Hotel

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

One of the numerous films that had a great deal of buzz about it prior to its premier at the Cannes Films Festival. The reviews and feelings of many I spoke with about this film were mixed to say the least. This is the first full length film by Hausner and she did a marvelous job. The plot is simple enough...Girl begins working at a Hotel up in the mountains, after her predecessor mysteriously went missing. The eerie shots and mood of the film are relentless. I think what made this movie for me was that it did not give into the temptation to be a Hollywood film. It was not a jump-out-of-your-seat movie, but was enhanced because of that. It broke so many of the typical Hollywood norms, especially the length of the shots. I don't want to give too much away because I want everyone to be able to experience the film in the same unknowing manner in which I was able to. A must see, easily one of the top 3 films at Cannes this year!!!!!

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.

This is my first review, but there's something about that movie that made me want to share my thoughts about it.

I've seen this movie a few times, and for me this movie is pure masochism, the joy of feeling uncomfortable. The Horror does not come from jumpscares but from the cold distance that comes from the colleagues. Maybe you really need to be an austrian to fully understand the feeling that Irene goes through.

When i was somewhere around the same age like Irene, i moved to eastern Austria close to the location this movie was filmed, at the same time when to movie was released. I also got a job in a kinda old fashioned Business that aimed the upper classes. The distance between colleagues themself and the bosses was huge and cold. Something i never experienced before. And this movie is so honest and good in portraying this distance, that i always can identify myself with Irene. I am the opposite of a shy person, but this tension at work makes you a shy mouse like Irene is. You're trying to create a friendshipy like relation to your colleagues, whom you see every day, but for an outsider it's nearly impossible to join the "inner circle". For an open minded person this is hard to accept, that it needs many months, if not years, to join the inner circle of the staff, that makes you feel welcome into the business you spend every day in. And theres no other movie, wich i saw so far, that is so good in transporting that feeling of cold Austrian distance between co-workers.

I especially want to mention the great work of Marlene Streeruwitz who did a brilliant job in acting one of the bosses, Frau Maschek. For me she is the austrian counterpart of Robert de Niro - An actor who loves to play the kind of person she hates like the most in real life. She keeps in all good manners, but lets you know that she doesn't trust you by the way she speaks to you in a bored and slightly annoyed way.

The work of the actors and how they are portrayed is brilliant and couldn't be performed better. The story itself has some weak parts, but in my opinion this movie isn't about the story, it's about what you feel while you're watching how Irene tries to become part of people who may be forced (?) to keep a distance but still sometimes show a little spark of sympathy that gives Irene the hope to become a real part of the team someday.

Allthough the story on itself isn't that thrilling i love the feelings that this movie is able to transport. If the story itself would be a bit more demanding this movie would get 10/10.

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.