'The Room': Worst Movie Ever Made? Then it'll probably win an Oscar

For a few years now the film "The Room" has consistently grown in popularity. Not because it's good, but because it's so bad. It's been called "The Worst Film Ever Made". Well, I've seen it, and trust me, it's nowhere near as bad as the Oscar-winning (still can't figure that one out) "No Country For Old Men" and the new "Public Enemies".

"The Room" has been called "The BEST worst film ever made". In other words, it's so bad it's actually fun to watch. "NCFOPM" and "PE" on the other hand, are just plain BAD.

Personally, I think the critically-lavished Coen Brothers wanted to find out whether or not they were still being judged on their talent rather than the fact that they were indie darlings. So they wrote and directed the absolute worst film they could think of: "No Country For Old Men". Problem was, the members of the Academy -- who have proven time and time again they are totally disconnected from the rest of the world -- began praising it as a masterpiece. At that point the Coens were trapped. If they announced NCFOM was just a joke on the film world, they'd be ostracized from the industry. So they kept their mouths shut as award after award fell into their hands. And all along it drove them into fits of despair.

Don't believe me? Go back and take a look at their faces when they accepted the Oscar for Best Picture. They look MISERABLE! If you win the top Oscar, you get VERY excited. You smile, you laugh, you have the time of your life. Not those two guys. They looked like they were just diagnosed with cancer.

That brings us to "Public Enemies" by director Michael Mann. This is a movie SO bad, it may win the Oscar, too. It's almost three hours(!!) of mediocre acting, listless characters, unimaginative direction, a pointless script and a lack of any real suspense, drama or action (and guys standing in one spot shooting guns does NOT count as action). Yet -- again -- critics are slobbering all over it.

WHY?? It's as if the Academy only nominates films they know are lifeless and boring.

BTW, I think that's why "The Dark Knight" wasn't nominated last year. If not for the phenomenal job done by Heath Ledger as the Joker, that film would have easily won. Because without Joker, that film was just like NCFOM and PE -- lifeless, boring and pointless. In fact, I'm surprised "Batman Begins" didn't grab every Oscar available. That borefest had no reason for existing.

No wonder the Oscar telecast has been consistently losing viewers year after year. Long ago, general audiences realized it was nothing but a self-centered pat-on-the-back for an organization out to prove what geniuses they THINK they are. They are totally out of touch with mainstream moviegoers. Each year they keep nominating films no one went to see for the top awards. In fact, the last time a successful film (i.e. one people actually wanted to watch) won Best Picture was "Titanic" -- over ten years ago!

This year (although they deny their true reason) the Academy increased nominations for Best Picture to ten films in a desperate attempt to draw more viewers. They'll undoubtedly nominate five more mass-friendly films along with their usual indies no one saw. Problem is, even if viewer ship does increase, it won't last long. People will realize they've been duped when the Academy STILL picks one of their "art house" favorites to win. It's like those time-share companies who get you to sit in on their presentations by promising you a huge gift, then just shove a coupon for a free cheap meal in your hand at the end.

No thanks. I'll pass.

In the meantime, check out the trailer for "The Room" at www.theroommovie.com

As bad as it is, it's still more enjoyable than any part of "No Country", "Public Enemies" or anything else the Academy may pick this year.