The Royal Hotel

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.

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.

There is a 2016 documentary about Hotel Coolgardie, an out of the way Australian spot where foreign backpackers can work for a time to earn money, but also where two Finnish backpackers faced inhumane treatment while working as bartenders.

This movie, "The Royal Hotel" is a fictional story that was inspired by Hotel Coolgardie. It starts in Sydney, where Canadian friends, Julia Garner as Hanna and Jessica Henwick as Liv, find themselves without funds. There in fact is a real Work and Travel program in Australia for travelers between the ages of 18 and 30 who want to earn and travel. So the two friends take advantage of that.

They get a bus ticket to a remote spot, they end up at the fictional Royal Hotel which has rooms where they stay, but is primarily a pub. The owner is played excellently by "Matrix" veteran, Hugo Weaving.

Some things happen but the movie is really about the unpleasantness that female bar workers often must contend with. As the filmmakers explain, it doesn't have to be in the Australian outback, it could be in a Manhattan bar, as rowdy men get boozed up and threaten to cross the line in behavior.

While I don't rate this movie very highly I found it interesting and the main actors are all very good. At home on DVD from my public library, my wife read the description and skipped.

Kitty Green's drama, The Royal Hotel is a slow burn that never ignites. The film follows two young Canadian backpackers, Liv (Jessica Henwick) and Becky (Julia Garner), who take on bartending jobs at a remote pub in the Australian Outback. The pub is owned by the enigmatic Bill (Hugo Weaving), and the clientele is made up of a rough-and-tumble bunch of miners.

As the film progresses, Liv and Becky find themselves increasingly isolated and vulnerable. The men at the pub are increasingly aggressive and predatory, and the women are forced to constantly navigate their way through dangerous and uncomfortable situations.

The Royal Hotel is a well-acted film, with particularly strong performances from Henwick and Garner. However, the film's slow pace and lack of suspense eventually become its undoing. The film is more interested in creating a sense of atmosphere and dread than in telling a compelling story. Unfortunately, it never quite succeeds in either.

One of the biggest problems with The Royal Hotel is that it never really gives the audience a reason to care about the two main characters. Liv and Becky are thinly drawn characters, and their motivations are never fully explored. As a result, it's difficult to feel any real tension or suspense when they are in danger.

Another problem with the film is its pacing. The Royal Hotel is a very slow-moving film, and it often feels like nothing is happening. There are long stretches of the film where the only thing happening is Liv and Becky serving drinks to the miners. This makes the film feel very tedious and boring at times.

Finally, The Royal Hotel's climax is both unsatisfying and confusing. The film builds up to a major confrontation between Liv, Becky, and the miners, but the climax is ultimately resolved in a very anti-climactic way. The film ends with a number of unanswered questions, and the audience is left feeling confused and frustrated.

Overall, The Royal Hotel is a disappointing film. It's a well-acted film with a great atmosphere, but it's also a slow-moving and unsatisfying film. But I wouldn't call this film a thriller as it offers no thrills or much suspense for the audience. The film literally made me yawn a few times during its runtime.

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.