment is by all means godawful. The only good thing I can even say about it is that it makes the next one look good in comparison. Ione Sky as the main witch has that girl-next-door look to her essential to her role, and is perhaps the only good thing about the segment. Madonna has a nothing role with an annoying goth daughter, who seems like she should have had a more important role but is instead throwaway. Of the other witches, only Lili Taylor is memorable in any way. The effects used are right out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and don't fit at all with the rest of the film. If you ignore this segment, the movie is likely all the better for it.

Rockwell's piece, The Wrong Man, has a very interesting setup, but fails to be consistent. Ted is given the wrong room number to deliver ice to, and ends up in the hands a gun-toting jealous husband (an excellent David Proval), who has his wife gagged up and is smoking out the man named Theodore she's been sleeping with.

The segment definitely has its moments, such as Ted yelling for help out of a bathroom window or Proval's gun-waving antics, but it digresses a little too much. A heart attack twist at the end is a major groaner, and Tim Roth hams it up far too much in his role here. The music is also quite horribly used. Not nearly as bad as the first part, but The Wrong Man doesn't add much to the movie.

The saving grace comes in Rodriguez's The Misbehavers, the direct precursor to Spy Kids. A smooth Spanish thug (a hilarious Antonio Banderas) wishes to attend a party with his wife, and pays Ted $500 to keep an eye on his children and make sure they don't misbehave. Through Vapo-Rub and dead bodies, of all things, Ted has his work cut out for him.

The Misbehavers is actually the high point of the entire film. The ending is simply hilarious, the setup is very well detailed. And, unlike the cleaner Spy Kids movies, its pretty damn dark. Banderas is absolutely excellent, as are the children.

This leads to the final story, Tarantino's The Man from Hollywood. Fed up with the crazy night, Ted calls his boss and complains that he's quitting. A call comes in from the penthouse, and he is convinced by her that he must fill their request, as an important customer from Hollywood is staying there. Ted caves and finds himself in the middle of one of the most eccentric bets straight out of Hitchcock.

While not as memorable as The Misbehavors, Tarantino's bit is very entertaining. It has that traditional Tarantino swagger. Tarantino himself plays the man from Hollywood, making the dialogue a little more annoying but at the same time all the more stylish. Marisa Tomei is excellent in her short role. And Bruce Willis has a cameo. Whats not the love? The ending is simply amazing as well.

The only thing left to address is Tim Roth, the most uneven part of the whole picture. As the only character in all stories, being under four different directors must be difficult to maintain consistency. As such, Tim Roth gives us two horrible performances (The Missing Ingredient and The Wrong Man), one brilliant one (The Misbehavors) and one very strong one (Man from Hollywood). While his 50s-sitcom performance in Missing Ingredient fits in with the general badness of that segment, his performance is arguably the worst part of The Wrong Man. His timing in The Misbehavors is the stuff of legend, as is his role at the end of Man from Hollywood.

If you switch on halfway through, Four Rooms is a delightful little hodgepodge movie. Its a shame two poor segments distract from that. For simplicity, here's all four rated individually:

The Missing Ingredient: 10% The Wrong Man: 30% The Misbehavors: 90% The Man from Hollywood: 85%

At least you leave it feeling good, despite sitting through some drudge at first.

This is an excellent film... Looking at the credits the usual gang are all listed:- Tarantino, Rodriguez, Bender, Banderas, Roth....

As the name might suggest after a brief intro the film is split into four stories (each in a different room). The stories act independently of each other, although if you watch/listen carefully you should be able to spot how they interlink, (for instance; a background phone call made during the misbehaver's). The character who moves between all the stories is played by Tim Roth; The Bellhop. Roth is working on New years eve in the hotel as the bellhop. Throughout the night for one reason or another Roth is called into each of the four rooms and so each story begins.

If you are a fan of films which usually involve Tarantino, Rodriguez and Bender, or if you just like to see something refreshing and different once in a while then you will like this. If on the other hand you need great special effects, and actors who can't act, then you probably won't enjoy 'Four Rooms'

The dialogue is pretty intelligent, and the acting is excellent, although perhaps not to everyone's taste. Tim Roths character seems to be a bit of a tribute to "The Bell Boy" which is mentioned in the film (in true Tarantino style, who usually references other films in his own). Tim Roth is bang on as the Bellhop and I couldn't think of anyone better to play the role.

The hardest part for me, was deciding which story I liked the best. The first was light hearted and hilarious. Admittedly I didn't enjoy the second story as much, it was a little slow. The style reminded me of the cut scene from Pulp Fiction with Esmeralda and Butch after the fight - it was interesting, good, but slowed the whole film down. The third story was much more attention grabbing and constantly had me cringing waiting for the worst to happen. The final story was witty, pretty fast moving, and when the purpose of Tarantino's bet is revealed you find yourself moving closer to the edge of your seat until the credits role.

Favourite bits:- The cheeky dialogue in the first story (The missing ingredient) Roth telling the misbehaver's how his baby sitter used to make sure he stayed in bed with his eyes closed. Tarantino's bet and the final conclusion!

Like many I got suckered into watching this film from the list of stars and director/writers (esp Tarantino) that participated in this exercise.

I had no idea that it was *this* bad. It starts with the common thread, the bellboy, Tim Roth. It seemed like he was trying to be the British incarnation of Don Knotts trying to be Jerry Lewis. It was one of the most annoying and incomprehensibly bad performances, I've ever seen from a mainstream actor.

He gets no help from what passes for plot. The first two stories seemed like they came from a 10 second pre-improv conference. The third plot was a shaggy dog story that could have worked had it been better executed and the fourth one, Tarantino's, to be fair actually sustained about 5 minutes of interest - unfortunately at the very end of the movie after 90+ minutes of endless torture.

Those last 2 plots might have been worthwhile except for the smarmy self-indulgent performances of the stars. Tarantino is not as nearly as clever or funny as he thinks he is, and neither is Willis. The strongest performance might have been that of Banderas who almost rescued the third segment with his self-mocking playfulness.

Overall, it felt like I was at one of those bad improv theatres where the actors know the only people in the audience are drunk/stoned friends, family and fanboys. If that doesn't describe you - stay far away from this mess. It really is *that* bad.

I've decided to review each segment separately, this may take a while so if you can't be bothered please feel free to move on, but I'm trying to save you time and money.

Segment#1: The Missing Ingredient

Aka this biggest piece of sh*t I've ever had the (dis)pleasure of viewing. If you want to see how not to make a short story then watch this segment, it's badly timed, badly judged, badly acted - just plain bad. I gave up watching the film on the first attempt because this was just awful, why the hell did they cast Madonna, avoid at all costs. (1/10)

Segment#2: The Wrong Man

Things don't get much better in Rockwell's piece, the cinematography and production design are nice but besides that the entire thing is just dull, the plot is just too deeply structured to work on this small running time. More threatening than comedic; let's move on. (3/10)

Segment#3: The Misbehavers

Believe what others have written, this IS the reason to watch this movie, brilliant non-stop hilarity as Tim Roth's Ted the Bellboy is left in charge of two brat-ish troublesome kids. Rodriguez has a great handle on the mixture of slapstick farce and black comedy that's very satisfying. Things can only get better... (9/10)

Segment#4: The Man From Hollywood ...Except they don't. Tarantino's segment is good enough, lots of experiments with primary colours and long stedicam tracking shots, but you can't help thinking the film is just pandering to Tarantino's ego (he play's the biggest star in Hollywood). But the ending works well and the tension built is fantastic. (8/10)

To finish, Four Rooms would have been better if they had scraped the first two monstrosities (Anders and Rockwell where riding the coattails of Rodriguez and Tarantino anyway and have no where near as much talent) and kept the film as an hour-long TV special. If you must watch it, fast forward the first two segments, you'll save a lot of time and effort...

Overall rating 4/10

after having seen blade2 i REALLY didnt think movies could get any worse. i was wrong. oh MAN was i wrong ! i'm really at a terrible loss of words to describe how utterly BAD it was. this movie has no reason whatsoever to exist, there's nothing about it that would even come CLOSE to being associated with the word "quality". oh my god, i'd rather stick my head in a stinking garbage can for 90 minutes than watch this movie again. at least i understand now why bruce willis didnt want to have his name in the credits...

First Story- * 1/2 out of ****

Second Story- ** out of ****

Third Story- ***1/2 out of ****

Forth Story- **** out of ****

This film is strange, but it gets better as it goes along. It is difficult to get into, but once the viewer gets into it, it is a funny, disturbing, and unique film. The plot is basically of a bellboy(played by the always good, Tim Roth) who has to take care of a hotel for the night on New Years Eve. He gets involved in some strange and off-color characters and slowly is driven insane by it all. There are four stories total. he first one is about a coven of witches who must find semen for their magic potion to resurrect a model. The second is about a suspicious husband who ties his wife up and holds a gun to the bellboy's face because he thinks she is cheating on him with the bellboy, only the bellboy soon discovers that this is just a weird trick. The third story(and by for the goriest) is about a rich man and his wife leaving his children alone at the hotel with the bellboy to babysit. And the forth is about a macabre bet involving a bunch of Hollywood yuppies, a car, a lighter, and removal of body parts.

The first story is really only for certain audiences. I didn't dig it, but I could see why certain people may. The jokes about sex and possible incest were tiresome, the witches were stereotypes and were poor ones, and the camera angles were terrible never allowing the audience to really get into the story. The reason why is because it is shown at a fly-on-the-wall distance and for a plot involving witches it helps to know what they are up to in a closer way. Normally this cinematic approach would work well, most noticeably the brilliant Peter Greenway film, THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE, AND HER LOVER, which the movie strongly reminded me of for some reason and Tim Roth was also in it.

The second story was very perverse but didn't offer any way to involve the viewer in actually finding it interesting which it should have been. There is a sequence in which Tim Roth is put to inane stunt-work where he must get himself back into the apartment, even though he is falling out of it through the window. The stunt seems misguided and out of place in the drama of this story. The ideas are good, but the execution didn't quite work. Some pretty strange intensity by Jennifer Beals here.

The film takes a large jump forward into sharp comedy and independent ideas. The tone was mean-spirited and wicked. The children were appropriately mischievous and the father(Antonio Banderes) was nuts. The camera work was involving, and the comedic notes were hit correctly. The story worked and the viewer will have it stuck in their minds for days if they can't make it to the next story.

The best of the four is the last one, with quick and sensible dialog, an inspired plot, appropriate acting, and an off-kilter ending that is shocking, brutal, and brilliant.

Rated R for pervasive strong language, sexuality and some drug use.

Flaky, flippant substitute-bellhop in a run-down Hollywood hotel encounters a coven of comely witches, a psychotic man and his wife involved in sexual, violent role-playing, a gangster and his wife who need a babysitter for their precocious kids, and a wire-strung Hollywood auteur who proposes a bloody game of winner-take-all. Hinging on the unfunny results of Tim Roth's performance as the uniformed bellboy, this poorly-made, inconsistent, off-putting collage of eccentrics falls completely flat. Roth, who is not a rubber-faced comedian (but who hopes to be here), attempts a bon vivant air of light-hearted smugness that just seems perverse. The rest of the talented cast is either humiliated (Ione Skye, as a half-naked witch) or used for decoration or as a punch-line. Antonio Banderas' sleek, oily gangster is amusing, and the little kids are quite good, but their segment ends on an odious, completely inappropriate note--and yet nobody behind or in front of the camera wants to show any responsibility. The feeling is one of 'anything for a laugh', yet the writing is wincingly unfunny, and the four different directors are simply not in sync (not with each other nor with the material), particularly Quentin Tarantino, who stars in and directed the final segment and appears to be winging it. * from ****

As though Mr. Bean wasn't tiresome enough, this film puts Tim Roth into a role with the same sort of inane physical comedy, and it is painful to watch. All his foppish affectations are utterly unfunny, but at least it helps keep the movie consistent.

The only bright spot is the third segment, directed by Robert Rodriguez, so if you stay awake that long, check it out. Antonio Banderas is surprisingly good, and the whole segment has a great way of piling on the complications to create a chaotic ending.

The fourth segment will make you puke, watching Tarantino thinking he can act. the worst thing about that is that he's also the director, so he gives himself plenty of screen time. Notice during his monologue to Tim Roth, the camera never once leaves his face! Obviously, he's got rather a high opinion of his execrable acting abilities. Lucky for him he's a director, otherwise he'd never appear on film. Oh, how I wish it were so.

Then there's the plot. Stolen from a Hitchcock story which was stolen from a Roald Dahl story. They do acknowledge the Hitchcock thing, but it's merely a not-so-clever ploy to try and disguise the fact that he didn't even come up with a story, but used some previously reheated leftovers from 30 years ago. There are no twists whatsoever on the Hitchcock theme that Tarantino describes. So, bad enough you have to endure his "acting," but you don't even get a good tale out of it.

So all in all, a terrible film. Fast forward to the third story, and you can safely skip the rest.

I noticed looking over the list of comments about this movie that a lot of people were urging viewers to fast forward through the first 45 minutes of this movie. All I have to say is that those people are PRUDES and LACK A SENSE OF HUMOR. The first part of the film (with Madonna as one of the witches) is my absolute favorite part. It is full of wicked humor that I found wonderful. Don't hesitate to watch the flick. Madonna IS A GREAT ACTRESS no matter how much people like to cut her down. So what if some of her movies come off as cheesy---they are meant to. Give the first part of the movie a chance and don't be afraid to laugh, and please cut Madonna some slack.

I registered to this site especially to warn the world: don't waste your time on this movie. It seems to be the result of overconfident Hollywood producers who figured that some critical mass of props, make up, "atmosphere", homages and mannerisms can create a masterpiece. Or at least a watchable feature film. The result is a collection of four pointless sequences (definitely not "stories"), only the third of which is mildly entertaining. I know that almost 20 years after its production, very few people will come across this movie. However, if my review can deter even one human from throwing away 90 minutes of his/her life, it's worth the effort. Oh, and in case you're a fan of the "colossal failure" genre - this thing is not colossal in any sense. It doesn't even deserve sarcasm. Just ignore it.

This movie was horrible. It was the worst movie I have seen since How High. Quentin has definitely redeemed himself since he made this movie. It was amazing to see such big named actors such as Bruce Willis and Antonio Banderas in this movie. The only reason I can see why they decided to play in this film was to give a fresh starting Quentin Tarantino a chance. This movie stunk so bad I can still smell it even after I returned it to the video store. This movie just didn't do anything. It was boring and flat from start to finish. Please do not rent this movie. Spend your money on some gum or a coke. You'll definitely be spending your money on something more meaningful.

This is what happens when creative people think they can do anything and it will work. Its also what happens when "hot"celebrities are allowed to make a joke thats nothing but a self serving in joke.

This is a bunch of stories, by different directors none of which is very good. Trying to figure out which segment is better is sort of like trying to figure out which pile of garbage is the best.

If you've never heard of this film, I'm not surprised since the film was barely released to theaters. It almost never plays on TV, so unless you've sought it out, something I can't recommend, you've never seen it.

Ultimately, other than for money the only reason I can think this was made was so that the directors would know that they never could make a worse film.

3 out of 10

What a premise, let's take four promising directors and let them each shoot an unrelated scene. This isn't a movie, it is a high school skit. I recommend you avoid it at all costs. And someone please stop Quentin Tarantino before he acts again.