CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

disinterested_spectator Apparently a lot of people think that this movie shows what it is like to take LSD. If so, I'm sure glad I never dropped any acid, because then I would have been bored.Alternatively, some people say that this is the movie to watch while you are tripping out on acid. Well, if you have to watch a movie like this to enjoy being on LSD, it's not worth it.Speaking of drugs, if you have ever been around some people who are drunk or on drugs and think that everything they say or do is just hilarious, then you know what it is like to watch this movie. The problem is not that the potty-mouth humor is not funny, which would be bad enough, but that the people in the movie obviously think they are being so cute and clever and witty, and that makes the movie especially irritating.

Pozdnyshev I'm giving this a "9" not because it's a great, well-crafted, well- scripted movie, like I think most people would agree "Chinatown" or "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is. I think it deserves a 9 because it's just an unfiltered extension of Frank Zappa's music, which I love already: weird, unique, often rambling, with astonishing gems here and there. "Mystery Roach" and "Magic Fingers" stand out as favorites. But Zappa was better at music than he was at filmmaking. 200 Motels is an annoyingly opaque in-joke, a surreal jumble of skits with psychedelic video filters, weird-looking people in funny costumes, and cheap sets. They're not really funny or interesting, either, they're just weird. It pulls off a lighthearted vibe like Sesame Street, only the characters talk about the "penis dimension," how depressing it is for whores to sleep with traveling musicians, and people taking too much acid. That may sound dark, even offensive, but the tone of 200 Motels is just so silly that it's hard to take any of it seriously.I think there are deeper meanings woven into this thing, but they're odd, half-baked and just not interesting. For instance, there's a recurring theme of nuns doing dirty and undignified things like having sex with Alladin's Lamp (wtf?) and taking pills. I would actually rather NOT take that seriously because even though it comes from the mind of the great Frank Zappa, it's... stupid. Juvenile. Hurrr you don't like religion, let's flick a booger on a nun. Without going deeper into why he wants to depict nuns in such an undignified way, it's just more tacky and nonsensical stage-dressing.It's kind of like the Monkees' "Head". It's stupid, pointless, and self- indulgent, but it's also a feature-length music video for a popular band, if you're into them anyways. And the over-the-top psychedelia is interesting at times.

dizozza 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.

santegeezhe 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.