Hotel

After sitting through literally 2 and 1/2 hours of assaultingly pretentious montages and amateurish camera work (not to mention editing), I was even more appalled by Figgis' own take on his work (speaking after his TIFF screening).

The man brags openly about not having any script, storyline or characters to speak of. He then goes on to talk about how he is the "actor's director", giving his cast the "freedom" to indulge themselves and improvise. What I'm thinking was how could you do this to your producers, to your cast?!--people who put their reputations on the line and end up looking utterly ridiculous (the only one to emerge from this wreck unscathed is John Malkovich, clearly smart enough to pull-out from the project just in time, only to appear in the opening 2 scenes)!

What I'm wondering is: why did Figgis want to make this film?

For that matter Figgis didn't even seem to know what his movie was about. I've never before seen such a soulless, self-indulgent piece.

Making a good, meaningful film should be a labor of love for the filmmaker. When you ask an actor to put their names and invest their abilities on your project you must pay them the same respect.

In the end, when I think of `Hotel', I think of Figgis standing before a microphone making a complete ass of himself, going on about the brilliance of his work. But others not fortunate enough to have that experience will more likely remember David Schwimer barking like a dog or Burt Reynolds entering and smiling for the camera and then having literally nothing to say for an entire scene, never to appear in the movie again.

If it were up to me the film would end with a still, black-and-white head shot of its "director" Mike Figgis, superimposed above all the credits.

This is unwatchable, pretentious garbage--one of the worst cases of directorial masturbation I've ever seen.

See it.

There have been a few times when I've watched a bad film and said the words, "Oh, God, that was the worst film I've ever seen", but I knew I never really meant it, I couldn't possibly make a serious judgement like that. Until now. This film remains the worst film I have ever seen. Even now, years later, when I watch some load of crap and say that it's the worst, this one comes back to me and I always have to add, oh no, apart from "Hotel", now that really was THE worst. It is pretentious. It is boring. God knows how they managed to get good actors to lower themselves to this wanky rubbish. You cringe and you squirm, just at the thought of how painful it must have been for all involved to have rammed their heads that far up their own arses. I watched this film ages ago, but I have come here, years later, and I still have the urge to shake my head at people over the internet, and say, no. No, don't do it. Don't watch it. There is absolutely no worth in it at all. Nothing.

Halfway through this movie I wanted the wasted hour of my life back. The plot is absolutely inane. To make it worse, the director though it would be clever to split the screen in four from time to time. So instead of watching one bad movie, you had to try and keep an eye on four. Not even completely gratuitous sex scenes could save it. I considered smashing the DVD to save anyone else from watching it, but it was a rental and I refused to invest any further money or time. Heard it was the same director as Leaving Las Vegas. Does anyone know if he has suffered a severe brain injury recently? Seriously, I like lots of off-beat movies. This was the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Save yourself, don't rent it, if you've rented it already, don't watch it. If you own it, take it out and bury it in the back yard.

Having enjoyed Mike Figgis' earlier efforts, "Loss of Sexual Innocence", "Timecode", and "Leaving Las Vegas", I entered the Varsity theatre at the Toronto International Film Festival in high spirits, also excited by the opportunity to hear Figgis introduce his film and take part in a question-answer program afterwards.

After sitting through literally 2 and 1/2 hours of assaulting pretentious montages and amateurish camera work (not to mention editing), I was even more appalled by Figgis' own take on his work.

The man brags openly about not having any script, storyline or characters to speak of. He then goes on to talk about how he is the "actor's director", giving his cast the "freedom" to indulge themselves and improvise. What I'm thinking was how could you do this to your producers, to your cast?!--people who put their reputations on the line and end up looking utterly ridiculous (the only one to emerge from this wreck unscathed is John Malkovich, obviously smart enough to pull-out from the project just in time, only to appear in the opening 2 scenes)!

My question for him would have been something along the lines of "why did you want to make this film?".

For that matter Figgis didn't even seem to know what his film was about. I've never before seen such a soulless, self-indulgent piece.

Making a good, meaningful film should be a labor of love for the director. When you ask an actor to put their names and invest their abilities on your project you must show them the same respect.

In the end, when I think of `Hotel', I think of Figgis standing before a microphone making a complete ass of himself, going on about the brilliance of his work. But others not fortunate enough to have that experience will more likely remember David Schwimer barking like a dog at the camera or Burt Reynolds entering and smiling for the camera and then having literally nothing to say for an entire scene, never to appear in the movie again.

If it were up to me the film would end with a still, black-and-white head shot of its "director" Mike Figgis, superimposed above all the credits.

This movie is severely lacking in the artistry that it claims to be all about. I feel it is as artistic as a the so-called art created by people who fling paint randomly onto a canvas or getting on a stage and doing various things to hurt themselves or shock the audience. I can't believe that the people involved with this are the people involved with this. I was deluded just as other people who wrote comments about this movie by the cover of the DVD (don't judge a DVD by its cover I know, but still, what else do you have to go on usually? Besides, its intentionally deceptive in my opinion)which makes it sound like a sleek little independent mystery/horror or something like that. I liked many of the cinematic decisions made in regards to photography and lighting, but these can only help so much. The rest of the movie serves only the purpose of trying (key word: trying) to prove that these actors are truly "artists" and are so adept and creative that they can improvise an entire movie. Not the case here. This is equivalent, in my opinion, to a group of expert, yet overindulgent scientists trying to get their faces on The Journal of Science and instead blowing up the lab. Hopefully this movie will serve an unintentionally good purpose of proving there is a reason great artists like Van Gogh or Monet painted artistic "impressions" of life and the world with some measure of design and structure, a blueprint if you will, and there is a reason why movies need (i'd underline need if I could