New Rose Hotel

New Rose Hotel is based on the short story of the same name by William Gibson. While the film is supposed to be set in the tech infested world of Gibson's stories it fails to convey this feeling, with only a few pieces of technology presented visually. More importantly, however, the film is terribly written and directed. It seems obvious that Gibson's story should have been followed in a more literal manner, as the story finds the narrator (Dafoe's character) reminiscing in his coffin in the New Rose Hotel, talking to Sandii as though she can hear him. Instead, we are subjected to the story twice, the second time around in the form of flashbacks. I imagine the flashbacks are supposed to clarify the disorganized mess that Ferrara weaves in the first half of the film. Perhaps the film appeals to the art crowd, but don't let them fool you. It's a terrible movie, putting to waste the incredible talents of Walken and Dafoe. Gibson's writing is densely descriptive and gritty. Ferrara attempts for the grit, but Gibson's worlds can't be created without a budget [and a competent director would help]. For example: Kill Switch, an episode of The X-Files that Gibson wrote, was the most expensive episode ever filmed during the time the show was filmed in Vancouver. And it's one of the best episodes in the show's history. Why? Because it constructed the visual aspect necessary to tell the story. The fact that New Rose Hotel fails to do this, coupled with Ferrara's horrendous storytelling, is what makes it an unworthy effort. If you're a fan of Gibson, then watch the film, but I doubt you'll enjoy it.

It's hard to believe that a movie directed by Abel Ferrara based on a story by William Gibson and starring Christopher Walken, Willem Dafoe and Asia Argento would be anything less than great, but this movie is just OK. It has a lot of moody atmosphere. Asia A., the lovely Eurobabe who is supposedly ogre-ish horror-meister Dario Argento's daughter (I, for one, won't believe it until I see the blood tests), spends most of the movie in various states of undress (unfortunately, so does Dafoe). Walken is great as always. But literally nothing happens. It's all atmosphere, eerie music, and occasional bursts of softcore groping. Neither Ferrara's visuals, Walken's acting presence, or Argento's tatooed nether regions can ultimately carry a film so totally devoid of conventional plot, suspense, or action. Not a bad film, just a disappointing one.

Although New Rose Hotel isn't perfect, it's my favourite adaption of Gibson's work to the screen, even more so than the episodes of The X-Files that he co-wrote. I actually really like the structure of this film. It's just like remembering an intense event in real life. The key parts keep coming back over and over, but are a little different each time because it's in your mind. My only real complaint is that (like all of Ferrara's work that I've seen) the ending seems too quick and unsatisfying. As for Gibson's feelings on the film, I took part in an interview with the man himself right before the premier at the 1998 Vancouver Film Festival. Here's how he described it: "[The cinematography] is very beautiful." "It's amazingly close to the original short story. I can't think of too many films that are as true to the material, and consequently it's a very dark and somewhat claustrophobic experience."

This is a decent Abel Ferrara movie,with Walken turning in another memorable performance.I figure any movie with Walken's name listed in the credits first is worth watching.It did feel like the most important scenes were not filmed, and the rehashing of earlier scenes in the third act is really tedious. Overall, I think this movie would have been great with a bigger budget, but as it stands, I'd only recommend this to Walken fans.

New Rose Hotel captures the bleakness and despair of the short story that seems common to William Gibson's writing. I enjoyed the performances of Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe and the babe was sufficiently babeish to hold my interest though her acting was just OK. The movie peaked too soon and the flashbacks to the film's beginning were too long and repetitious. The short story didn't have enough depth to fill out the movie. William Gibson is heavy on description and atmosphere, a master at it. "Neuromancer", his best book, is enthralling even if you don't know what is happening. The screenplay for the movie should have been padded out more in the beginning maybe showing some history of X and some of the babe's motivations clearer. The story was somewhat obscure. If you didn't listen carefully you missed the plot. The movie was flawed but atmospheric and moody enough to be of interest. William Gibson's fans should see it to see how the book's mood was captured.