User reviews

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

Everything you have heard about this film is true. It is horrible, it is an experiment that went terribly bad. I think Mike Figgis has perhaps lost his mind. What motivataed him to put such CRAP on film. Seriously, and to pay some actors who are not too bad in their own right, to play in it. The screenplay is irrelevant, because the horrible amateur hand-held cameras similar to blair-witch but even more annoying, and the horrible editing already make the film fall under a 5/10, then on top of that, the wasting of actors, the horrible dialogues, annoyingly boring script, and nonexistent directional voice just cause me to give perhaps the worst review i have ever gave of a film. I mean hated crap like Bad Company, when a stranger calls, etc.. but this is far outclasses those films in regards to how extremely bad it is...--- IMDb Rating: 4.5, my rating: 3/10

I've stayed in many hotels. The movie Hotel reminds me of the worst hotels. Someone suggested film students should see this film. And yes, they should. So they know what it takes to make a boring film. I think the majority of movie watchers like a film they can follow, even if it is a bit confusing. But Hotel goes way beyond confusing. There was some interesting film work but most of the story was void of meaning on first watch. And there was such a void of story that I would not watch it again. Too boring in so many ways to make me want to watch it again to figure out the meanings. On the DVD container it says Roger Ebert called it "Bold, funny, delightful!". I think he meant boldly boring, funny for one scene, and delightful to eject from the DVD player. But then again, I think we all know Ebert is a little unreliable with his thumb up.

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.

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.

This is meaningless, self-indulgent crap. I actually considered giving up on this after about 10 minutes but decided that as the cast was excellent and the director had a good track record it would turn out OK in the end. How wrong could I have been. There is nothing in this film which I could pick out as worthwhile. I'm sure some "art house' types will claim it is a masterpiece but IMHO this is the worst film made since The Boy Who Had Everything which has stuck in my mind for years as a waste of 90 minutes of my life.

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.

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....

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.

I viewed the last half of the film alone, since my wife angrily left the room, saying, "This is pure trash." Certainly there were failures in the film--the complexity of watching and listening to four screens at once, the disconnectedness of the "plot," etc. But there was a level of experiment that was commendable, to say the least. I was occasionally reminded of some of the more difficult moments in a Fellini film. The acting, for the most part, was strong, although some characters were intentionally two-dimensional. The use of Webster's "The Duchess of Malfi" was an interesting nuance, and in some ways the "tone" of "Hotel" matched the mood of Webster's original.

Don't try to over-analyze. Take this for what it is. It's a beautifully crafted masterpiece and has aged very well. It's January 2013 and I just watched this for the third time since it came out and was mesmerized. It's weird, yes, but it works.

It's centered around the eternally classic macabre play The Duchess of Malfi. This sets the mood. And in Venice during Carnival, even better. Ingestion of human meat in the opening scene with an imprisoned John Malkovich asking if it's low in cholesterol tells you that it's going to be a dark comedy.

From here it's a free for all, but a very calculated one. It's not meant to be a plot driven thriller but it locks you in with its originality. David Schwimmer is perfectly cast, a once shallow TV actor doomed to forever be known for his role in Friends breaks his chains as the conniving assistant director determined to take over the filming of The Duchess and seduce the leading lady. There's your plot, however buried it may seem.

Burt Reynolds rules and Saffron Burrows is the most beautiful woman on the planet.The sex scenes are significantly dirty and the soundtrack is impeccable. I feel like I have been drugged and shipped to Venice to witness the most magnificent production of The Duchess of Malfi ever made. I will most likely watch it again tomorrow.

I'll note first that this is not a movie for all tastes. One has to open minded and enjoy an unconventional outlook in order to appreciate or enjoy the mad genius of an artistic endeavor such as this. It seems like a lot of people were shocked at how bizarre it was, however I think if they knew who actor Julian Sands was, they would have known that this film would be ANYTHING but conventional! I actually thought it was an interesting experimental film and commentary. What perhaps stood out for me was smörgåsbord of avant garde dynamics that all contributed to a piece of very abstract but thought provoking cinematic art.

I liked how the approach seemed to emphasize not specific CHARACTERS, but CHARACTERIZATIONS, allowing the actors to slip in and out of roles like shadows. They almost seemed to be given a list of multiple, interchanging personalities and situations and continuously interchanged them- this created a platform for an interesting cascade of faces and intuitive acting to participate in a series of simultaneously linear events. I think the direction also enabled the audience to observe a strikingly potent display of certain overlooked dimensions to storytelling such as contrast of characters and roles (the movie had very unconventional and unpredictable role reversals, such as the woman having sex with the man behind him, the two women in the red dress as two examples), striking imagery that provided a very unprecedented look at events (the tap dance where we saw the same scene from all angles, and the story line told in for squares on the screen, also putting a seemingly tongue in cheek emphasis on the notion that we are in fact watching a series of simultaneous vignettes). The also showed us a very enriching and complex look at the plethora of physical and emotional dynamics that one person, moment or situation can provide). I also thought it fabulous how director astutely spoofed the two extremes of storytelling - dogme and the epic shakespearian-esquire tragedy, and allowed the two to coexist and foil each other through the film. (AND this is again another point of contrast the director displays for the audience.) Very tricky how he took all these dynamics, typically either too potent (extremes of contrast) or too subtle (dynamics normally assumed within the story that he isolated and exhibited for our intellectual consumption), to intermingle and provide a coherent piece of clever analytic work instead of a jumbled mess.

It was really, in one way, a brilliant film on storytelling, persona, and the art of contrast and comparison within these realms on an artistic and intellectual level that heightens and enriches our perspective and awareness. And all while not losing it's sense of humor!

This movie was boring from the beginning to the end, It has no story at all and then there is the camera work. Maybe you like this DOGMA style with a digital camera with less editing and fast moves....but I don't. The only serious question is how get Figgis the actors in the movie. The only reason I would thing is that he had blackmailed them all, because if they are mentally sane and they has read the script, they could't accept (maybe just David Schwimmer). Do yourself a favor and don't rent this movie and do not trust the DVD cover, it lies! There are no vampires, the sex scenes are weak, and the cannibalism.....not so horrifying. Avoid this movie, and maybe you can sleep well...I can not!

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.

never had i written an IMDb comment in my life.

never had i felt so compelled to draft one up.

that is, up until now.

*****

browsing through my local Blockbuster aisle, i came upon a DVD titled Hotel. my initial thoughts: 1) a movie about making a movie (i've started working in the industry so the subject matter piques my interest) 2) a notable cast & director 3) it appeared to be a scary/horror/thriller flick (that's what i gathered from the DVD jacket) apparently, looks are far more than just deceiving. they too can certainly kill. a 2.5hr fraction of my life can never be rescued nor restored.

perhaps i deserved this punishment - for buying into the film's marketing scheme, this devastating excuse packaged as a movie. maybe the studio/producers had to find a way to recover 0.00001% of their wasted funds by falsely advertising and throwing the unburned discs onto video racks and for that, i should take full blame. that is the only excuse i will accept for a catastrophe such as this.

THERE IS NO PLOT. at least not a coherent one. nor was it decipherable. and do not expect one to be unveiled. how these respected actors allowed themselves to partake in such a project is way above and beyond me. why their managers & agents did not bark "career suicide" dually flabbergasts me. most of the bigger names make cameo appearances shockingly at most. the fate of each character is unknown. their purpose to begin with is questionable. by the end, who really even cares. the only thing you're searching for is a cigarette or a stacker to undigest this debacle out of your system.

the director takes pride and joy in the nonexistent script. what an exciting idea!! (not!) you expect this vehicle to be edgy, to be fresh. rather, prepare yourself for a slow churning death, in which you sadly paid for. i've worked on a movie where there's been no working script, no real plot and not one defined character and i thought, it can't get any worse than this. well Hotel, thank you for proving me wrong.

Please please please do not watch this P.O.S. I beg of you, for the better of filmkind! I would be performing an injustice if I did not spread the word. Kids, don't drink and drive. Say no to drugs. Don't smoke. Don't eat after 8pm. And definitely, don't watch this movie. My only aim is to promote good health.

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.

This is a perfect example about how to send 1 million dollar (or 3, or 5?) to garbage. Pretty good actors and actresses ("you too, John Malkovich?" Julius Cesar would have said) in a movie that doesn't seem to have any script. Figgis seems not to have any idea about what Dogma is (not to mention the movie itself...), one of the actors (better not to remember his name) saying "this is dogma, you can do what you want" or similar... I would have called this "bizarre", but this word "belongs" to Fellini. And Figgis and Fellini just share the first letter of their surnames, clearly.

When I go to a cinema (or rent a DVD, like this case), I like to hear (or see) a history. Someone tells me why this movie was made. Someone wanted to spend a lot of money and didn't know how? Someone wanted to pay many well-known actors and actresses and didn't know how?

Avoid this film. Even if someone offers it for free.

In three words: this movie sucks. I have never sat through a more worthless film. And I've seen some worthless films. This one takes the cake by a mile.

First of all, there is no plot. There is not one redeemable thing about this movie, but the story, I mean, there is nothing that constitutes the smallest basis for a movie. I think the only thing the story of this movie constitutes, is something as revolting as a stagnant, festering, sewer on a hot day right next to a pile of decaying dog carcases and used kitty litter. That, and a really bad cup of coffee, and you barely come close to how much this movie stinks.

This movie is so bad, it is infuriating. The director should be drawn and quartered, stabbed, sodomized, and then cremated (not in that order) for making such a bad piece of trash. I can't believe some company wasted plastic, employee wages, overhead, storage, and distribution costs to get this hunking piece of waste on some poor unsuspecting shelf.

So yeah, I don't recommend it.

Thank you

I watched this movie with anticipation of something of value. The A-list cast listed gave the illusion of something good. MAN...was I duped!!! This movie was one of the biggest time wasting disappointments of my life!!! However, there were a few scenes of value. For example, there was the fiery flamenco dancing scene, Salma Hayek making an adorable attempt at scatting and John Malchovich's beginning scenes were fun and interesting. Otherwise, this movie is basically a stupid, lame attempt at "art." I wouldn't waste your time on this so-called "movie." Use your time for something more productive, like cleaning your cat's litter box or cleaning your toilet!!!

A lot of reviewers look at cinema as merely entertainment and believe a film should 'tell a story'. Well, that's one form of cinema and I suppose it's what the majority of people have been conditioned to want and expect. When I was at university in the 1970's, we watched a lot of underground, experimental and independent films, many of which had very little story or character arc and certainly no 'hero's journey'. Some people got up and walked out, a few stayed. I was one of the few. For that reason, I see Mike Figgis as being a bold and exciting filmmaker and feel it's a great pity that so few people could see what he was attempting to do with Hotel. He wasn't attempting to entertain or tell a story or get you to sympathize with the characters. He was trying new and different ways of making a film. Remember, he had already been a successful mainstream filmmaker. He wanted to do something different. The mostly negative reviews of Hotel are evidence that most people prefer the status quo to innovation, the predictable to the unusual and are easily brainwashed by corporate culture which controls most commercial filmmaking.

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.

The low ratings and negative reviews for "Hotel" are by people who did not understand this film.

It doesn't really have a plot or a linear structure like a normal movie. It is a surreal compilation of random events and plays out like a nightmare. It is a lot like David Lynch's "Inland Empire." If you like that sort of thing, "Hotel" will be a rewarding experience. There is plenty of sex, violence, and horror elements. If you are looking for a coherent plot, you should skip this.

Don't be mislead by people who didn't know what they were getting into. As far as surreal nightmares go, "Hotel" is creepy and weird and a lot of fun.

Wow. Where to begin. My wife and I just looked at each other at the end and grieved over the loss of the time it took to watch this movie. Avant Garde? No. We really enjoy movies that provoke thought and introspection or are just pure entertainment. This was neither. Form the confusing plot (if there was one) to the split screens it was impossible to truly follow this movie. Try to decide what the point of the cannibalism is. God. Maybe the movie was meant to incite grief and confusion. In that case, kudos. I can't even believe that this movie is from the same director as Leaving Las Vegas. I should have known better when the "comments" from various magazines ranged from erotic to funny to scary to captivating. It really only delivered a few times on the erotic description. And I don't believe they were relevant to the movie. But, I don't really know what part of the movie was relevant.