Hôtel

Before I buy a flick on DVD, I read reviews. First, I come here to IMDb to see what other viewers think. Then, I seek professional reviews to help me determine whether or not I should shell out $20.

Had I listened (as I normally do) to these reviews, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near Hausner's "Hotel" and would've checked in at the Motel 6 down the block. It seems, across the board, the reviews of this film call it "technically adept, but dull," or they complain that "Nothing happens! There's no plot!" Indeed, I almost DID listen to these reviews, but something about the premise of "Hotel" intrigued me. So, I decided to buy it, and I just finished watching it ten minutes ago.

Suffice to say, I feel inclined to come to the aid of this much maligned film. First, I agree with many reviewers about how the film is photographed. Without question, it is technically adept. The cinematography is precise and beautiful; carefully crafted (and often static) shots fill this flick, much like a Tarkovsky film. Colors are both vibrant and menacing--especially the void-like blacks (of the night forest) between the gray bark of the bare trees. Also the sterile greens and grays of the hotel interior. And don't forget the blood reds (of the front-desk-clerk's uniform) as she disappears into those horribly beckoning trees...

Now onto the ubiquitous "nothing happens" complaint. The movie depends much more on atmosphere (and brilliantly so) than jump scares or plot turns. So if you are looking for big action, you will not find it in "Hotel." And (NEWS FLASH!) this is precisely the purpose of the film. Like many great films (and I'm not calling this great, just exceedingly well done and marginally upsetting--in a good way), this film does not tell the viewer what to think. In fact, most of time, it doesn't even show the viewer what happens. Imagine that! Indeed, this is where the IMAGINation of the viewer (if the viewer has ever practiced using his or her imagination) fills in the dreadfully empty gaps.

The hinted-at story of the "forest witch" who used to live in the cave near the hotel (and the accompanying tales of vanishing hikers in the thick forest) is anything but fairytale-like. The cold, black crack in the mountain wall (the cave itself) seeps off the screen as it draws in the new young hotel desk clerk inch by inch. There's a lot of pathos here--the nervousness of beginning a new job for our protagonist; the impersonal darkness and dead-end corridors of the angular hotel; generally unfriendly and persnickety (even zombie-like) coworkers (one of which, in an understated dramatic moment, soullessly tells the protagonist to "Leave the hotel" and begins reciting the Rosary while mechanically cleaning a room); the suggestion of a "disappearance" (or perhaps, supernatural murder) of the previous desk clerk and everyone's unwillingness to discuss it. Yes, there's plenty of pathos.

But a warning is in order: This is not "The Shining." Kubrick's great film had a lot of Big Wheel action and Nicholson's drooling and babbling. Hotel has neither. But to create its own sterile, haunting effect, "Hotel" doesn't need Redrum or Scatman Crothers.

The clincher, however, is the ending of "Hotel." (Editorial: It reached valiantly for similar territory as the ending of Tarkovsky's "Solaris," in my opinion--"Hotel" didn't quite make it, but WOW!) Of course, I read many reviews that complained that "Nothing is explained" in the end. Whine, whine, whine! I guess ever since the "big-splashy-ending-that-explains-everything-in-a-surprise-twist" of "The Sixth Sense" and similar films, viewers are spoiled and need everything explained in a way that knocks their socks off. Well, my socks were absolutely knocked across the damn room, and at the same time NOTHING was reduced to a nugget-like explanation! I thought the abrupt, strange, pushed-off-a-cliff feeling invoked by director Hausner was PERFECT! It will stick with me for a while, and I recommend this film because of it.

And to those of you who "want your money back" from this "boring" film, I suggest you relax. Stop watching movies with expectations of having your entire life (and the lives of those on screen) explained away into absolute nothingness. News Flash #2: You don't know everything; you can't know everything. In fact, you may know very little about ANYTHING. (Just like the protagonist in this film; she knows so little--even about herself--that she may in fact BE the dreaded witch who dispatched her predecessor--who knows?)

You want REALLY SCARY? Here's a suggestion: Try existing in uncertainty. That's where "Hotel" lives. It's probably the scariest of all places to be.

I usually don't comment what fellow critics on IMDb write, but giving this little masterpiece only an average of 4,2 is bad taste indeed. In short; it's been a while since one saw a movie there so much happens, even if you don't see all of it on the screen. Franziska Weiss is really great, with a face which tells you a lot, with just a small correction of the glimpse in her eyes.

This is creepy, but in a way you might be rather familiar with from your own life. That life is here, by very small means, a nightmare. Maybe the end doesn't really fulfill what is promised, not really. Maybe the camera spotlights in the forest surrounding the hotel are too sharp.

But still this is supposed to give you much worse dreams than for example "The Grudge", which is made by amateurs.

I saw "HOTEL" at the International Rotterdam Film Festival 2005. It's a minimalistic suspense story that is all about atmosphere and concealed fear. It reminded me of Michael Haneke's "TIME OF THE WOLF" and Nicholas Winding Refn's "FEAR X". Little happens, but there is a constant sense of dread. Tension is built with care and slowly becomes nightmarish as Hausner uses a Lynchian dream-logic.

I don't mind these kind of movies, although i prefer the more engaging type like Kiyoshi Kurosawa's "CURE". It's a matter of taste. Most of the audience sounded frustrated because nothing happened. "HOTEL" is also best suited for smaller theaters. I saw it in a reasonable large room which took away a part of the effect the movie should have.

6.5/10

Irene is the new receptionist in a hotel in the Austrian alps. She's not a local and thus is assigned living quarters on-site. She is obedient and pretty, modest and respectful. She likes swimming in the hotel pool, and walking close to the hotel in the foreboding woods.

She is friendly and wants to be a part of her peer group. Her co-workers are either stoic or rude and inconsiderate. Irene is alone and isolated------ and this isolation is the underlying theme of the film.

Irene was hired to replace another young woman, also a boarder, who has gone missing. There is a police investigation underway during Irene's early time at the hotel. We're told that there is a local legend of a Woman of the Woods, a witch who lives in the woods, perhaps inside the ominous cave near the hotel. Are the woods indeed haunted? Is someone stalking Irene?

These factors contribute to the mystery of the film, but do not explain the fate of Irene.

If you view this film as a horror and expect scares or gore, you will be confused and disappointed. The truer description is of a simple mystery involving young, low-paid service workers struggling to make connections in the stark, depressive environment of a mountain hotel.

Irene's emotional health visibly declines as her initial hopefulness about a new job in hospitality fades and becomes lonely and odd. Even the most simple joys she seeks, the friendship of a co-worker, a brief romance, a schedule change to go home, or pool swimming, become disappointments. This is the defining quality of the film, and when viewed as such, the ending makes sense.

This is an interesting, colorful, dark, film with repressed characters and dark hallways. It is relatively easy to watch at 75 minutes. This was a wise decision by the director. The runtime is perfect for the story.

Boring Austrian hotel requires boring receptionist to replace previous receptionist (probably also boring) who has disappeared, or been disappeared, into surrounding dark spooky forest; possibly gobbled up in the cave. By our Lady of the Woods. As boredom material.

Actually, I might have assumed too much there – imagined too much drama, or too much haunty horror. Which is no doubt what the director would like me to do: see all the strange goings on she's – deliberately – not been showing. And also reading into the narrative all the story she's not been developing, or even really providing. The new receptionist Irene never says very much; and the other characters don't say much to her either. Is something "funny" going to happen to her? Hopefully yes – otherwise watching this film will have felt like a waste of time.

Come the end something funny does happen to her. But it still felt like a waste of time. There's been too much concealed as opposed to revealed or released dramatic tension. The direction far too mutedly mannered. Far too withheld.