doug wrote:
Curse your cold heart, Jon! I swore a decade ago I would never think of this movie ever again, but you have reminded me of the one film I have never been able to see to the bitter end (and for good reason you’ll see). I bestow upon you Frank Zappa’s 200 Motels.PS: You probably shouldn’t drop acid before you watch this…not that I think you would but I wouldn’t be a good friend if I didn’t warn you.

200 Motels- Dir. Tony Palmer and Charlie Swenson 1971

“200 Motels” is a movie made by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention about life on the road, and what it takes to be in a rock and roll band (or, at least that’s my best guess).

When it comes to psychedelia, this movie is filled to the rim with Brim. I once helped make a movie about break dancers that looked a bit like this–shot on video with a distracting amount of in-camera “special effects” that looked terrible and assured that any viewer would feel not only removed from the footage, but a bit angry at the production crew, as well. “200 Motels” takes this to the next level. Most of the time, the video effects are so heavy that you can’t tell what (if anything) is going on. Even when you can make out the visuals, it’s hard to care because you just sat through so much uninteresting swill.

The Plot: “200 Motels” is a movie made by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention about life on the road, and what it takes to be in a rock and roll band (or, at least that’s my best guess).

What made it watch-able: I was initially excited to watch this movie. I’m not the biggest Frank Zappa fan in the world, but I like some of his stuff and was quite interested in seeing what a film made by the guy would be like. About 15 minutes into the movie, I realized that I didn’t really want to watch it; the experience was incredibly uncomfortable, but I knew it had to be done–”200 Motels” is basically, the cinematic equivalent of a prostate exam.

What do you say about a film that tries to not make sense? Well, if it’s only 5 or 10 minutes long, you might be able to watch it a few times and take something from it. In the case of “200 Motels”, you might have an opinion by the middle of the movie, but with a running time of about 99 minutes, the middle is a long way from the end. Anyone would be hard pressed to keep their thoughts on this film intact by the time they reach the finale, which, in my opinion, came about 60 or 70 minutes too late.

The film is bad, and don’t let anyone tell you it isn’t. Sure, there are some interesting moments; there were even a few points in the movie where I laughed. As a whole, however, “200 Motels” is very close to unwatch-able. The only scenario I can think of where I could watch even part of this movie again and be happy goes something like this: I’m watching something really good, but a character in that good movie is watching “200 Motels”–then that character gets killed by a dragon or a swarm of super-intelligent bees.

Now, some people will tell you that this movie is awesome and ground-breaking or whatever, but don’t believe them. Throwing a bunch of slop together and calling it a movie didn’t begin with “200 Motels”, and it certainly didn’t end with it, either. If you’re looking for something “experimental” that actually has some merit, check out George Kuchar’s “Hold Me While I’m Naked” or (and I can’t believe I’m about to write this) “Dog Star Man” by Stan Brakhage. As a period piece, I suppose “200 Motels” has something to offer–it’s just not enough to justify watching it.

Times I had to avert my eyes: 0
Breaks needed to complete viewing: about 5
Overall rating from 1 to 10: 2.5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!