The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Review #1449: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Cast: 
Tim Curry (Dr. Frank-N-Furter), Susan Sarandon (Janet Weiss, a heroine), Barry Bostwick (Brad Majors, a hero), Richard O'Brien (Riff Raff, a handyman), Patricia Quinn (Magenta, a domestic), Nell Campbell (Columbia, a groupie), Jonathan Adams (Dr. Everett V. Scott, a rival scientist), Peter Hinwood (Rocky Horror, a creation, with Trevor White as singing voice), Meat Loaf (Eddie, an ex-delivery boy), and Charles Gray (The Criminologist) Directed by Jim Sharman.

Review: 
"For me it was, I think, the most joyous time of my life. You know, I was still very young, it took me to Hollywood and to Broadway and into a kind of very peculiar immortality, and I'm very grateful for that."

It was inevitable to cover a film like this at some point. Some movies are born to be cult favorites, and this sure has proven to have a life of its own 45 years after release. It wasn't a big hit with initial releases, but it proved a winner with midnight showings, and the lingering success of doing these screenings have meant that it has not completely left the theater, the longest-running release in film history. When it comes to screenings nowadays, audiences usually are encouraged to say certain lines and practices for scenes or engaging in dressing up as the characters. It was based on The Rocky Horror Show, a stage play written by Richard O'Brien that was first performed in London in 1973. He wrote it as a combination of the unintended comedy of B-horror films with fifties rock and roll alongside his love of science fiction that hit in a time where glam rock was a hit within the United Kingdom. Curry, O'Brien, Quinn, and Campbell reprise their roles from the play into the film. 20th Century Fox wanted to make the film on a bigger budget with contemporary musicians of the day, but a compromise was made to use American leads with a cheaper budget instead. A follow-up film (of sorts) was made six years later in Shock Treatment, which retained Sharman as director/writer alongside O'Brien as writer again while retaining actors such as Campbell and Gray but without Curry, Bostwick, or Sarandon. Funny enough, it was a bigger failure at the box office than the first film (complete with being a midnight movie flop) although it has a small cult following of its own.

Perhaps I wasn't in the right mindset when I watched the film. How many horror and musicals can you watch before they all seem familiar? Of course how many films have a DVD that offer numerous versions to watch involving audience participation? Is it really something to make a film where you can exclaim a reference? The answer to these questions for me is simple: I don't care. Seriously though, while I can acknowledge that it may be an interesting film deserving of some sort of following with an audience (there are many mocking things one can say about encouraging yelling at the screen, but I'll let my bile pass), I cannot say that this was a winning film to enjoy wholeheartedly. Maybe it is the manner of its parody of horror and comedy, where making a hodgepodge of the two with mediocre songs is meant to be something to really laugh at as some sort of camp. You know that song "Science Fiction, Double Feature"? Most, if not all of those films mentioned in that song are probably better than this film. "Sweet Transvestite" may very well work as a song, but that don't help slop like "Dammit Janet" get much better. It proves exhausting to try and keep up with the film's supposed charms, where it proves to be one of the most infuriatingly mediocre films to ever run under two hours at 100 minutes. It may prove iconic for its era, but that sure doesn't mean it is any sort of high-end achievement either. There are basically five simple zones of defining a film's quality: awful, bad, average, good, and great to me, with no substitution or weaseling out of. Simply put, this falls completely in the average pile, with a sort of refusal to ever move towards being good or bad at any point where Curry isn't there.

If anyone proves to be a great highlight, it is surely Curry. A 1968 graduate of the University of Birmingham (studying English and Drama), he debuted on the stage (alongside television) the same year he graduated with the London production of Hair, where he met O'Brien. It isn't hard to see why this was the role that helped him to prominence, since one never really seems to take their eyes off such a daring performance, filled plenty of strange allure of grisly reality and parody. In a more-improved mediocre movie, one might actually just let the Curry performance sweep the other flaws aside and make it truly enjoyable. Bostwick and Sarandon nearly get lost in the entire shuffle, although the latter seems more suited for songs (of sorts, at least with that high voice). O'Brien and Quinn make some sort of duo, while Meat Loaf is sorely wasted here. The straight-laced Gray works only to deliver redundant explanations at times and occasional lyric contributions, which I guess is fine. Of course we are dealing a campy film filled with quietly ridiculous fellow acting, where everything is obvious for the sake of being obvious, where one is almost tempted to spray them with a water bottle to stop it. Patience wears thin when you start to grimace at the idea of yet another song, as if the true horror is actually how many times they can do a string of songs, since the horror-sci-fi pastiches only can so far. If anybody is going to claim the title of affectionate tribute to horror with comedy for the 1970s, it sure isn't going to be this film, since Young Frankenstein (1974) did every aspect with better style and better execution, whereas this just falls short of really resonating with me as a film (perhaps it just worked better on stage). Perhaps another time of watching it could provide some levity, but there are simply too many films to go forth and watch once before even thinking about revisiting stuff that didn't quite click the first time around. No sir, I will not in fact do the Time Warp again any time soon. It may not be a winner enough to make me like it, but it has its own following for a reason and it may prove just fine for those into what it tries to do in camp value.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.