IMDb RATING
5.4/10
1.5K
YOUR RATING
A lonely young man's obsession with his neighbor gets the best of him, resulting in a murder, a cover-up ... and a potential new romance?A lonely young man's obsession with his neighbor gets the best of him, resulting in a murder, a cover-up ... and a potential new romance?A lonely young man's obsession with his neighbor gets the best of him, resulting in a murder, a cover-up ... and a potential new romance?
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Stephen Michael Copeland
- Lunch Room Worker
- (as Steve Copeland)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
"Roman" takes the form of a thriller, but functions more as a surprisingly low key character study. An isolated, sad, socially awkward young man works at a factory where he has no friends, and lives alone in a depressing apartment. His only joy is watching a beautiful young neighbor he fantasizes about. In a stroke of luck he ends up on a date with her, but things go horribly, tragically wrong. Before long he has struck up a relationship with a new, free-spirited but death obsessed young artist who has moved into the building, but he remains unable to fully invest himself in the relationship, largely for fear of things going wrong again.
The film was shot on low quality video, and looks very rough, but there are times when that adds to the intimate 'reality' feel. At other times it just looks a little cheap. There's a surprising amount of humor, and Lucky McKee, who wrote the script as well as playing the lead does a good job a creating a very strange protagonist you still find yourself feeling for. Certainly this has it's fair share of flaws, and moments that don't quite come off, but it has originality and bravery on it's side, and in it's best moments it achieves a sort of David Lynch vibe. For a first feature Angela Bettis acquits herself nicely.
The film was shot on low quality video, and looks very rough, but there are times when that adds to the intimate 'reality' feel. At other times it just looks a little cheap. There's a surprising amount of humor, and Lucky McKee, who wrote the script as well as playing the lead does a good job a creating a very strange protagonist you still find yourself feeling for. Certainly this has it's fair share of flaws, and moments that don't quite come off, but it has originality and bravery on it's side, and in it's best moments it achieves a sort of David Lynch vibe. For a first feature Angela Bettis acquits herself nicely.
Roman (Lucky McKee) is a lonely guy who becomes obsessed with a young woman (Kristen Bell). That obsession goes horribly awry, but things quickly turn around when Roman strikes up a romance with a young artist named Eva (Nectar Rose).
The movie is considered a spin-off of 2002 cult hit "May". In "May", Angela Bettis played the title role and Lucky McKee directed, roles which have been switched for Roman. It has been said to be a reversed gender version of May, which tells the story of a lonely person who has an obsession with a random stranger. To call it a spin-off seems a stretch, though, as there are no recurring characters.
What this film taught me: Saturday is chili dogs in the cemetery day. But also, Angela Bettis can make a fine film. Throwing in a "Harvey" reference for good measure, and using some amazing body part props, she constructs a good suspense horror romance. Of course, McKee wrote it, but once she has the camera it's her baby.
Surprisingly, Nectar Rose outshines Kristen Bell. I feel little sympathy for Bell, but take a great delight in Rose and her character's actions. McKee, of course, also shows he can act, and plays a perfectly creepy gentleman.
The movie is considered a spin-off of 2002 cult hit "May". In "May", Angela Bettis played the title role and Lucky McKee directed, roles which have been switched for Roman. It has been said to be a reversed gender version of May, which tells the story of a lonely person who has an obsession with a random stranger. To call it a spin-off seems a stretch, though, as there are no recurring characters.
What this film taught me: Saturday is chili dogs in the cemetery day. But also, Angela Bettis can make a fine film. Throwing in a "Harvey" reference for good measure, and using some amazing body part props, she constructs a good suspense horror romance. Of course, McKee wrote it, but once she has the camera it's her baby.
Surprisingly, Nectar Rose outshines Kristen Bell. I feel little sympathy for Bell, but take a great delight in Rose and her character's actions. McKee, of course, also shows he can act, and plays a perfectly creepy gentleman.
Anything having to do with dead bodies, whether it's zombies, necrophilia, cannibalism, or autopsies, etcetera, you can usually count me out. I really don't much care how well the film is made.
Now I did say usually, because "Roman" kept my interest. I thought Lucky McKee did an excellent job portraying a socially inept factory worker who is unable to control his fantasies, obsessions, and emotions. The viewer might be turned off by McKee's wooden and two-dimensional portrayal of Roman, but I believe this was intentional. If you don't believe there are really people out there like this, I'll introduce you to my sister-in-law's brother! Kirsten Bell and Nectar Rose were extremely sexy, Rose especially.
The film, obviously made on a low budget, didn't give anything away until the end, and was rather suspenseful. I can't say as I recommend "Roman", but I don't say avoid it at all costs either. It's not for everyone, and I'll leave it at that.
Now I did say usually, because "Roman" kept my interest. I thought Lucky McKee did an excellent job portraying a socially inept factory worker who is unable to control his fantasies, obsessions, and emotions. The viewer might be turned off by McKee's wooden and two-dimensional portrayal of Roman, but I believe this was intentional. If you don't believe there are really people out there like this, I'll introduce you to my sister-in-law's brother! Kirsten Bell and Nectar Rose were extremely sexy, Rose especially.
The film, obviously made on a low budget, didn't give anything away until the end, and was rather suspenseful. I can't say as I recommend "Roman", but I don't say avoid it at all costs either. It's not for everyone, and I'll leave it at that.
I watched and watched and kept thinking 'i'll give it ten more minutes'. The film is obviously low budget, (maybe more financial interest may have hurried it along a bit). The lead actor is great, he plays the role great, definitely the type of guy you'd avoid. However,he sits in his apartment, and he sits, and he sits, and he sits, and he goes to work, and then home, and then work and then home....get the point.
There are people out there like that, and the story line is menacing, but for heavens sake... hurry it along a bit. Surely in the pre-release stage, someone must have started fidgeting in the first ten minutes and said to the producer, 'shall we go back and tweak it to make it more interesting?' I can only assume that the response was...'too late the money's ran out' Enough said, go shopping instead!
There are people out there like that, and the story line is menacing, but for heavens sake... hurry it along a bit. Surely in the pre-release stage, someone must have started fidgeting in the first ten minutes and said to the producer, 'shall we go back and tweak it to make it more interesting?' I can only assume that the response was...'too late the money's ran out' Enough said, go shopping instead!
I didn't really know what to expect when I started watching this. Maybe a bit of horror based on the cover and back cover description. It turns out it's some kind of intimate drama with very little horror or gore. Yes, there is death but you won't necessarily realize it's the case right away. A lonely, very tall, socially inept metal welder spends most of its free time drinking beer and smoking in his small, motel-like apartment sitting on his comfy chair looking out the window. At one point, he starts being obsessed with a pretty blonde woman going to get her mail at the same time each day, but doesn't dare contact her. Unlikely as it seems, she makes first contact and they start becoming friends. A while later, at his apartment, a tragic accident occurs.
Despite getting main credit, Kirsten Bell, the blonde woman, is not much in the film and is by far the best, most natural actor of the bunch. The "star" is the actor-director Lucky Mckee who acts expressionless most of the time. Appropriate for the character, but easy to act. The other main actress, Nectar Rose, was definitely bad, fake and overacting despite playing an eccentric character. Her arrival provided an interesting twist, but also took me out of the story as she was not believable. The other worse actor was the fat building manager who, I guess, was supposed to be comic relief but just ended up making things even more caricatural. The main character was creepy, disturbing and a bit sad, but more in his passivity and lack of expression. A better actor, especially with his eyes, would have helped. The story had a fairly interesting concept, but it didn't feel as well developed and captivating as it could have been. The pace was slow and contemplative with a little creativity shown in the daydreams. I find the whole movie was brought down by the poor acting and by being tedious. However, it was slightly saved by the somewhat poetic justice of the ending.
Rating: 3 out of 10 (poor)
Despite getting main credit, Kirsten Bell, the blonde woman, is not much in the film and is by far the best, most natural actor of the bunch. The "star" is the actor-director Lucky Mckee who acts expressionless most of the time. Appropriate for the character, but easy to act. The other main actress, Nectar Rose, was definitely bad, fake and overacting despite playing an eccentric character. Her arrival provided an interesting twist, but also took me out of the story as she was not believable. The other worse actor was the fat building manager who, I guess, was supposed to be comic relief but just ended up making things even more caricatural. The main character was creepy, disturbing and a bit sad, but more in his passivity and lack of expression. A better actor, especially with his eyes, would have helped. The story had a fairly interesting concept, but it didn't feel as well developed and captivating as it could have been. The pace was slow and contemplative with a little creativity shown in the daydreams. I find the whole movie was brought down by the poor acting and by being tedious. However, it was slightly saved by the somewhat poetic justice of the ending.
Rating: 3 out of 10 (poor)
Did you know
- TriviaThe full film was shot with a digital video camera. The interviews were also filmed with the same camera.
- ConnectionsFollows May (2002)
- How long is Roman?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- May 2: The Story of Roman
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 32 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content