User reviews

This film has meaning a depth and meaning to someone, but that someone just isn't me. Maybe that someone is you? If you're a big fan of cinema history, you might have a chance of understanding this film. And I think any comparisons to "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" aren't straight. This film is a passion project, and to some could become a cult classic. But to me, I just wanted to Rogen/Robinson/Franco laugh out loud. That's what I expect from this cast, but hey! they've earned they're stripes, so can make what they want, for themselves andd industry insiders. I wish I got this film, but I just don't

Greetings again from the darkness. In this age of comic book movies and remakes, creative and artistic filmmakers are to be commended for sticking to their vision, no matter how cloudy. James Franco has put together a most unusual career as both actor and director. Here he takes on both in this adaptation of Steve Erickson's novel, with a screenplay by Paul Felten and Ian Olds. It's a movie seemingly made for movie nerds, but this particular movie nerd, while enjoying some of the homages, mostly found this to be too messy to recommend.

James Franco plays Vikar, a socially inept loner with a shaved head and permanent scowl. On that head is a tattoo of Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift from A PLACE IN THE SUN, the first movie the sheltered Vikar ever saw (11 months ago), and the one that initiated his obsession with movies. Vikar finagles his way into the industry - first as a set builder, and then under the tutelage of veteran film editor Dotty (Jacki Weaver) - reaching award winning status as a filmmaker. Along the way, the character of Vikar recalls Chauncey Gardner in BEING THERE. Is he a genius, or so simple-minded that his thoughts are accepted as brilliant?

It's 1969, and in an early scene, Vikar is interrogated by police regarding the murder of Sharon Tate. This is our first indication that fact and fiction will be blended here to make whatever points the film is trying to make. Vikar befriends Viking Man on the set of LOVE STORY, and we soon realize John Ford wannabe Viking Man (played by Seth Rogen) is a stand-in for John Milius ... a Hollywood legend worthy of his own film. The two new friends attend a beach house party where a group of up-and-coming filmmakers are brainstorming in the living room. Represented are Steven Spielberg, spit-balling a shark movie; George Lucas, yammering about robots; and a young Scorsese and Coppola.

Vikar is soon attracted to and dreaming of a beautiful actress named Soledad Paladin (Megan Fox). This shift of gears to romance from industry commentary does the film no favors. The film is at its best when Vikar is navigating the waters of a Hollywood in transition, including an old school power producer played by Will Ferrell. One of his scenes has him singing "Lum-de-lum-de-lai" in an odd show of power as he attempts to win the girl. Others making an appearance include Danny McBride, Dave Franco, and Craig Robinson - as a burglar who educates Vikar on the nuances of SUNSET BOULEVARD, Erich Von Stroheim, and MY DARLING CLEMENTINE. Joey King has a key role as Soledad's daughter Zazi, and she even sings on stage.

There are so many nods to Hollywood, that the film plays more like an experimental art project or trivia game than an actual story. The famed Roosevelt Hotel is featured, as is Frances Ford Coppola's (played by Horatio Sanz) out-of-control film set of APOCALYPSE NOW. A quite colorful description of John Wayne is offered up, and the silent classic THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST takes center stage. We even get Iggy Pop and The Stooges at CBGB, and the first song we hear is "It's My Life" by Eric Burdon and The Animals. A key note here is that this was filmed in 2014, and has been caught up in a quagmire of bankrupt distributors ever since. That could explain the questionable flow and editing, but we can assume the wild camera angles were all part of Franco's plan. It really plays like an experimental film and it covers a few years, though we are never really sure how many. The twist at the end is pretty easy to predict, and unfortunately, it leaves us wondering where an obsession with cinema is likely to lead us.

It's 1969. Cinephile Ike Jerome (James Franco) arrives in L.A. He has a tattoo of Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor on the back of his shaved head. A Place in the Sun is his favorite movie. He befriends a film editor and becomes one himself. He falls for film star Soledad (Megan Fox) and starts working on her movie. Self-important producer Rondell (Will Ferrell) is a bully.

Before using a single frame of film, James Franco needs to figure out what kind of movie he's making. This starts with Franco playing a serial killer. Ferrell seems intent on making a comedy. Megan Fox is doing a tragedy. Everybody is doing something a little different. It's messy and disjointed. It has a surreal feel but in an amateur way. Filmmaker Franco leaves a lot to be desired. Eventually, he arrives in a place where he's trying to be an arthouse surreal director. It may be pretentious but at least, it's something concrete. Franco should keep trying but he's nowhere near good enough to make something like this work.

Can someone explain this movie to me? The movie seems to be about an artistic, decent, yet disturbed editor. Ironically, the movie itself is horribly edited beyond comprehension. "" seems to be the correct idiom for the end result. James and Seth should smoke less drugs while working on films.

Didn't pull off what it was trying to do, but I still enjoyed it. I'll repeat what a couple others said, Franco should keep trying and Megan Fox needs more roles like this.

This film is just mystifying. I don't understand it at all. All the film references may be a film buff's heaven, but not for me.

It's a stretch to call this a movie. what a waste of an amazing cast. i don't really know what happened here. maybe after playing tommy wiseau he subconsciously made his own disaster of a movie. i have no idea what was up with the "experimental" directing/editing. but it didn't work for me at all. and the worst part is, i didn't laugh at any of the comedy. at all. (1 viewing, 3/21/2020)

Described as James Franco's "passion project", a film in which he stars in and is the director. However we should have known this film wouldn't have been great by the amount of delays and pushbacks.

With a great ensemble cast that somewhat feels put together with many of the actors acting in different styles, it was hard to understand what exactly the tone of the film was meant to be. Will Ferrell was over the top and acted as if it was a comedy while Franco was more reserved and acted like it was a mystery type film. Then Megan Fox's portrayal felt like it was a deep tragedy type. Seth Rogen was over the top and cursing far too much where it would generally be funny and entertaining but not so much here.

Zeroville doesn't exactly go anywhere and it's climax or high points are non-existent. We just wander around seeing Franco successfully fall for then get with Megan Fox and we see him edit her film. Relatively boring and didn't offer any subplots either.

Overall this film is a mess, with a dull tone, wasn't funny in the slightest and not at all memorable. There is a reason as to why this film didn't receive a theatrical release and why many haven't heard of it. Very disappointing given the talent involved.

The score on here is very unfair. This is a literary story told competently and at times with some great ideas. Loved the meta editing on editing, the fake Lucas and Spielberg meets Coppola scene, love all the nods to film in both style and reference. Maybe the idiots who say this makes no sense need to watch Lost Highway and Suspiria (the original) at least before criticizing this film. I liked it a whole lot more than The Irishman, if that's any help. Megan Fox really needs more work like this. She's pretty great in this.

What a complete mess! The story and the direction was all over the place. Just a paycheck for Franco and his friends. Don't think they ever intended to make a real movie. It's complete trash!

Im so surprised at the IMDb rating. And it actually....can give u hope. I liked all the actors and went into the movie not know anything about it. It was interesting I stayed with it. Then...it became more interesting. Then towards the end I was enthralled and even got chills one moment when I realized that there was whole other level achieved and done so sneaky that it makes u almost want to rewatch it again. But the psych level achieved was just enough to make this movie one to remember and even rewatch. Maybe not right away. But it's worth a rewatch for sure. Great movie.

In principle there could be a great movie here. In practice, like others have said, the idea seems to have been to pack multiple movies into one, and that rarely works.

Let's move past the banal question of whether it was "faithful to the book" and consider it on its own merits. There's the kernel of a great idea here, a film that luxuriates in movie trivia and in explaining technical details, while constantly having fun with the idea of ignoring the movie filming timeline of our reality (cf the catchphrase "f$%# continuity", writ large).

The problem is that Franco makes three rookie mistakes.

• he doesn't stick to *that* movie; instead he insists on throwing in other stories, most jarringly the Soledad love story. Look, we get it, Megan Fox is pretty. But that doesn't mean she has to be used (and used up) in the most boring way possible. Compare with the much more interesting use of Dottie, not as love interest but as teacher/explainer of Editing.

• movies (and books) about obsession, about "here's how much I love something and why" can be done well. But again, you have to avoid the rookie mistake: the book has to be about obsession *generically*, not about your particular obsession. Once you list details, every person on earth (and that's most of them) who doesn't agree with your exact ranking of first through tenth greatest whatever's loses interest.

That's why Juliet, Naked is so much better a movie than High Fidelity (oh shut up, you know it's true!) because they both deal with obsession, but one doesn't make the mistake of going into specifics.

• third rookie mistake: "explaining" via mental illness, dreams, and visions, the crutches of the lazy and incompetent screenwriter.

You don't need to explain in a movie! The audience will happily accept magic realism -- the Simpsons have been doing it for 30+ years. Purple Rose of Cairo? True Lies? Neither of them felt a need to justify their magic realism as the product of dreams or mental illness.

Or, of course, Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Again, just tell the story, don't "explain" why it doesn't match consensus reality!

Franco keeps trying with this stuff (compare _The Disaster Artist_) and I appreciate his trying. I just hope he learns from each misfire and next time executes in a more focussed fashion.

There are not enough well-done obsessive movies -- most of them are pathetic shambles, either cautionary tales about "here's how you will suffer", or watered down by including uninteresting stereotypical side plots -- and I think Franco has it in him to do the job right, once he has the courage to do it his way, not the Hollywood way.

MAJOR disappointment! I was expecting this to be a really good movie because it had Megan Fox and some other good actors in it. The whole thing was really weird, and had "ZERO (pun intended)" entertainment value! I couldn't even finish it. I got almost halfway through and turned it off, and couldn't watch anymore of such odd directing and odd screenplay.

I would give "ZERO" stars if I could, but I'll settle for 1 star. I will be renting this movie "ZERO" more times, it is a complete "ZERO".

I admit, I thought I could watch Megan Fox read a dictionary because she is so beautiful, well that might have been more exciting than this. James Franco is out of his element with the acting here, trying to play this moody tragic lead doesn't seem real. He plays a man who has an unreal fascination with Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift, even getting them tattooed on his head. He gets a job building sets, then moves to editing movies which he has a knack for, ironically this movie was edited horribly. I know Megan isn't Katherine Hepburn when it comes to acting but she is horrible here, the dialogue isn't doing her any favors either. I have seen her act before where she was much better than this but if she doesn't make better career choices she is going to be headed toward made for TV movies. The absolute worse in the film is Seth Rogan. Imagine every Seth character, loud boisterous and you have that here, not believable in the part. I don't know what else to say other than after you're done you will want your time back.

Literally so low budget. Terribly edited... and it's about an editor?!? Terrible acting. Everything about it is so awful for having my favorite actors/actresses. I watched it until the end and it truly just kept getting harder to watch.

I got bored while watching this movie. I didn't get the plot as well. If the movie is about editor then makers could have appointed better editor. For me james acting was good. 1 star for efforts and 1 star for James. Thank you.

After watching this pointless horrible movie, I was thinking why would James Franco make this, and the only reason coming to my mind is maybe this was his chance to touch Megan Fox lol Its really difficult to find another REASON behind this, and although Franco is far from being a pervert , but I think he had a crush on someone and took the opportunity to do something about, almost like what happens in the movie between Vikar and Soledad.

Appreciate james francos adaptation. If you're into films and enjoyed the book this is decent. Not great but the book is a trip so this was bound to be weird. Some funny moments.

Dark look at depression, loneliness, mental illness, living life through the fantasy lens of movies. Strange casting because all these folks usually make comedies together but interesting to see them in different material.

Franco's robotic acting and megan fox is in it, doing what she does best! causing hardons in the middle of the movie but all the surgeries are kindly visible now. Honestly just avoid anything with James franco as a main character.

Now I realize that only people who read the book will understand that reference but whatever "we'll make it work for us". I read through the book 8 and a half times each time thinking "god I love this book" but it took less then 30 minutes into the film to make me want slam the Roosevelt Hotel bell into my television.

It's hard to write a review that makes any sense at all because half of the book was left out. At least the parts that made the book good and the story feel like it has any meaning or depth. I agree the book is strange but you can at least follow along, the movie however is all over the place.

In the book scenes are "cut" and put in place so well that reading it flows and moves like an actual movie would. Franco's film however is all over the place and random scenes are thrown at you that you may have enjoyed while reading but now they are unexpected, stripped of any good dialogue and leave a bad taste.

I'm always in for this cast, and I always give james and seth some long leashes but man they hung themselves this time. I can count on one hand movies I have stopped after starting and this is one. (Howard the duck is the only film I have ever left the theater) maybe yall will get it and enjoy it but wasnt for me at all.