New Rose Hotel

With a solid plot basis (William Gibson short story), two excellent actors (Christopher Walken, Willem Dafoe) and an interesting director (Abel Ferrara) this movie could have well turned out to be a real hidden gem. Dario Argento's daughter posing as the female lead doesn't have any other qualification for her role than an Italian accent and a nice body -- no screen presence, no femme fatale charisma, no "edge" -- and the budget has obviously been someone's lunch money for a week, but those things alone would not have done too much damage. However, there are some bigger issues with this film.

In the beginning of the movie there's way too much singing in the bars, and it's all bad. I've been to karaoke bars where the performers have been significantly more talented. All of them. No kidding. And near the end the movie falls apart, mainly thanks to way too many flashbacks -- they are not of just one or two key scenes, but of umpteen, in a peculiar "here's the movie again in case you missed it" fashion. They are annoying as such, and as a result you probably lose your focus and, consequently, your grasp of the plot. What you end up having instead of a real movie is a 90 minutes long artsy collection of insubstantial sleazy moving pictures with nudity.

In short, the first half of the movie does not get your hopes up too high, yet the latter half is disappointing. Kind of an achievement, I suppose. For better or worse, Walken's cool charisma and Argento's numerous nude scenes may still keep you awake through the whole thing. 4/10

This movie seem to go all out for the ambience of what it could be like in the near future, giving us a look of the cold and bleak world that is set out for us. It doesn't quite succeed like in Blade Runner, probably due to its small budget, limited settings, which were mostly indoors, but it gave it a good run for the money.

On the plot side, I think it might have been better if the flashback method of the original story were used. This will avoid the replay of the first 2/3 of the film onto the final 1/3. Plus it would have also lead us to see how X (William Dafoe), being a person who frequents high caliber hotels all over the world, ended up in a porta-crypt.

Also, there seem to be too many ambiguous plot lines or cues that's either meaningless or completely open to interpretation. What's the significance of the tattoo on Sandii's (Asia Argento) belly? Was her deception both ways toward X? If it was, it was not implied at the end.

Christopher Walken, William Dafeo were both good in the film, with Walken putting his quirky improvisations to his character and Dafeo serious and troubled as usual. The surprise was Asia Argento, who's sultry performance proves that not all non English speaking actresses has to act as if they are reading lines like the way Penelope Cruz does.

Overall, a satisfactory film, giving a good visual and feel, but not dense enough in plot to make complete sense or to fill out the 90 minutes the movie takes.

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.

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.

Has any living director created a body of work as unpredictable and frustrating as Abel Ferrara?! 'New Rose Hotel' is another wildly uneven movie from the man who gave us the brilliant 'Bad Lieutenant', one of the greatest movies of the last 15 years, a modern masterpiece greatly admired by Martin Scorsese. The original short story of 'New Rose Hotel' by William Gibson was heavy on atmosphere and mood, and not that heavy on plot. The movie is even more so. A very good story but good material for a film? I don't think so. To make matters worse it's obvious the money ran out before production ended, hence the repetitive flashbacks/recycled footage of the last twenty minutes or so of the movie, something which all but ruins what preceded it. However, I can't dismiss the movie completely because you get to see two of the finest living actors working together. Willem Dafoe, and in his fourth collaboration with Ferrara, Christopher Walken are first rate even if the finished film isn't. Plus there's a great supporting cast, testament to the respect Ferrara has among the acting community - Asia Argento ('Scarlet Diva'), Annabella Sciorra, Victor Argo and Gretchen Moll, who all appeared alongside Walken in Ferrara's 'The Funeral' (a very underrated movie!), and musician/actors John Lurie (The Lounge Lizards/'Down By Law') and Sakamoto (Yellow Magic Orchestra/'Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence'). If you are a newcomer to Ferrara's work I suggest beginning with something a bit more accessible like 'King Of New York', not with this one. I was greatly disappointed by this movie, and if I wasn't such a big fan of Ferrara, Walken, Dafoe and Argo I would say don't bother.