A common complaint about the movie is that it goes out of control near the end. I used to think this was just the result of people not being able to follow the plot amidst the midnight insanity, or not being interested enough to care. But the critique contiues to pop up in DVD reviews, too. Over and over I read "It falls apart in the third act."

I've never understood this. To me, the movie follows the contours of a standard horror movie quite closely, and all the plot developments fit right into place. I guess for those familiar with musicals as a genre, the Floor Show comes across as the standard "let's put on a show" solution to book trouble. But the Floor Show fits Frank's dramatic nature so well that it doesn't come across as plot weakness to me, but rather as character fulfilment. And at any rate, people seem more put off by the revelation that the household is from another planet than "Rose Tint My Word." Even if it were a sudden revelation at Riff and Magenta's appearance in the the ballroom, I still think it would work. And as it happens, the "surprise" has been hinted at from the moment Janet wonders "but then where did that motercyclist came from?" So whats the beef?

Anyone else have an idea why people devalue the movie's final segment?

Having seen/participated in the stage show, attended various audience participation showings and owning the DVD, I would lay the blame for most of the third act criticisms on Jim Sharman's direction, rather than on R.O'B's story.

On the theatre stage (if done correctly), the show is played for total camp. The strutting and awkwardness of the main leads in garters and fishnets is supposed to be amusing. Riff Raff & Magenta's crashing of the Floor Show in alien costumes plays up the ridiculousnes of the situation, as well as parodys sci-fi cliches. There is an energy in the stage show from start to finish, even without modern audiences shouting callbacks in the theatre.

But Sharman directed the movie much in the style of classic old B horror/sci-fi films. And the pacing and editing of the RHPS is really slow. R.O'B actually mentions in the DVD commentary that despite the movie cutting out songs and dialogue, it plays out LONGER than the stage play. Even the audience participation gags kinda lose steam at the end of the second act, around the time of "Eddie's Teddy."

The Floor Show (a broadway musical convention) and the downbeat ending (a 50's sci-fi film convention) as translated on film totally contradicts the zany, comic spirt of the first act. In the second act, the shift in tone happens at the bedroom scenes; it continues to lag until it's lifted briefly in "Eddie's Teddy" and "Planet Schmanet Janet". Then in the third act from the Floor Show to the end it's rather downbeat (especially at 1:30am!) I blame Sharman's inexperience in motion picture direction as the reason for RHPS's much maliagned criticism.

There's even a scan of an old studio memo floating around the internet evaluating RHPS's orginally intended sequel from 20th Century Fox dated back prior to Shock Treatment's production (if it's even real) that suggests a better comedic director (like John Landis) could make the 2nd movie more successful.

But I'm of fan of R.O'B's original intentions: satirizing musicals and 50's horror/sci-fi, and I enjoy watching the movie for those reasons. That's my 2 cents, anyway. Thanks for motativating me to join the forum!

Thanks for the response. You're probably right about the timing. Personally, it works for me, but you're quite right that it's old horror movie pacing, not farce pacing, and that this leads to a very different "reading" of the experience.

Bumping an old thread, but hey whatever...

Myself, I think Radiohead raises a lot of valid points, but one of my favourite parts of the movie is the end, starting at the floorshow and including the credits. It's right to say that it's staged and cut in the manner of a golden-age sci-fi or horror film, but whether Sharman was inexperienced or not it works in my book. While it might have a noticeable tonal change from the first act, this gives the movie a greater scope of emotion. The funny, witty bits work best as there are other themes at work in the picture, throwing them into relief. Although the movie is done in a light style, horrific things happen - mostly the killing and consuming of Eddie and the slavery of Rocky. So for me, the movie isn't just a comedy, but a movie with a broad range of concepts at work.

The end works because it is so grand in nature, it does expound on Frank's character as mentioned above, and even ignoring the hints at the 'final surprise' I think the sudden hard left revelation at the end works in context with the haphazard nature of the film genre it's spoofing. I suppose I mean to say, that the movie takes itself seriously to some extent, which is a good thing.

_________________
To the late night, double feature, picture show... I wanna go!

So in answer to the original question, the only thing I can think of is that people may find the proportionally high content of music compared to dialogue in the final act tedious, even though it IS a musical and the songs are terrific anyhow. Or, possibly they are not familiar with the films Rocky Horror takes off and therefore don't appreciate the referencing in the filming style.

_________________
To the late night, double feature, picture show... I wanna go!