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.

I've stayed in many hotels. The movie Hotel reminds me of the worst hotels. Someone suggested film students should see this film. And yes, they should. So they know what it takes to make a boring film. I think the majority of movie watchers like a film they can follow, even if it is a bit confusing. But Hotel goes way beyond confusing. There was some interesting film work but most of the story was void of meaning on first watch. And there was such a void of story that I would not watch it again. Too boring in so many ways to make me want to watch it again to figure out the meanings. On the DVD container it says Roger Ebert called it "Bold, funny, delightful!". I think he meant boldly boring, funny for one scene, and delightful to eject from the DVD player. But then again, I think we all know Ebert is a little unreliable with his thumb up.

The sniggering from the video store staff should have alerted my attention to the poor choice I had made in deciding to rent "Hotel." Is it really the worst film I've ever seen? Without doubt... and I say this having watched "Bogus Witch Project" (now relegated to the number 2 spot in the all time worst films). Sometimes films are so bad, they're good. This however is so bad it's dug deep, used some industrial mining equipment and broken through to a whole new kind of Hell that no-one knew existed. Truly awful. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves. Let us never speak of it again.

I came across this movie in the local rental outlet, where it has a fashionable DVD jacket, a cast list that seems to never end the names of celebrities and famous actors, and a text on the back of the cover that suggests this movie is a very smart, eery horror movie.

Well. It is not. I watched it, and after about five hours - or was it just 2? time distorts with boredom... - it ended, and I also watched the "making of". Which explained a lot. The concept: The director wanted to shoot a movie. In Venice. With lots of famous actors that receive equally small salaries. Using only digital cameras and his own handheld camera rig inventions. Without a script, entirely improvised. Without. A. Script.

That should explain it all. Let's just describe one scene, somewhere in the movie: A hotel maid pours white liquid into two cocktail glasses that are placed in front of a business man on a cell phone. She undresses, dipping her breasts into both glasses in front of the - now just mildly distracted - business man, who continues to bark orders into his cell phone. She dips them in again. She stands up and gets dressed. The guy drinks the white liquid from the glasses. The sequence lasts a few minutes, is completely without reference or context, and just sits there, eager to provoke an audience reaction, but failing (in my case).

Or, the 10-minute flamenco dance shot simultaneously with 4 cameras. Impressive, but useless. There are many such scenes - out of context, without purpose, done purely for the joy of doing them.

Now don't get me wrong - the movie (if it can be called a movie) has its moments. Yes, with a lot of effort, you can almost make out a story (a film crew shooting a cheap movie in Venice, sticking to a weird dogma of guerilla-movie-making). There is a murder - or at least an attempted murder. And, the most memorable scene of the movie has to be the 15 minutes or so that we see the shot director lying on the ground, only able to move his eyes, while his cast come to him and talk to him, too self-absorbed to notice he's dying. The three other (sex) scenes playing in the other split screen windows at the same time look pale in comparison. (Note to director: 4 split screens is just too much!) Or the scene where a woman undresses, whispering comments to the audience ("Now, why should this be particularly interesting to you?" she asks, while removing the first item of clothing) before engaging in sex with the comatose director.

But do 2 memorable scenes make up for all the rest? After all, the DVD jacket sleeve promised thrills, chills, and cleverness. There was nothing thrilling about the entire movie at all. And, while it may think it's clever, it just isn't. The actors, left to improvise a story out of nowhere, fail to achieve much. In the beginning, Rhys Ifans (playing the director) grabs the screen, eager to be the centre of attention, and shouting so much that no one else gets noticed at all. No wonder they "improvised" his assassination - they must have been sick of not being noticed. Then, the rest of the cast fail to do anything creative, and most of the pleasure is in watching their movie-in-a-movie, which has more dialogue and more of a storyline, and more displays of acting skills than the rest of the story. Then, Salma Hayek tries to steal the show (by being incredibly annoying) and is improvised away, just as she becomes unbearable. Is there a pattern here?

The moral is, a movie without a script cannot be entertaining. Film students and artists may appreciate it, but the rest of the population won't. And, with 20-odd egos, it's impossible to make a good movie.

Quite frankly, only watch this if you are looking for material to write a bad review or a bad arts essay about. Or if you need something to satirize - the entire movie feels like an extended version of the short film that the arts teacher presents to her class in "Ghost World" - a bad joke at art's expense....

Well I read the reviews of this film after I had seen it, which was a mistake. I should have read them before because I would have saved myself $5 and 45 minutes of my time (the movie is infinitely longer, but 45 minutes was all I could get through). Truly, this was the worst movie I have ever seen. One of the previous reviewers referred to it as 'pretentiously incoherent' and that's exactly right. Tons of swearing, jiggly camera angles, incoherent plot, bad acting, cannibalism, no closed captioning available, horrible sound quality...I could go on, but surely you get the idea. Bad, bad, bad. Please don't waste your time or money!!