The Royal Hotel

This was a decent enough film on its own merits, however I urge anyone who enjoyed it, or even thought they were going to enjoy it but didn't, to watch Hotel Coolgardie. This is the true story documentary that the film is based on. The film is set in a very similar place, but the characters in the film, rough as they might be supposed to be, are far more clean cut than the people in real life. They are also far less sinister than the real life people, albeit it's more subtle in the documentary. Hotel Coolgardie really shows the pitfalls of isolation and toxic masculinity, and paints a really frightening portrait of rural Australia.

Strangely, I had this gut feeling that I'd enjoy this movie, solely based on the poster, even before reading the synopsis or watching the trailer. I was then worried I'd set my expectations too high, so I lowered them a bunch. At the time of writing this, there are fewer than 20 IMDb reviews, most of them being 1/10 ratings, which makes me feel somewhat delusional for not disliking it.

Now, let's be clear, not much happens in this film. If you're looking for a riveting storyline, this ain't it. The characters lack depth, and while there are hints about why they left 'Canada', we never really learn much about them. It's implied there's more to them, but never shown/said. Surprisingly, I wasn't annoyed by this, just as I wasn't bothered by the lack of things happening. I genuinely enjoyed it and felt a detailed backstory wasn't necessary.

The biggest issue lies in its marketing as a "thriller," which likely skewed people's expectations, accentuated by Julia Garner's Ozark fame. If I knew it was meant to be a thriller beforehand, I might have disliked it too. It's more of an indie-style, maybe psychological film, so forget any notions of it being a thriller; that's like when movies throw in a jump scare and eerie music and slapping the "horror" label on it when it isn't. I hate that.

It reminds me of movies like "American Honey," where I felt like I was actually in the movie, experiencing everything alongside the characters. I remember seeing a lot of bad reviews for that one too, even though I enjoyed it. "The Royal Hotel" will likely be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of thing. Many people don't like it, and I get why when I hear their reasons, but personally, I really enjoyed it. It's not a mind-blowing story, as I mentioned, but it held my attention throughout. I was glued to the screen. Most of it takes place in one location, yet it feels like so much is going on.

The whole first hour and then some felt like a build-up to the last 20 minutes. There wasn't much character development early on, but they grew on me as the movie progressed. There's a sense that things will go south when the girls are left alone. The tension built up beautifully for about 1hr15, then unraveled in just 10 minutes. Climax felt short lived, then again it is a short film, think I've just been watching a lot of 2-3 hour movies lately. Strangely enough, and I probably get some flak for this, but I genuinely enjoyed this more than "Killers of the Flower Moon," even though Scorsese's film had much more to it. Underscores the importance of pacing I guess.

It feels like they created the characters first and then figured out how the plot could evolve from there, rather than starting with a story. It's a raw film and disturbing for a guy to watch how the men behave in it. There's a warning about the remote setting and men at the beginning. I love how the movie went about depicting bad characters as bad characters, in stark contrast to Barbie for instance. The message is unmistakable, yet the film doesn't hammer it home repeatedly; it's conveyed through actions, not words.

I believe that Barbie was a good movie, and if it had followed a similar approach in portraying its characters, it could have conveyed its message effectively without receiving the backlash it did regarding how the 'Kens' were depicted. The same principle applies to portraying good guys as good guys and showcasing strong female leads. I think the argument against guys not liking badass female leads is unfounded. We've had iconic characters like Lara Croft, avatar Korra, The Bride from Kill Bill, Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Camille Preaker from Sharp Objects, and most recently, Supergirl from The Flash( a lot of guys literally hated the movie but her). Anyway I side tracked big time lol but back to "The Royal Hotel," I also enjoyed the two leads and how they had a compelling and badass conclusion.

The acting was fantastic and believable, perhaps the best from the two leads I've seen. Everything felt genuine, and the plot evolved naturally based on the characters' decisions and actions, making it all the more believable. In my opinion, the best aspect of this movie is how everything progresses naturally because of it.

I loved it. But a lot of people seem to not like the movie so maybe I'm delusional one here. I guess I'll add this to my list of guilty pleasures.

Someone said recently that audiences were more appreciative of good movies 50 years ago, and (by implication) that current audiences don't know quality when they see it. Jesus H. Christ, when seeing the user reviews here that is really and starkly borne out!

This is a perfectly well-made and often chilling drama about toxic masculinity; a realistic portrayal of how things can veer off-track for anybody; a well-acted and believable depiction of culture shock and the psychological problems of isolation and weltschmerz.

Yet most of the reviewers here clearly weren't prepared for this type of movie, and clearly wanted something very different. Well, why did you watch this, you bleedin' nincompoops? Why didn't you turn it off after half an hour? Why did you even bother to write a review? That's on you, peeps. Get better at picking your content.

Hanna (Julia Garner) and Liv (Jessica Henwick) are traveling best friends far from home. They are on a party boat in Sydney, Australia. With money trouble, they take up jobs in a remote mining town. They are barmaids working for Billy (Hugo Weaving) who is drunk most of the time. The town is full of drunken men and not many women.

I want Hanna and Liv to be smarter for the sake of the story. I can't believe that they didn't get the Dickens joke. It's the type of joke to accentuate somebody's stupidity and the movie does exactly that. I do like Hanna's reason for not drinking. I did expect the story to go a different way. It takes a sharp turn near the end which I don't mind. I would like something more during that stormy night so the payoff could be more satisfying. It sets up a couple of things that never pays off. The color coding of the beers should be something but it goes nowhere. I thought this story had a darker back story especially with the British chicks. This movie could be something but it stops short.

I read the description of this movie expecting either a drama or a crime movie, but I got neither. What I did get to see was a portrait of an Australian pub. Period. Sometimes a bit rowdy as in any pub. And that's it. What the what?

The bad: this story is going nowhere. 2 female pub employees serve beer and ocassionally hang out with some of the pub visitors. Wanna watch that for 90 minutes long? I got bored.

There is a final to this story that does not make sense at all, making me further question the capabilities of the writer of this script.

Kinda tedious. Kinda lame. Nothing much happens except some common pub rowdiness. And that is suppose to be the basis of an entire movie?

Not any good then? Jennifer Garner is a great actress. SHE was THE reason I started watching this movie, but her performance cant cover up the simple fact that this story is void of any drama or thrill. What a dud.