Customer Reviews

Hotel

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Mike Figgis makes a supersized attempt to be artsy in this meandering film. The problem is that the story is so flat because there is no one about whom we can care. After the first confusing messy thirty minutes (John Malkovich sitting behind prison bars at a dinner table for no apparent reason other than to offer insipid dialogue to an uncaring dinner guest list), I decided to just look at the screen for the color and the wild camera work. Venice looks great but the stodgy staging of 'The Duchess of Malfi' and the weak plot associated with it doesn't even begin to cover the creaks in this silly film. This one is only for the Figgis fans out there - and for Venice addicts who will put up with about anything to just 'feel' the Venetian glow. A Must Miss. Grady Harp, August 05

If you're an indie fan or like to explore uncharted cinematic territory, you will be entertained, puzzled and pensive during this film. With this movie, it's not the dialogue, the plot or any other typical production necessaries that pull the viewer into the chaos. Oddly placed comic moments, strange and intriguing situations, erotic overtones, bold subject presentation, and random progression held my attention. Not for the masses, Hotel provides a very unconventional ride. I know NO other film with which to compare this flick. Worth the watch. Just don't go in with expectations. It's weird, but has a pleasantly sinful aftertaste. (The meal at the very beginning with John Malcovich is priceless.)

The description on the movie jacket is totally misleading. It is not thrilling and it is not terrifying. The only scene of Venice you will see is St. Mark's Square. All-star cast? Yup, and I suppose they made the best of it, but then if I was paid big bucks to spend some time in Venice I would too... A horrible movie! A waste of 1hr. 51minutes.

Mike Figgis has previously directed two great movies. "Leaving Las Vegas"
and "The Loss of Sexual Innocence". Even though I browsed past the Amazon reviews and had seen that the movie was not well liked, I decided to risk it and watch it anyway. This is a bad movie. It's that simple...It is truly a piece of s*it. I can't say there is a good thing about it. And it's not just the cinematography that's bothersome. In fact, it was good of Figgis to use this kind of cinematography...Because, believe me. A movie like this would've been ten times worse had it been in your regular, run-of-the-mill cinematography. Now, even though I've just completely blasted this movie; I'm giving it two stars just because, for a while, it was fascinating. I hated the story, but my eyes were glued to the screen for most of it. But, the story is just so stupid, half the time doesn't make any sense. It's pretty much a complete waste of actors talents. The movie's cast is amazing though, it features John Malkovich, David Schwimmer, Rhys Ifans, Lucy Liu, Salma Hayek, Danny Huston, Jason Isaacs, and Burt Reynolds. Much of the dialogue is improvised (which isn't obvious, oddly enough), the actors are waering little to no makeup, and well...How the hell do you even explain this kind of movie? I guess if you were to give it a synopsis, it would be: A group of filmmakers ascend upon an old hotel in Venice, Italy and begin shooting a movie. Not long after, the director (Ifans) is shot and his best friend (Schwimmer) takes on the directing duites. The movie they're making is an adaptation of the play "The Duchess of Malfi" and at times, we spend five minutes or more just watching scenes from this. Then people are suddenly finding dead body parts in the meat cellar of the hotel. But does anything come of these findings? No. Could they have cut these scenes and still had a bad movie? Yes. The more I watch movies like this, the more I wonder if critics are paid to steer their views toward something. I mean, Roger Ebert seemed to like this movie; but he doesn't like a movie like "Serving Sara" or something. Trust me, folks. This movie should never have been made, will leave no mark upon society or film (except it will leave a nasty mark, on Mike Figgis' previously really good resume'), and I hope Figgis will stick to what he's good at. Good movies, with regular cinematography, that get lots of Oscar nominations.

GRADE: D-
SHOULD BE: Z...But seriously, F-

Good try, but I doubt if this one
even sat well with the Arthouse crowd.

This movie is obnoxious and strange.
I don't dislike it for that reason
alone. It's uneven, mostly boring, and has
too much dialogue about absolutely nothing.
The cinematography is dizzying (in an annoying
way) and the characters are flat corpses,
even before they're killed.

And where is all the alleged eroticism?
With so much of nothing going on in this
film it would be very easy to miss (However,
the "Milk" scene is definitely worthy of
an eyebrow raise).

My biggest surprise is how in the world
did they manage to get so many notable
actors to appear in this horrible film.
For Christ's sake, Burt Reynold pops up
out of nowhere, and Lucy Liu even waltzes
in towards the end.

Don't let the hip casting fool you,
this movie is a waste. In fact, I nominate
"Hotel" as the first movie on Amazon to
receive a negative rating.

Amazon should perhaps consider minus-star ratings. I hope I shall never see a worse movie. This mess lost me about 20 IQ points. Without a doubt, the worst film I've ever suffered through. However, it's David Schwimmer's best performance. Amazon: Please allow minus-stars for such awful, indulgent pieces of ca-ca. And Roger Ebert's quote on the case cover was indicative of reviewers on the take: BOLD, FUNNY, DELIGHTFUL!
(And now it's 12:2 in favor of awful... )

heh...the words on the jacket: "a deliciously disturbing and erotically charged thriller"... are rather shameless hyperbole.

Instead, this film is remarkable for one thing alone: how the director squanders acting talent and beauty (Salma Hayek, Chiara Mastroianni, Ornella Muti, Lucy Liu!), financial resources, and the luminous backdrop of Venice to produce a film that is not even a flop but rather resembles an uncut first year film student's independent project... a very average project, that is.

The words that come to mind are 'breathless', 'pretentious' and 'incompetent'. Generally, the designation "art film" means that the director is unable to focus or use a script and needs to resort to gimmickry. this certainly is true for the Hotel. The 'macabre' we see is simply an excuse for Figgis' lack of imagination; the exquisite Dutchess of Malfi text is abused rather than used. The two good scenes (with John Malkovich, in the beginning; the flamenco scene in the middle) are never developed.

My basic issue with the film is that it is basically soul-less.

This is not due to Figgis' incompetence alone. The film should never have been produced.

Come to think of it, The Hotel should be required viewing for film students, a lesson in how great actors and a lot of money are not enough to make a good flick. There is something else.

This movie was beautifully made. The characters were intriguing. This is what independent film making is all about.

The "Special Features" section said this movie had no script. That explains but doesn't excuse it.

Talk about a waste of money, I'm still mad that I wasted $4.19 to rent this theme-bloated, overcooked/overthought, forgetful disaster of a flick. Sure it has the cast-names to fatten up the dvd jacket, sure it's got the critics' quotes, sure it claims to be an "erotically charged thriller", but caveat emptor: "it ain't all that" -not by any stretch of imagination. If you're looking for entertainment, here's a better idea: take 4 random books of fiction, toss them in a shredder, take the shreddings and drop 'em in a blender, turn mixing speed to 'high', empty out and glue back together in any order you choose; guarantee you'll have more fun.