web counter
 

The Roommate Review: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (71)

watch-the-roommate-online-free.jpg

Bravo! Bravo! You’ve outdone yourself, Hollywood! Step aside One Missed Call. The Unborn? You weren’t even in contention. White Noise? Don’t you wish. Nothing can or ever will compare. This is it! Everyone else is an also ran. The Roommate has done it. It has completely mastered the art of the completely unnecessary film. It’s a masterpiece of pointlessness! A tour de force of irrelevance. Just when you thought that the studio system couldn’t get any more slack-jawed, they make The Roommate, the most unneeded, most uncalled for, the most dispensable movie ever to grace the Silver Screen!

So many layers! It’s tedium piled on top of indifference wrapped in a crusty nugget of boredom. How did you do it, Christian E. Christiansen? And is that your real name? Jesus Christ, The Roommate contains precisely the amount of originality you’d expect from a director whose parents gave their child an abridged version of his last name. Indeed, The Roommate is an abridged version of Single-White Female set in a college dorm, only all the good parts, everything even remotely compelling or interesting in SWF has been edited out, stripped down to its banal, laborious elements and spliced back together with lithium, Minka Kelly’s exasperated sigh, and Leighton Meester’s vacuousness. In Men in Black III, they will no longer have to use the Neuralyzer to erase people’s memories — just sit them down in front of The Roommate, and afterwards, they will walk away with no memory of the last three days save for a foggy recollection that Billy Zane was somehow involved.

Moviegoers for decades to come will be in complete awe of The Roommate, of the holy power of the impotent minds who managed to create something this inconsequential. There’s not a single shot, not a single idea, not a single moment in The Roommate that is even accidentally redeeming. It’s a roller coaster of malaise. It’s not even a pile of shit; it’s a limp turd, flapping in the wind, five-stars of perfectly executed worthlessness.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Cleopatra by Stacy Schiff | Sanctum | Well, It's No Sarlacc →









Comments

I can't wait to see your "praise" taken out of context in one of their ads.

Posted by: ramzib at February 4, 2011 2:38 PM

Okay there Dustin, I'm going to take issue with hammering ol' Christian for his name. Children have no control over naming, and those of us who have a first name that is a shortened version of their last name can still lead normal productive lives.

I'm not defending the movie though. I'm sure that's a piece of crap.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at February 4, 2011 2:39 PM

Wait a minute...what?

I mean, I didn't think it'd be a masterpiece but, as much as I love your sarcastic mini-reviews (and I do, I promise) I just...no exposition?

Posted by: Slappysquirrel at February 4, 2011 2:40 PM

Don't defend him, mrcreosote (who in reality is obviously Cre Cresote). This is just another example of indefensible film making.

Posted by: sittingpat at February 4, 2011 2:44 PM

no exposition

Um, from the commercials, I will now give you the exposition:

Exactly like Single White Female, with slightly younger protagonists, minus any semblance of anything interesting, minus any acting talent, minus the surprise fellatio and the stiletto to the eye that made the first one memorable.

Posted by: MM at February 4, 2011 2:44 PM

So, Mrcreosote, is your first name Creo, or Sote?

Posted by: TheOtherGreg at February 4, 2011 2:46 PM

I'm gonna kick yer ass, son.

Posted by: Kris Kristofferson at February 4, 2011 2:50 PM

Soon the super karate monkey death car would park in YOUR space.

Posted by: Jimmy James at February 4, 2011 2:55 PM

Well, thanks, MM I truly appreciate the commentary but fine, I'll get over it.

Posted by: Slappysquirrel at February 4, 2011 2:55 PM

More pointless than The Unborn? DAMN, but that's an accomplishment.

Posted by: jthomas666 at February 4, 2011 2:58 PM

You'd think he'd at least have the decency to get that turd in the bowl rather than just letting it flap forlornly in the wind.

Posted by: admin at February 4, 2011 3:00 PM

My name is obviously Mr Mrcreosote. Did you think that Mr was an honorific?

In reality my name is that of a debauched game show host. My parents suffered from a complete lack of either imagination or effort.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at February 4, 2011 3:06 PM

Dustin, I have nothing against you, really, in fact I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but dear god I love nothing more than when you watch a horrible film. Your misery brightens my day, your despair makes me cackle with glee and every tear you shed in boredom is like the Gods' nectar. I'm sure you'll be rewarded for your suffering in the next life. You'll be reborn as The Mighty Smiter of Witless Fucks.

Posted by: Joker at February 4, 2011 3:07 PM

So no gratuitous sex scene between Meester and Kelly? You're right. Completely pointless movie.

Posted by: Dave at February 4, 2011 3:08 PM

Holy wow. I knew it was a SWF ripoff, but it sounds like it's not even trying to be that good a ripoff!

What rules are now absent in this prave, post-Roommate new world? Will the trailer become the actual movie? Can anyone be more vacuous without a medical team on standby to ensure the cute actor/actress doesn't "act" themselves into a coma? Will movie companies just mail us all bills to pay just to not see this movie?

I'm scared. Someone hold me.

Posted by: Fredo at February 4, 2011 3:09 PM

Billy Zane's somehow involved? Count me in. I love him. That's pretty much all I got from this article. I could tell by the previews that this movie was pointless. Will I watch? Yes, probably.

Posted by: Sarah at February 4, 2011 3:11 PM

"★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ... A tour de force ... Moviegoers for decades to come will be in complete awe of The Roommate." -Dustin Rowles, Pajiba.com

Posted by: Mez at February 4, 2011 3:20 PM

That's some fine floccinaucinihilipilification right there, Dustin.

Posted by: Rykker at February 4, 2011 3:22 PM

ERUDITE'D

Posted by: Rykker at February 4, 2011 3:24 PM

but minka kelly is an angel who fell from heaven to fellate derek jeter and can do know wrong with her golden brown skin and perfect body and bone structure and symmetrical face and soft hair that cascades over her shoulders like a beautiful babbling brook

Posted by: superking at February 4, 2011 3:25 PM

*slow clap*

Posted by: the_wakeful at February 4, 2011 3:26 PM

I can't even tell the difference between Minka Kelly & Leighton Meester. Why the hell is Kelly famous? I know that (ostensibly) Meester is known for being on that Gossip Girl thingie, but I know nothing about why Kelly exists in the public eye.

Please enlighten me.

That being said, did they purposefully cast two people who looked like echoes of each other? Was this a conscious decision having to do with the *struggles not to throw up in own mouth* "plot"? Or has it finally happened...are there literally only three prototypes each of blonde, brunette and redhead white starlets bouncing around Hollywood?

And I don't mean three TYPES—I mean, literally, three fucking people. They've all just morphed into each other, like some sort of vacuous Borg.

Posted by: Vonnegut Slut at February 4, 2011 3:34 PM

I couldn't get past the 30 yr olds playing college kids.

I have such mixed emotions about Minka. She is absurdly beautiful. But she is a terrible actress.

Posted by: Sean at February 4, 2011 3:47 PM

Dustin, don't ever change.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at February 4, 2011 3:49 PM

These girls had names? I just thought of them are Brunette and Not-So-Brunette.

Also, a horrible movie does not give you the excuse for horrible typos, Mr. Rowles.

Posted by: duckandcover at February 4, 2011 3:49 PM

I saw the 5 stars and then was inexplicably cheered to see that this is, indeed, a scathing review.

Posted by: lingli at February 4, 2011 3:54 PM

@Vonnegut Slut , I think she is famous simply for banging Derek Jeter. It's easier to get famous by banging someone famous than to have any actual talent.

Posted by: Sarah at February 4, 2011 4:01 PM

"...they will walk away with no memory of the last three days save for a foggy recollection that Billy Zane was somehow involved."

Just like the survivors of "Titanic" (both the movie and the ship).

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at February 4, 2011 4:02 PM

Minka Kelly - famous for Friday Night Lights (the TV show), the girl at the end of (500) Days of Summer and the latest recipient of the Derek Jeter strain of hep C.

Posted by: Fredo at February 4, 2011 4:04 PM

I've heard of a 'Backhanded Complement", but this was more like "Ball-Peen Praise".

Hmmmm...

I walked away from the desk for a minute before sending this post and upon re-reading it have determined that this sounds far too filthy to deserve being chained to this weak movie. So...

"Sledgehammer Flattery"?

Posted by: bleujayone at February 4, 2011 4:06 PM

Sean, then you clearly never watched Dawson's Creek or 90210, Original Flavor. It was 30 year olds playing high school students.

Well done, Dustin. WELL DONE.

Posted by: Melody at February 4, 2011 4:09 PM

So you mean to tell me that there isn't a Meester revamp of the Jennifer Jason Leigh masturbation scene?

::puts gun to temple::

Posted by: readrick at February 4, 2011 4:39 PM

Fredo, she's Autumn??

Wow, you guys are right about generic. She's so generic that I didn't even know she was generic.

Though I remember her from the cover of Esquire. Can't really miss a name with the word "Mink" in it without thinking, "... your parents gave you a feminine rodent name?" I really want her stomach (See Esquire cover). But I want food more.

Posted by: denesteak at February 4, 2011 4:51 PM

latest recipient of the Derek Jeter strain of hep C.

And the "C" is for "Champion"!

I mean, really, he's the only athlete's that's done it right in the last 20 years--bang every hot young piece of ass Hollywood has to offer, don't be an idiot and get married, stay away from Waffle House servers, porn stars and stage-five clingers, don't take craiglist-esque dickshots, and let Alex Rodriguez find new and further hideously Skeletor-like broads so as to look beneath you.

Posted by: D-Day at February 4, 2011 4:55 PM

I haven't seen this movie, but I love this review. Your pithy comments and visual imagery made me feel almost as if I've been there, seen that. Plus it gave me the best laugh I've had all day. Thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Marain at February 4, 2011 7:50 PM

More pointless than When a Stranger Calls, the remake that almost ruined my relationship with my only brother? I somehow doubt it.

Posted by: Robert at February 4, 2011 8:12 PM

You had me at the five stars, Mr. Rowles.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at February 4, 2011 9:49 PM

No! No, god dammit! Dustin needs to attach a picture of his movie stub for this. Because I'm convinced he mailed in this article so much he didn't even bother to see the film.

This has been a growing trend with Mr. Rowles, and it is extremely disappointing. A bad looking movie comes out, and rather than providing any kind of actual, y'know, review, Mr Rowles will just type up a generic three to four paragraphs of semi-outrage. Which is fine. This is Pajiba, home of wonderfully elitist snobbery. But in my mind it was always Pajiba - come for the snobbery, stay for the well written reviews and content. And this is not a film review. It, too, is a limp turd flapping on a breeze of meaningless. So file this under one of the many new categories of content, but do not mistake this for a film review. I suggest 'Eloquent Outrage.'

For shame, Rowles, for shame.

Posted by: WD at February 5, 2011 5:24 AM

WD, have you looked at other reviews? The vast majority of critics are saying the same thing about this film. Pick any two of his points, and they appear in almost every review, even the positive ones.

I've accused Dustin of this before and I think it might just be how he handles really bad films. If he's not willing to talk about it--or can't find anything he wants to talk about--the review can seem vague. He's gotten much better recently at adding in enough detail to show he actually did watch the film. For example, in a trailer that's all quick cuts and voice overs, how would Dustin be able to write about the leading performances? In particular, details of the leading performances not shown in the trailer? Or how the film takes nothing worthwhile from Single White Female? If you picked up all the details in that second paragraph from the trailer, you are far better at reading two second scene clips and shit voice-overs than I am.

Posted by: Robert at February 5, 2011 8:04 AM

Dang! I thought he liked this one.

Posted by: logan at February 5, 2011 9:59 AM

I wouldn't go so far as to say Dustin didn't see the movie, but I have to agree that this is fairly lazy and not much of a film review. It's a rant, to be sure, and fairly funny, but it contains no depth whatsoever. If that's some sort of meta-critique based on the subject also lacking depth, well, it's lost in the rage and attempts at witty bromides. And if that is true, it would still be lazy.

A better commentary, in my opinion, would have been a deep, thoughtful, actually scathing-review-based-on-the-film's-own-myriad-faults-described-in-sarcastically-glowing-praise. But that would take time and effort, and I'm certain The Roommate doesn't deserve either. Still, if you're going to call it the Most Useless Movie of All Time, your arguments ought to be appropriately useful.

This review, without taking into consideration any other review (because, honestly, no critic writing about a current film should just expect his/her readers to be aware of every other analysis out there), is mostly useless. Sure, we get that you didn't like it due to it's unoriginality and poor performances, but it's ultimately as banal as the movie. We expect better because you're better than that.

Posted by: RobP at February 5, 2011 10:49 AM

a debauched game show host.
---
Alex T. Alexander, is that you?

Posted by: , at February 5, 2011 11:07 AM

"Sledgehammer Flattery"?

--------------------------------
i use "pimp-slap applause," mahself.

Posted by: firedmyass at February 5, 2011 12:32 PM

Dear RobP,

you don't waste a silver bullet if it's just some dude who thinks he's a werewolf.

Posted by: firedmyass at February 5, 2011 12:38 PM

I'm pretty sure his name used to be Christian E. Christianberg.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at February 5, 2011 12:58 PM

To Robert - I think that his main points are reiterated in every other review written of this film actually work for the argument that he didn't bother to sit through the film.

To RobP - Precisely. I realized while writing my half-asleep comment this morning that perhaps Rowles was going with some sort of meta review, by providing a meaningless, useless review to a movie he feels is also meaningless and useless. But, no, this was still mailed in even if that was the point.

As a reader here for over five years, I demand better. I don't post often - the last time I did was to snap/rant over one of the bajillion lazy list posts that this website has decided is the new standard format for click-generating content. In that rant I said that I used to come to Pajiba for the content, but that it's basically become filler. No problem, for the last month I've skipped the filler. But now even what is traditionally the content (reviews of movies) has become filler?! Pretty soon I'll have no way of sorting out the good Pajiba articles from the bad Pajiba articles, and I'll be forced to seek out another intelligent-yet-bitchy movie blog. Pajiba has expanded like the tentacles of Godtopus into every possible topic that can be blogged about, and for my money, seems to have suffered for doing so.

I'll stop ranting now. This movie was probably utter crap. I just wish I had a good review skewering it so I knew for sure.

Posted by: WD at February 5, 2011 1:52 PM

A tour de force of irrelevance

What is Adam Sandler's entire existence?

Posted by: Parker Jammstein at February 5, 2011 2:25 PM

I like to go by Treb Trebek.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at February 5, 2011 2:32 PM

I'm sorry, but is this a review? Can you actually review it instead of trying (and failing) to be funny/bitchy?

Posted by: stump at February 5, 2011 5:43 PM

You guys should totally demand a refund.

...whattya mean, nobody's paying a subscription fee?! Dustin told me that was a new thing and everybody was paying it!

DAMN YOU, ROOOOOWLES!!!!!!

Posted by: Anna von Beav at February 5, 2011 6:02 PM

No. Sorry, RobP and WD. I do not want to read summaries of crap like this. From ludicrous, pointless movies like this, all I want is a rant. Because all I FEEL is a rant. There is absolutely no point in Dustin's wasting his time or energy in regurgitating the plot, or "analysing" wht might possibly have been going through the minds of the people involved in the making of this tripe. We KNOW what it was: let's make a quick buck. It's insulting to us all. And it's insulting to Dustin to demand that he spend more than a half hour on a "review" of this crap -- he already lost 98 minutes of his life. I'm just grateful he gave us a good laugh on the raving madman routine, to prove he hasn't lost his sense of humour.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at February 5, 2011 6:14 PM

Fuck you. I'm still going to see it tomorrow. I can't avoid movies about obsession. It's like I'm obsessed or something.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at February 5, 2011 6:16 PM

Hey, since we're demanding shit: I demand that you stop fucking demanding shit.

I DEMAND A RECOUNT.

Posted by: Figgy at February 5, 2011 6:24 PM

"That's some fine floccinaucinihilipilification..."

Impressive sesquipedalia, Rykker -- well done! You deserve its antonym.

Posted by: flickfan at February 5, 2011 6:40 PM

Okay, I got over my crippling self-absorption andread the other comments. Do you people really feel a need for specific plot points, character analysis and summaries? The review posted already involves signifigantly more effort than was involved in writing the movie. If you need to know exactly how come the crazy roommate is crazy then congratulations from breaking out of that North Korean jail cell you've spent the past 25 years in. In other news there's no more Soviet Union, you can get parachute pants reeeeally cheap and cell phones now weigh less than a small dog. Or you could go back to any of a half dozen films that have already done this and read their reviews. A spoiler here-the slutty friend? She's gonna get it.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at February 5, 2011 7:05 PM

This movie is what I commonly refer to as a "turd de force". I don't need plot points, in-depth analysis, or whatever the hell people are demanding. If Dustin's review is beautifully snarky and dismissing of a movie like this one? That means he didn't like it. It means it was horrible, less deserving of a proper review than whatever pseudo-book Snooki shat out of her orange ass.

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at February 5, 2011 7:16 PM

Dustin's review was stupid to read. All it accomplished was that we now know Dustin thinks he is too good for this movie, but that review didn't prove it.

I'd be itnerested to see how Leighton did as the crazy. If Minka really is one-note, and various other things.

It's his site, he can do what he wants. It was crappy.

Posted by: stump at February 5, 2011 10:14 PM

Chalk up another one for "Um, really? You guys really want to hear an in-depth discussion of the shittastic elements of this pointless movie?" Get over it!!!

Posted by: MM at February 5, 2011 10:45 PM

Yeah I'm with Maryscott. I don't want or need a play by play of a totally shitty, pointless movie. If I wrote reviews for movies like that, mine would be even worse. Along the lines of: made me hate life for two hours. I had fantasies of harming the producers.

Or just: this movie sucked so many many many balls, save your money. Even two hours of ACTUAL ball sucking would be more entertaining.

So be glad I'm not writing these!

Posted by: Snuggiepants at February 5, 2011 11:54 PM

I saw the thing. God help me, I saw it. Wouldn't have gone at all, but for the fact that I have 13- and 15-year-old nieces visiting for a week and they insisted. Even they, Gossip Girl fans, were struck by the thing's awesome crappiness.

Not only is Billy Zane in it, but Frances Fisher (Rose's mom in Titanic) and Tomas Arana (a pretty decent character actor) make appearances. I can only assume that they all have money problems and were in desperate need of paychecks. Good God.

Posted by: PDamian at February 5, 2011 11:54 PM

I'm confused as to why so many here seem to be in need of a description of the film for it to be a true review.

As someone else already said - watch the commercial (it's on every 5 goddamn minutes) and you've got it. What more do you need? A reason maybe why the crazy biatch wants to "be" her roommate? A reason why she seems eager to kill anybody who gets close? Or a reason why they keep making this same damn film over and over. Seriously, how many times do we need to see this story? Is it some marketing thing because corporate wonks have found out the women have huge egos and think every other chick wants to be them? Or do we just need another movie to give chicks another reason to be irrationally bitchy to each other?

Posted by: Protoguy at February 6, 2011 12:18 AM

This is an awful game where no one can possibly win.

My tiny city in Louisiana managed to sell out almost every showing of The Roommate this evening. Ahh. Yeah. It hurts my heart in a sting-y, burn-y way.

Posted by: ssarah at February 6, 2011 2:11 AM

Yeh, that's why they keep making em...
Because people will do what they're told if told enuff

Posted by: protoguy at February 6, 2011 2:14 AM

So you did you or didn't like it?

Posted by: clancys_daddy at February 6, 2011 8:51 AM

When I first saw the previews for this, I thought it looked like something Lifetime would show, and I wondered how it had made it to the big screen. After reading your review, it sounds like it would have been perfect for Lifetime.

Posted by: Tracy at February 6, 2011 1:23 PM

How about this rundown?

PG-13. Stars two pretty young "actresses" of varying quality who were in different TV shows of - varying quality. Target demographic would appear to be young, 'Twilight'-loving white females anywhere between 11 and 19 years of age, like PDamian's 13- and 15-year-old nieces. Released in the cold February, where the movie theater is one of the few indoor hangouts besides the mall. And just in time for Valentine's Day, when their boyfriends can take them after they've watched it with their girlfriends the weekend before.

It's not a review, to be sure; however, the movie is a genius marketing product, as evidenced by it's No. 1 spot this week, will make millions despite being called a "turd," and is a helluva lot more info than Dustin bothered to provide.

If anyone can remember the precious 'white box' without a single word or anything resembling a review posted not long ago, one has to admit that the reviewer has a particular fondness for sometimes saying less than nothing and assuming his reading audience will 'get it'. Which the majority probably does. Which also doesn't make it humorous or helpful, or even "randomly" serious, for that matter.

Posted by: abliac at February 6, 2011 3:13 PM

I saw it. Wow. That's all I can say: wow.

But I also saw "True Grit" today. So I guess it's all good.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at February 7, 2011 1:02 AM

Whatever happened to Bridget Fonda's career, anyway?

Posted by: , at February 7, 2011 11:47 AM

This is way late, but just a quick point of clarification:

I wasn't (and I don't think WD was, either) asking for a plot synopsis or summary. Clearly, based on the trailers, I can tell it's an update of Single White Female. I simply expect more of Dustin as a critic than to toss off a pithy, sarcastic 2.5 paragraphs that barely scrape the surface of a movie's horribleness. If Dustin felt the movie didn't warrant a review, or if it only warranted a review as lazy as the film itself, that's fine. It's his choice as a writer. But "scathing" doesn't mean base-level snark, it means verbally digging in and ripping something apart because it doesn't earn the kid gloves approach. Usually, Dustin's amazing at this, and a flick as bad The Roommate just seems like it deserves a better (negative) review. For me, this review paid lip service to that ideal.

Still, it's early in the year; which means I'm more (appropriately?) bitchy than normal. And there's time enough to be (appropriately) scathing.

Posted by: RobP at February 7, 2011 2:46 PM

Yeah, but what did you think of the movie ?

Posted by: gforcetwo at February 7, 2011 2:53 PM

, /Bridget Fonda doesn't need a career anymore. Mrs. Danny Elfman is living in a palace made of compressed crushed diamonds, wiping herself with 100 dollar bills, and using gold nuggets for paperweights.

Posted by: Jean at February 7, 2011 6:04 PM