Hotel Inferno

My quick rating 4,8/10. Pretty silly plot with some non-existent acting. That really isn't the point of this movie, the point is to watch what is a first person shooter game that has been put on celluloid (OK, old term, but I am old). This movie is over the top with completely fake looking gore and stupid bad guys, just like a game. That is the novelty and that is the only place it gets points from me, beyond that, this movie sucks. Watch it for that reason alone, don't laugh when you hear the main character speak, he is supposed to sound like a moron. Not worth typing enough,even for IMDb today,so enjoy,or don't, up to you. Guess I changed my mind, this was enough for IMDb, short and sweet....

Fun movie and while a few of the effects are a little off the overall effort is exceptional.

The the only real problem are the hands of the point of view character . He has hands like a kept woman. I mean he must moisturize every hour on the hour. There is no character in the hands.

The exposition scene in the room of flies is very well done.

All in all a very well made project with budget spent on real FX.. no computer work here..

I abso-bloody-lutely loved Necrostorm's first movie Adam Chaplin, directed by and starring Emanuele De Santi, but was rather disappointed by their follow up, Taeter City, which was helmed by Chaplin's special effects man Giulio De Santi: it tried hard to impress, but simply didn't work anywhere near as well as a whole, despite once again featuring tons of superb splatter. But I'm a generous kind of guy, always willing to give a film-maker a second chance to impress, and with Hotel Inferno, impress me De Santi most certainly has. As Yoda might say. If he watched gore films.

Shot entirely in first-person POV, Hotel Inferno is quite unlike anything I have ever witnessed before. Sure, I've seen first-person POV employed sparingly in films like Doom and House of the Dead, but never has it been used as fully or so effectively as it is here, the viewer being fully immersed in the action from start to incredibly bloody finish. Quite how De Santi pulls off some of his technical trickery is simply mind-boggling, the whole film feeling like one long take during which numerous foes are dispatched in graphic fashion by the film's anti-hero Frank Zimosa, the hit-man through whose eyes we witness the action.

Zimosa (Rayner Bourton) has been hired by mysterious businessman Jorge Mistrandia (Michael Howe) to kill a couple currently staying in a fancy schmancy hotel in some strange, unspecified foreign country. Mistrandia, who keeps in contact with Zimosa via high-tech glasses that relay everything the hit-man sees, insists that the kills be carried out in a ritualistic manner with specific weapons. Always the professional, Zimosa obeys, but becomes concerned when his second intended victim displays some worrying symptoms before he has even been touched, spewing blood and pus all over the bathroom while mumbling about 'She' being 'fed on pain'. Suspecting that something is seriously wrong, the hit-man decides to split, but Mistrandia has other ideas and sends other killers to prevent Zimosa from leaving the hotel.

What follows is an hour and a quarter of extreme, jaw dropping brutality, with the plot taking strange turns into the world of the occult, pitting Zimosa against an army of deformed zombie-like creatures and—in the manner of the video games that it so closely emulates—an end-of-level boss that is super powerful and seriously freaky. Admittedly, the film loses focus in the final act and feels a little longer than it really needs to be, but overall this is a very impressive piece of horror cinema—innovative, exciting, and oh-so-incredibly-gory!

As it stands right now, all of the reviews from this movie are 1 star or 8-10 stars. All of these people are wrong.

For starters, this movie plays out exactly like a fist person shooter video game. The tropes, the dialog, and obviously the camera angle and movement. There's little doubt what this movie is supposed to be and, in all honesty, it does it rather well. The whole first person thing has been tried to a much more limited extent in some movies. House Of The Dead and Doom come to mind. But in these movies it was more for the movie's denouement...a final showdown. In Hotel Inferno it's done throughout and it's kind of enjoyable.

This isn't without it's drawbacks. The camera is jumpy, the dialog is on-par with a video game, and it lacks a bit of continuity. You'll find a 10 minute action sequence ended just to have some exposition on what happened and what will happen next. Again, exactly as you would in a video game. It's like finishing a mission and waiting for a cut scene to tell you what you did and what to do next, except it's a movie. This gets a bit old even if you follow the premise.

For a movie with this budget the special effects are actually quite well done. Gore fans will undoubtedly appreciate the over-the-top violence and gore and others will probably just laugh at the preposterousness of it all. Either way, the special effects team absolutely did the most with what they had.

All in all it's a relatively enjoyable movie if you know what you're in for (and have a six pack of your preferred adult beverage available). It's something a little new but absolutely not without it's flaws. Is it perfect? No. Is it a bit of fun to watch with some friends? Absolutely.

Everything about this is bad. The acting, the lighting, the sound, the camera "work", the "special" effects, the props, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the entire basic idea for this "project". Another reviewer mentioned the soundtrack and while that didn't stand out for me as being as horribly bad as the rest of it, never once did I think "hey, pretty cool soundtrack".......... The only people who should ever see this are those who participated in making it and they should be made to watch it over and over again for the rest of their lives. This item has no redeeming qualities unless you are a fan of very bad attempts to make something worth watching. I am running out of ways to describe this without using the words "film" or "cinema" or "movie" because it is none of those things. If some 4th grade kids made it I would give them an A for effort. If 5th grade kids made it I would flunk them. There is absolutely no reason why anybody should watch this. There are far more entertaining "bad productions" to watch. I sat through this so you don't have to. Believe me now or you will regret wasting your time and you will say "Yep, that guy on IMDb was right. I really wish I would have listened to him".