Roman (2006)

Lucky McKee Stars in his menacing follow-up to the 2002 cult hit, MAY; DVD Features: 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound, Widescreen, Interview with the Cast, Deleted Scenes, Outtakes, Filmmaker's Commentary Product Description

I like Kristen Bell, but...

This is definitely not her best work. Bell is in it for maybe a half hour, then the psycho kills her and stores her in the bathtub, burying her piece by piece. It's not only morbid and gross - the plot is awful and goes no where. Its incredibly boring - not Kristen Bell's best work at all, although she really is only in it for a few minutes. August 18, 2008

It's going to be my greatest work yet

I won't deny, I was really looking forward to seeing Roman, even despite the unfavorable reviews. I loved May and was sure a follow-up couldn't be all bad. Boy, was I wrong.

Roman is terrible. Not once was I worried or dreading what might come next, not once did I even have a question as to what would happen at the end--it's very obvious--and not once did I think, "This is actually a pretty good movie." Quite the contrary really. Pretty much, Roman is one of the most predictable movies I've seen in recent memory. Hands down.

Roman is obsessed with the girl in the apartment across from his. Everyday at 5:32pm he opens his shades and sits at his window to watch her (Kristen Bell) walk by to get her mail. Every once in a while he'll work up the nerve to go to the mail box too just to get a closer look. Then she (I call her 'she' because she was never given a name) made the mistake of talking to him. Cut to about 25 minutes later and a new girl, Eva (played brilliantly by Nectar Rose), comes into play. Her and Roman start a relationship, blah blah blah, something happens.

For me, the ONLY redeeming thing about this movie was the women involved. Kristen Bell was terrific in the extremely brief time she was in it--her explanation of how pork and beans are made is hilarious--and Nectar Rose, whom I've never heard of, played the quirky, eccentric, Eva with ease. That's it. Lucky Mckee was incredibly bland as Roman, which yes, feels right for the character, but didn't help the finished product. As far as the random scenes from the breakroom at Roman's job, they seem pointless with horrid acting.

For those on the fence about whether to watch this or not, don't. Even I, a huge Kristen Bell fan, say nay. She's not in it long enough to warrant a view. Nothing about this movie leaves a lasting impression past the fact of how mad you'll probably be after watching it, inevitably thinking "Seriously, why did I pay money to see this?" This is nothing like May, don't even think that. Roman is a loser who, even at his best, isn't the least bit interesting. Avoid. December 16, 2007

If "May" Was a Guy Named "Roman"

Here's your boring plot synopsis...ready..."May"
Want another one? OK.
Roman spends his days working at a metal shop,
With no TV in his apartment, he spends his afternoons staring out his front window,
Staring at a world he wants to be apart of,
Staring at the same girl everyday.
Is he lonely, or is he in love? Or maybe he's just obsessed?

Angela Bettis & Lucky McKee reverse roles in what is essentially the same movie as "May"
I would really prefer to see Lucky direct, but I'll take what I can get.

At first glance this movie appears to be shot on a home camcorder.
But after the first few scenes it gets better
(Or maybe I just got used to it, I don't know)
Anyway it starts off really slow,
but if you stay with it,
you'll be rewarded when it finally picks itself up
Just when you think this flick can't get any duller, your heart does a double back-flip with a half gainer into your throat.
That's when you're hooked.
And when the narrative starts, (Halfway through the movie mind you.) your eyes are glued wide-open.

Now for the details:
The acting is enjoyable, great characters galore. (I love the nature chick) & Lucky does a better job than you'd think he would.
The lighting leaves alot to be desired, but it's forgivable.
Despite the unnecessary, trippy dream sequences it's a good story, starts out slow but keeps you interested & wondering what'll happen next.
My only complaint is that the dialogue is ridiculously low, while the soundtrack is amazingly loud, so you'll have to keep playing with the volume throughout the entire movie.
The bad news is there's no blood in sight,
But the good news is there are 2 emotional death scenes to speak of, and alot of off-screen :( mutilations.
And the ending is pure poetic justice.

In conclusion:
Yeah, it's kinda slow, and it takes it's time ambling to it's point, but it gets there, and gets the job done.
It's definitely an aquired taste, hence all the negative reviews.
If you haven't seen "May", watch that one first, it's superior, and you'll know what you're diving into with this flick.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
'Tis better to have loved & killed than never to have killed at all. July 26, 2007

Hardly a redeeming quality !

The ad on the back of my DVD sounded really good, I was expecting a good thrill, but instead got a somewhat strange and dull movie. There isen't much of a plot, except that a loner, Roman, has been searching for a girlfriend for what seems like a really long time. Along comes a good looking neighbor, whom Roman watches every late afternoon, after coming home from his boring welding job. What could have been a good story quickly become rahter trivial. Roman accidently kills his new (girl)friend, and tries (literally) to cover it up. This wouldn't have been a bad story line, although by itself, it would be far to plain. So in comes another good looking girl, who shows a considerable amount of interest in Roman. Again, he takes his chances with her. Everything seems to be going well in their relationship, until an unexpected end destroys everything. It was also this end that just didn't have any merits for me, also the suspense was virtually totally missing in this Thriller.

So do yourself a favor, and better avoid this one. June 10, 2007

a perfect add to May

of course i liked May better, mostly for two reasons: Angela Bettis' superb acting performance (which i missed in Roman) and the much better quality of photography. Nevertheless, despite usually being a movie director, Lucky McKee performed real okay as an actor (and main character), and so did Nectar Rose and Kristen Bell too, i.e. the acting in general was great in this movie, and what prevents me from considering it as good as May is the picture quality. McKee is the writer and even if we don't need compare this movie with May all the time, the interreferences seem pretty clear, making this one a nice complement to the other. Plus, if you buy the DVD, you'll own one of the most beautiful covers i've ever seen (and here, it does beat May, which chose the wrong sentence to write on the cover as well). May 20, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...