Recensioni degli utenti

Should you watch this film? I believe the following questions may be a decent guide to making this decision. Are you a Zappa fan who likes many of his different musical phases? If so, then this is a must. Are you a casual Zappa fan, partial to newer stuff only? If so, then approach with caution. Do you like very bizarre sequences put together seemingly at random? If so, this is a must. If you hate that kind of thing, then you will probably hate this. When in doubt, have a backup ready so you can switch to that if you lose patience. Oh, and guys out there, I wouldn't recommend showing this to your girlfriend unless she is a big Zappa fan. By all means, I do NOT recommend planning a romantic evening with a girl with standard pop culture tastes that is bookended by playing her samples of your Magma and King Crimson collection and then ending with a screening of 200 Motels, not even as an experiment. Trust me, I have tried this (once) and the results were not good. But I digress...

What do you get from 200 motels? Random weirdness and silliness with a very 1965-1970 feel to it, kind of like a strangely lighthearted feverish dream. You also get some very interesting music of highly variable quality and some great in-jokes that you will find hilarious if you have followed Zappa's career. I will never again be able to drive past a town named "Centerville" (there are lots of these in the midwest USA) without having that Flo and Eddie zombie-like sequence flash through my head. I would certainly not consider this a good film or anywhere close to a good film. But it is certainly oddly interesting.

There is no film quite like 200 Motels, but a lot of its very strange appearance (especially when viewed on a cinema screen) is due to its videotape source. (Actually, it isn't the first film released theatrically, to have been originated on this medium. One of the versions of Jean Harlow's biography to be released in 1965 used something called 'Electronovision', which is much the same thing, although it seems suspiciously like an afterthought over a successful TV play in that case.) The 1971 double album was my introduction to Zappa's music, back in 1973, and I first saw this film in 1978, on a double bill with - wait for it - Annie Hall. Now, that's bizarre. I was mesmerised by this messy production, but everyone in the cinema, including my friends, seemed to hate it. Even by 1978, the effects were dated, and the sound quality left a lot to be desired. However, ten years later, when I saw the film in on VHS, I scooped it up, and I still enjoy it.

More satire and music would have been welcome in place of the cast and orchestra being forced to recite childish swearwords, although it must be realised that this is an exercise to defuse the effect of 'bad language', much as Shaw did with Pygmalion (the original play has the word 'bloody' repeated over and over, opposed to achieving the comedy shock effect as in the 1938 movie) There are some very well worked out scenes, such as the stars' dressing-room/racehorse chute sequence, and the dialogue between Jim Black and Theodor Bikel, and maybe sufficient time and budget would have yielded more of the same.

The music was sufficient to launch me into thirty years of collecting Zappa's music, and I still enjoy it today - it's more fulfilling to listen to than the movie is to watch, but the movie is worth seeing, as long as you are not expecting anything too coherent.

In amongst the confusion is a worthwhile film about groupies, and genius, and the sadness, as opposed to the glamour, of the life of rock stars, and I can't help feeling that someone with fifty million dollars to spend could do worse than remake this. It's about time Zappa's output reached a wider audience. Stop remaking films that were fine as they were, you guys. We didn't need another Planet of the Apes, Tim Burton! Do a film about Frank Zappa. Johnny Depp could play Frank!

After years of trying, I recently began to enjoy The Mother's of Invention and Frank Zappa, so I figured it was time to give 200 Motels another shot. Once before I had tried watching it and couldn't finish it. It happened again. The tendency seems to be to say this is a good film and you just don't understand it, if you're a Zappa fan. Still, I don't think it's a very good film. It looks like it was edited by ten year olds. It gave me a headache to watch the first music scene. A little too smart for me, I suppose.

As a long term Frank Zappa fan, I was really excited when this movie came out. I admit it's kind of hard to watch - it isn't the movie Frank planned. He had big problems with the director, he ended up in a protracted lawsuit with Royal Albert Hall (This conflict raised his costs for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra) and much of what was supposed to be shot wasn't, requiring an entirely "different movie" to be made in editing.

It was a joy to see Ringo Starr playing Frank's part, Keith Moon as a nun and of course the music was great. The music was written while Frank was on tour, hence the title.

It was shot entirely on video tape and transferred to film after the special effects were added. I think this was the first feature film done on video tape. The video effects were psychedelic which was a bit odd since Frank was vehemently against drug use.

To many people, musician Frank Zappa's counterculture rants were dangerous, to some sexually charged and stimulating, and still to others tired and boring. Somehow, he managed to cut a deal with United Artists and filmed what emerged as a free-form musical diatribe on drugs, sex, the gap between generations (musicians vs. the common businessman) and post-psychedelic expression. With MTV some 10 years off, this was the only way Zappa and his Mothers (of Invention) could bring their ideas together; but, unfortunately, it's too messy to involve anyone beyond Zappa's core audience. Ringo Starr, in Frank Zappa garb, has some curious speeches that attempt to clarify Zappa's concepts of society, and some of the rock music is indeed exciting, but Mr. Z. is far too defensive to be much fun. Surely some of these directionless scenes are meant to be satiric, but his sense of humor is always undermined by a draggy, self-serious need to "teach us something". A post-"Laugh-In" series of sketches, "200 Motels" might've been personally felt out, but it fails to grab us because, technically, the movie looks terrible. Grungy with druggy influences, it simply doesn't take shape. Besides, Bob Rafelson and the Monkees did this kind of thing first (and more slickly, to involve a wider audience) with "Head" in 1968. *1/2 from ****

I need to watch this again. That's something of a compliment, I think. Maybe I shouldn't think regarding a movie- so called- like 200 Motels. It's the kind of picture where the term 'freewheeling rock & roll comedy' would pop up as an example in the dictionary. As I recall there's nothing by way of plot to describe, except that the 'Mothers', Frank Zappa's band that he had early on his career, have to deal with the stress and issues of the road. This is interspersed with live musical performances (not just music played and then with other music dubbed over it, but live on film, er videotape), and some other odd little tidbits. But to use the word 'odd' with 200 Motels is too kind, and in fact just too bland. Maybe for some fans of experimental cinema it's still too rooted in trying to be funny to really accomplish anything truly groundbreaking. And to others it might just seem like Zappa is whackin it cinematically onto videotape.

But it's hard to discount the 'period' value of the movie too, and I did have quite a few good laughs at some of the (as a given) random stuff that occurred throughout. There's even a spot-on cool turn by Ringo Starr as the "fake" Frank Zappa. Also, the music, which is what many will seek out 200 Motels for- not least of which Zappa's fans, of which I am more or less depending on the album- is pretty awesome and delightfully whacked out, even if it's a little much into the 'riffs' as opposed to Zappa's more well known tracks like Nanook and Montana. The Royal Symphony Orchestra accompaniment allows for Zappa to go ambitious with what he intends, which is not hard at all for him really considering that he IS more of a composer than a typical rock n roll guitarist. If I can't recommend the movie as much as I might want to though it's because it is the kind of experimental 60s-70s 'lets-go-wild-with-style' picture that does meander in spots, or rather because of its lack of sense if not in the right frame of mind (possibly one not under stimulants) it'll seem like trash.

I do need to see it again to completely take in what specifically I liked in what scenes. Yet if you happen to come across this by chance in your video store or in some other markets, just read the back and you'll get an idea. If you take the chance and watch it, you might find that it's got some of the most bizarre, deranged, kooky and just plain weird fun type scenes in any non-traditional rock movie ever. That Zappa was a fervent anti-drug musician makes some of this all the more unique, or stupid, or both. This may also put off some of Zappa's fans who like the music but can't stand visuals and gags almost stuck in a time capsule. I dug it though, and I hope to 'dig it' again.

Two songs worth listening to, two topless young ladies, two famous British drummers, and two hours of otherwise unwatchable junk. Frank Zappa wrote some great music, but clearly he is not a good movie maker.

I guess most people would probably absolutely loathe this movie, but I'm not most people. If you're looking for plot, intricately drawn characters, thoughtful shot composition, look elsewhere.

Now, if you like to have the video and audio input channels into your cerebrum overloaded from the start, you'll definitely love it. This movie does not relent. I guarantee, if you drop acid first, your brain will be bleeding by the end of it.

I never thought the Flo & Eddie version of the Mothers was the best, but I do think they translated pretty well to the super-color-saturated multi-layered shot-and-mixed-entirely-on-videotape visual paradigm here. Kaylan & Volman are such atypical-looking pop stars (and yes, children, they were indeed pop stars once upon a time, in a band called The Turtles), the sets so purposefully fake & cheesy, the dada knob turned up so far past eleven, that any aficionado of TOO MUCH! really owes it to themselves to let this movie burn a hole in their brain.

If you are a huge Zappa fan (his fans tend to be extreme), this is for you. No need to say any more to you.

If you're not a fan: Well... it depends on what you like. The music sometimes is effective (not always enjoyable, but effective). Personally, I find Zappa a bit pretentious more often than not, and that's tough to sit through.

The overall zaniness is also sometimes effective. Some say the film is "saved" by Zappa's music. I will say that it's "saved" by the presence of Flo & Eddie. Those guys not only are freaking hilarious and fun to watch, but they can sing! Especially Howard!

By the time the film is over, if you've lasted that long, you'll feel hit by a truck. It IS a mess. Sometimes it's a fun mess, sometimes it's a slog. Maybe it's best watched by a roomful of college-aged stoners?

While not truly horrible, this movie is still a nearly unwatchable mess which is only barely saved by Zappa's music.

This movie could only have been made in the post-psychedelic, highly experimental climate of the early 70s. It feels like a first year film school project gone horribly wrong. Every "trippy" video and editing trick is employed. It's truly an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to film making, however, it only serves to compound the fact that there's no substance to this mess. There's no plot to speak of, rather it's more of a series of skits. The trouble is, for the most part they're unfunny and only barely entertaining. Even cameos by such luminaries as Ringo Starr and Keith Moon fail to deliver much beyond the cheap thrill of recognition.

As I mentioned, this movie is only barely saved by the musical performances. That's because some of them are horrible, some are just OK, and only a select few are actually really good. This is the kind of movie you need to see on DVD so you can skip straight to the performances, because there's really no other reason to watch this movie.

I guarantee you won't be able to get through this movie in one sitting. It's basically garbage, and is interesting mainly as a historical curiosity.

The greatest rock movie ever! A "road" movie without the road,Frank

Zappa's look at a 60/70s rock band on the road,small town america and

the realities behind the music industry was far ahead of it's time and

today seems far less dated than many contemporary films. Shot on video

tape and edited onto film,the film has a highly original look to

it,including shots where the roof of the studio it was shot in is

purposely visible. Keith Moon as a groupie obsessed nun,and Ringo Starr

as a dwarf made up to look like Zappa are among the movies

highlites,along with Theodore Bikel as the Devil,A.K.A. Rance Muhamitz. Thirty years after it's release ,still an entertaining film.It makes a

great double feature with the Monkees' film "Head",in which Zappa has a

small c

To compare this movie to "HELP" or "HEAD" is an understatement.It just shows the depths that dear brother Frank was willing to go to entertain us.One of a kind,almost a psychedelic "fantasia".One of the best touring bands at the time.Filmed at the pinnacle of the "Mothers Of Invention" peak.Cameos by Ringo and Keith Moon are definitely a plus.Lack of any perceptible story are the only downfall of this classic.But as I said before the music more than makes up for that.if you liked this movie there are few albums you might also dig."Uncle Meat","Frank Zappa And the Mothers of Invention Live At The Fillmore 1971".Its all worth a listen.

I've been reading about it for years. I got to finally watch it. It's absolute rubbish.

I'm not to happy with what I said because criticizing something doesn't mean attacking it or cursing it. And I'm a big Zappa fan. I listened to most of his music, read about him, read his book, watched almost all of his videos. I'm not fond of his dark egotistical sexually-obsessed cynical obnoxious side. I'm more for his unique, innovative, independent, genius, creative, pleasant musical side.

He was intelligent. He was an articulate speaker. A funny man.

He's not a god. And he's definitely not a filmmaker.

The film is just boring. I lost interest after struggling with it for 1 hour. And it's not like I'm not open-minded or I don't understand. I like surrealism, absurdity, and the avant-garde. But the film was just tasteless.

This is not a movie to see in a normal human state of mind. Zappa didn't do drugs, so if you can achieve a state of Zappa-Zen you might really get off on this film. Because of, or in spite of, my being on nothing, it's had the weirdest effect on me. I can hardly remember anything about it. I saw it in '74. I saw it again just recently. But there's nothing I can tell you. It's like a dream, disjointed and bizarre. A dream you know you had but can't remember. No other movie has ever done that to me. Is that good or bad?

After over 30 years of waiting, I finally caught this movie on late-night cable. It was definitely not worth the wait. As expected, FZ fanatics will dub virtually anything he did as a "work of genius," but this nasty piece of work is nothing more than a display of self-indulgence. FZ himself stays out of the limelight, using Ringo as his stand-in, but he hovers in the background as a God- or conductor-figure, the mastermind behind the mess. The film is choppy, vulgar, and so dead-weighted by 70s film techniques that it's a laughable look back at how awful entertainment could be in those days. And the band...aargh! Would anyone like to argue that the Turtles could never have made it in show biz after the advent of video? And why does the amazing George Duke waste all his time with a trombone? Zappa was no doubt a musician of talent and insight. For instance, I remember reading an article he wrote in STEREO REVIEW (around this same time) about the music of French avant-garde composer Edgard Varese. And he obviously was acquainted with current orchestral writing techniques (the segments in the film of purely orchestral music are the most durable). But what separates him from true genius is how he wasted his career trying to shock the cultural and religious establishment by being as crude and vulgar as possible. Many "geniuses" have shocked the world, but few if any of them spent their careers reveling in the muck as did Zappa. Genius requires something a bit more exalted than 200 MOTELS.

I have tried to watch this movie several times over the past 30+ years, and it still blows. The characters are mostly childish, silly, or weird. The writers were obviously stoned out of their minds when they wrote this stuff, and probably when it was being filmed. They never came down long enough to realize just how insanely crappy this movie is.

It would have been a lot better as a concert documentary, with 85% being the Mothers of Invention playing music in concerts, and maybe 15% being interviews with the band members reciting whatever crazy stuff they wanted to. More music, less doped up weirdoes.

There is in 200 Motels an expression of insecurity matched by delusions of grandeur creating an atmosphere of low self-esteem. I realize musicians can provide a service that seamlessly blends with our lives, intensifying drama and fun, but seeing 200 Motels again at Anthology Film Archives I remember that the point of composing is to add something new to what's already out there...

Some composers innovate while sounding pleasing, their music blending well with other music of the times... Acceptance may be the composer's most comfortable accomplishment...It is encouraging when people like your music, and perhaps you have also delivered something advancing the possibilities of sound... Zappa was completely capable of fitting in while being innovative and original. He's actually a very successful pop star, and his material was always somewhere within the mainstream of commercial distribution.

He represents the universal reflexive response to rejection: reject! He wasn't accepted because why? He could have stepped into the orchestral shoes of the universally acclaimed Guy Lombardo! What a nice guy easing us into a new year with pleasing sounds.

Anyway, in my rejected adolescent insecurity I wasn't appreciating Muzak. I wanted to hear beautiful explosive sounds, and at the time, 1960's-1970, harmonic innovation was part of pop music, primarily through Burt Bacharach, but also with The Beatles, The Fifth Dimension, The Mamas and the Papas... Other innovators of the time include Edgar Varese, Hans Werner Henze, Luciano Berio, Karl Stockhausen... for me the most accessible of radical orchestral composers is Leonard Bernstein. George Gershwin of course passed away at a young age (38) at the height of his innovations and discoveries...so again with Frank Zappa at 53. It appears that musical innovators are not long for this world and it's amazing what they accomplish in their short lives.

The point here is that 200 Motels pushes away the refined classical crowd with a sense of vulgarity...the funniest outcome will be that a tuxedoed audience will jocularly sing along with the lyrics in the songs....

200 Motels offers great performers and musicians interpreting Frank Zappa's writing, while spoofing his plagiarizing leadership, and they especially deserve to be recognized and glorified... and yes, Frank Zappa, through great effort, offers a path for the advancement of musical composition... I wish making the movie was less contentious... It is beautiful and inspiring.

I'm a huge Zappa fan, but this is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen, right next to Star Wars The Phantom Menace. Frank and company should have taken a cue from the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour and realized that you just can't shoot random weirdness and expect to have a watchable movie.

The music's just ok, too. This version of the Mothers with Flo and Eddie was never one of my favorites. Still, the film does kind of suck you in and dares you to watch it. Some of the really old and cheeseball special effects, reverse film tricks, etc. come off as disturbing, but all in all, this is quite a snooze.

There probably aren't a lot of people out in IMDb land that are bigger Zappa fans than I am (I have ALL of his records for starters), but even so this film just doesn't do it for me. Others who are big fans of this late genius may want to give this one a look for curiosity or nostalgic purposes, but as a cohesive film it leaves a lot to be desired. It'd probably be great to have on if one were to be, say, experimenting with hallucinogenic mind altering substances, but other than that it leaves a lot to be desired. I recall about 10 minutes of entertaining segments in this long production and again, I'm a HUGE Frank Zappa fan. Thankfully there's more suitable footage available for those who want to see what this often underrated musician was really like. Then again, I've always thought Zappa was ahead of his time musically and philosophically, so perhaps this somewhat dated production will be more appreciated in years to come. Like his music, though, there's certainly not many other things out there like this. Sorry, Frank, but I still have to give this one a 2 out of 10. Long live Zappa!

If you don't know Frank Zappa, you won't like this movie. It's full of in-jokes, references to previous material and basic on-camera weirdness that can only be understood in context. Of course, it also works in reverse: if you enjoy Frank Zappa, like I do, you'll love to see this Zappa masterpiece. Zappa references this movie in loads of albums (Playground Psychotics, Best band you never heard in Your Life), and finally getting to see the much talked about magnum opus culminates the Zappa experience. The in-jokes make sense when you look at the rest of the Zappa past, and so does the premise of "a look at life on the road".

The context aside, the movie is just weird. It's not really "life on the road", it's random scenes of Keith Moon as a nun, a man falling in love with a vacuum cleaner and the band scheming against its leader. There's no real plotline, and Zappa isn't even played by himself for half the film (he's played by Ringo Starr). Honestly, it's not that good. Unless you're a fan of the Zappa mystique, it won't make much sense. Even the dynamite soundtrack is lost due to bad sound quality.

I saw this film for the first time in the 70's in a funky little theater in Manhattan on a double bill with Joe Cocker/Leon Russell's "Mad Dogs And Englishman". I was stone cold sober. Now, TCM just broad casted it and I watched it again. This film is full of little vignettes about life on the road, but the images are deliberately blurred, the camera goes here and there, and everyone seems to be partaking in something that they bought from a dealer. This, of course, is ironic, since Frank Zappa did not do drugs. Some of the music is, of course, wonderful, and its great to see people like Flo and Eddie, Ian Underwood and Jimmy Carl Black on screen, but the film is solely for Zappa fans. I don't think you need to get stoned to watch it, but for some of this, if you are sober you feel like you were invited to a party only to be the resident wallflower. If you like Zappa, who of course left us too soon, you owe it to yourself to watch it, but if you do not care for his music, its not your film. The rating is based on the cohesiveness of the film, which is barely there. I was stone cold sober when I watched it on television this time also. I'll never learn.

This was the film that lead many rock-oriented musicians and fans into contemporary composition. It was unique at that time for blending virtually all forms and genres of music and self-expression. The musical score melded rock band and symphonic arrangements that won acclaim from such notable conductors as Zubin Mehta, who also performed selections from this movie with the Los Angeles Philharmonic. It was the first large-scale release to utilize video to shoot and assemble the footage, which was then transferred to film. This enabled the film to be produced for a fraction of the cost, had it been shot and edited on film alone. High-quality,low-budget productions were an FZ trademark, whether the medium was music or film/video.