IMDb > Hotel (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Hotel
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Hotel More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 79 reviews in total 

49 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

WOW.

1/10
Author: iagos_eyes from Toronto, Ontario
23 April 2003

After sitting through literally 2 and 1/2 hours of assaultingly pretentious montages and amateurish camera work (not to mention editing), I was even more appalled by Figgis' own take on his work (speaking after his TIFF screening).

The man brags openly about not having any script, storyline or characters to speak of. He then goes on to talk about how he is the "actor's director", giving his cast the "freedom" to indulge themselves and improvise. What I'm thinking was how could you do this to your producers, to your cast?!--people who put their reputations on the line and end up looking utterly ridiculous (the only one to emerge from this wreck unscathed is John Malkovich, clearly smart enough to pull-out from the project just in time, only to appear in the opening 2 scenes)!

What I'm wondering is: why did Figgis want to make this film?

For that matter Figgis didn't even seem to know what his movie was about. I've never before seen such a soulless, self-indulgent piece.

Making a good, meaningful film should be a labor of love for the filmmaker. When you ask an actor to put their names and invest their abilities on your project you must pay them the same respect.

In the end, when I think of `Hotel', I think of Figgis standing before a microphone making a complete ass of himself, going on about the brilliance of his work. But others not fortunate enough to have that experience will more likely remember David Schwimer barking like a dog or Burt Reynolds entering and smiling for the camera and then having literally nothing to say for an entire scene, never to appear in the movie again.

If it were up to me the film would end with a still, black-and-white head shot of its "director" Mike Figgis, superimposed above all the credits.

This is unwatchable, pretentious garbage--one of the worst cases of directorial masturbation I've ever seen.

See it.

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Artistic experimental film. Oh dear.

1/10
Author: PlanecrazyIkarus from Wales, UK
19 November 2002

I came across this movie in the local rental outlet, where it has a fashionable DVD jacket, a cast list that seems to never end the names of celebrities and famous actors, and a text on the back of the cover that suggests this movie is a very smart, eery horror movie.

Well. It is not. I watched it, and after about five hours - or was it just 2? time distorts with boredom... - it ended, and I also watched the "making of". Which explained a lot. The concept: The director wanted to shoot a movie. In Venice. With lots of famous actors that receive equally small salaries. Using only digital cameras and his own handheld camera rig inventions. Without a script, entirely improvised. Without. A. Script.

That should explain it all. Let's just describe one scene, somewhere in the movie: A hotel maid pours white liquid into two cocktail glasses that are placed in front of a business man on a cell phone. She undresses, dipping her breasts into both glasses in front of the - now just mildly distracted - business man, who continues to bark orders into his cell phone. She dips them in again. She stands up and gets dressed. The guy drinks the white liquid from the glasses. The sequence lasts a few minutes, is completely without reference or context, and just sits there, eager to provoke an audience reaction, but failing (in my case).

Or, the 10-minute flamenco dance shot simultaneously with 4 cameras. Impressive, but useless. There are many such scenes - out of context, without purpose, done purely for the joy of doing them.

Now don't get me wrong - the movie (if it can be called a movie) has its moments. Yes, with a lot of effort, you can almost make out a story (a film crew shooting a cheap movie in Venice, sticking to a weird dogma of guerilla-movie-making). There is a murder - or at least an attempted murder. And, the most memorable scene of the movie has to be the 15 minutes or so that we see the shot director lying on the ground, only able to move his eyes, while his cast come to him and talk to him, too self-absorbed to notice he's dying. The three other (sex) scenes playing in the other split screen windows at the same time look pale in comparison. (Note to director: 4 split screens is just too much!) Or the scene where a woman undresses, whispering comments to the audience ("Now, why should this be particularly interesting to you?" she asks, while removing the first item of clothing) before engaging in sex with the comatose director.

But do 2 memorable scenes make up for all the rest? After all, the DVD jacket sleeve promised thrills, chills, and cleverness. There was nothing thrilling about the entire movie at all. And, while it may think it's clever, it just isn't. The actors, left to improvise a story out of nowhere, fail to achieve much. In the beginning, Rhys Ifans (playing the director) grabs the screen, eager to be the centre of attention, and shouting so much that no one else gets noticed at all. No wonder they "improvised" his assassination - they must have been sick of not being noticed. Then, the rest of the cast fail to do anything creative, and most of the pleasure is in watching their movie-in-a-movie, which has more dialogue and more of a storyline, and more displays of acting skills than the rest of the story. Then, Salma Hayek tries to steal the show (by being incredibly annoying) and is improvised away, just as she becomes unbearable. Is there a pattern here?

The moral is, a movie without a script cannot be entertaining. Film students and artists may appreciate it, but the rest of the population won't. And, with 20-odd egos, it's impossible to make a good movie.

Quite frankly, only watch this if you are looking for material to write a bad review or a bad arts essay about. Or if you need something to satirize - the entire movie feels like an extended version of the short film that the arts teacher presents to her class in "Ghost World" - a bad joke at art's expense....

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

DVD should come wrapped in a Glad Bag

1/10
Author: them42 from New York
11 February 2006

I'm not sure what to say – the negative reviews all seem to mirror my thoughts on this absolute crap movie. "No script", I think that says it all. Uninspired is the nicest thing that I can say about it. I am amazed at how delusional people can be – Figgis, shame on you – letting people pay for this load of garbage.

I would suspect that most people will find this to be a) a waste of money b) a waste of time c) a waste of talent (the actors) and d) an embarrassment for all involved. Some will also add e) insulting and f) bad PR for all artists trying to do some different and creative.

I am sure there is a small group of people that will cast this movie in a somewhat better light than others, but they will be the minority and their reasons for doing so are probably worth examining.

I notice that most of the reviews are well written and make their point without resorting to foul language or sophomoric references. I applaud you all. I must also add that this movie totally sucked the root.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Waste of film

Author: dlink63142 from United States
3 January 2006

Halfway through this movie I wanted the wasted hour of my life back. The plot is absolutely inane. To make it worse, the director though it would be clever to split the screen in four from time to time. So instead of watching one bad movie, you had to try and keep an eye on four. Not even completely gratuitous sex scenes could save it. I considered smashing the DVD to save anyone else from watching it, but it was a rental and I refused to invest any further money or time. Heard it was the same director as Leaving Las Vegas. Does anyone know if he has suffered a severe brain injury recently? Seriously, I like lots of off-beat movies. This was the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. Save yourself, don't rent it, if you've rented it already, don't watch it. If you own it, take it out and bury it in the back yard.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Newfound respect for Burt Reynolds

2/10
Author: hausenluvr from United States
23 September 2005

Just finished *trying* to make sense of the DVD, and then watching the making of documentary in the special features, and at the moment what stands out most in my mind is that they show a cast meeting where Burt Reynolds fairly pointedly says to Mike Figgis "Well I got here yesterday and I've spent quite a bit of time looking at what's been shot so far and I can't tell who the characters are what their names are and what the relationships between them are so I want to know do you expect us actors to work that out between us? I'm just saying this because I've already got the job, or I don't, whatever." (this is not exactly what he said btw just paraphrasing the gist of it from memory).

Mike Figgis reply to him is basically "don't worry about it that will all come out in the editing".

Honestly I'm not a Burt Reynolds fan - something about his manner comes off as arrogant to me - but after trying to watch this confusing movie I sure wish Mike Figgis had paid more attention to what Burt was trying to tell him!! The only scene that worked well for me in the whole movie was the scene of the Flamenco dancer. Which I think is telling because it's the closest thing to a music video in the movie - i.e. the 4 screen technique I don't think works well for trying to tell a story. But for something like the flamenco dancer it's interesting visually to have closeups of her feet and her pretty face, etc. all juxtaposed on the screen at the same time. To overwhelm the viewer with the flash and fury of all this motion and music at the same time. But when trying to tell a story it's just frustrating really, as a viewer you don't know where to look and if you're missing something important.

I *love* Leaving Las Vegas obviously Mike Figis has incredible gifts as a film maker. But for me this movie was pretty much an experiment that failed.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?

3/10
Author: nohesitation82 from United States
22 November 2005

This movie is severely lacking in the artistry that it claims to be all about. I feel it is as artistic as a the so-called art created by people who fling paint randomly onto a canvas or getting on a stage and doing various things to hurt themselves or shock the audience. I can't believe that the people involved with this are the people involved with this. I was deluded just as other people who wrote comments about this movie by the cover of the DVD (don't judge a DVD by its cover I know, but still, what else do you have to go on usually? Besides, its intentionally deceptive in my opinion)which makes it sound like a sleek little independent mystery/horror or something like that. I liked many of the cinematic decisions made in regards to photography and lighting, but these can only help so much. The rest of the movie serves only the purpose of trying (key word: trying) to prove that these actors are truly "artists" and are so adept and creative that they can improvise an entire movie. Not the case here. This is equivalent, in my opinion, to a group of expert, yet overindulgent scientists trying to get their faces on The Journal of Science and instead blowing up the lab. Hopefully this movie will serve an unintentionally good purpose of proving there is a reason great artists like Van Gogh or Monet painted artistic "impressions" of life and the world with some measure of design and structure, a blueprint if you will, and there is a reason why movies need (i'd underline need if I could

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Notice How No Reviews Warn of Spoilers?

1/10
Author: thebigrodney from OKC
15 September 2005

Wow, this was probably a bottom 10 movie for me, although I'm not sure what the other 9 are yet. I am kind of embarrassed for the actors who agreed to work on the film. They won't do commercials because they are above that but they'll appear in crap like this? I could type the entire script of the film here and it still wouldn't "SPOIL" the movie. Now that's hard to accomplish. Many kudos to Mike Figgis for giving me something that I will never understand.

I guess some actors/actresses just show up and say their lines and let the director and editor mold the movie into something after the filming ends. I looked at the history of what Mike Figgis has done and Leaving Las Vegas is the only project I recognize. I was not really even impressed with that one but at least there was a story line.

I'm so mad at only looking at the DVD case before renting this. Save your money for Friday The 13th Part XX at the drive-in. This movie is really bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

unwatchable, pretentious garbage....

Author: Andrew Martin-Smith from Toronto, Ontario
25 November 2001

Having enjoyed Mike Figgis' earlier efforts, "Loss of Sexual Innocence", "Timecode", and "Leaving Las Vegas", I entered the Varsity theatre at the Toronto International Film Festival in high spirits, also excited by the opportunity to hear Figgis introduce his film and take part in a question-answer program afterwards.

After sitting through literally 2 and 1/2 hours of assaulting pretentious montages and amateurish camera work (not to mention editing), I was even more appalled by Figgis' own take on his work.

The man brags openly about not having any script, storyline or characters to speak of. He then goes on to talk about how he is the "actor's director", giving his cast the "freedom" to indulge themselves and improvise. What I'm thinking was how could you do this to your producers, to your cast?!--people who put their reputations on the line and end up looking utterly ridiculous (the only one to emerge from this wreck unscathed is John Malkovich, obviously smart enough to pull-out from the project just in time, only to appear in the opening 2 scenes)!

My question for him would have been something along the lines of "why did you want to make this film?".

For that matter Figgis didn't even seem to know what his film was about. I've never before seen such a soulless, self-indulgent piece.

Making a good, meaningful film should be a labor of love for the director. When you ask an actor to put their names and invest their abilities on your project you must show them the same respect.

In the end, when I think of `Hotel', I think of Figgis standing before a microphone making a complete ass of himself, going on about the brilliance of his work. But others not fortunate enough to have that experience will more likely remember David Schwimer barking like a dog at the camera or Burt Reynolds entering and smiling for the camera and then having literally nothing to say for an entire scene, never to appear in the movie again.

If it were up to me the film would end with a still, black-and-white head shot of its "director" Mike Figgis, superimposed above all the credits.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Total Waste of Money & Time

1/10
Author: nistrong from United States
18 August 2005

I would rather poke myself in the eye with broken glass than sit through this trash again.

I've never felt more violated by anything in my whole life. It was insulting to me as an audience. Definitely two hours of my life that I want back.

I'm tempted to write the director and ask for my money back. I'm astonished anyone would pay to have such incoherent sewage made or distributed.

I watched the making of the movie just to see if I could get an explanation or a reason. Nope. Just some Hollywood BS about the artistic and creative quality of not working with a script. It is compared to performance art.

I've seen a lot of movies. This one takes the cake for the worst I've ever seen. The only fair thing to do is put a big warning on the box or anywhere it's sold online.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Even Trainwrecks Draw Your Eye - Not Hotel...

1/10
Author: townse_s from USA
25 June 2006

Maybe I shouldn't vote on a film I didn't finish watching but after sitting through 25 minutes of this, I took it back to the video store and got something else. This "film" has the quality of a video-recording. The "acting" is atrocious and the characters are flat. 25 minutes into the show there was no sign of a plot. When I read the back of the box I thought I was in for an intelligent pseudo-documentary. That is not what I got. If you're looking for an "artsy" independent film in a documentary style that is funny and intelligent I would recommend "The Incident at Loch Ness". Skip "Hotel" and use the time to watch something worthwhile.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history