HOTEL (2001)

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

dvdcoverhotel.jpgStarring Salma Hayek, Rhys Ifan, Lucy Liu, Burt Reynolds, George DiCenzo, Saffon Burrows, Danny Huston, David Schwimmer, John Malkovich, Max Beesley, Lucy Liu. Drama. Synopsis: A group of actors and crew gather in a hotel in Venice to shoot a movie based on a well known play in an unconventional manner. However, there is cannibalism going on at the hotel. Directed by Mike Figgis.

Wow. Where to start with this one. You look at the DVD cover and that ensemble cast and you think it should be pretty good. Its not. Not even close. Its hard to even talk about this film because there is no plot, no real story line, and, as we find out in the Special Features, no script.

I'm serious. This film was total ad lib and it fails miserably. Since there is no coherent plot and the actors had no story line under which to create, the film meanders all over the place made worse by the fact that they tried to put it all together to make some form of a movie. It might have been better if they had made it a collection of skits or something, I don't know. I can appreciate trying to give the actors freedom to create, but how can that be done with no framework?

In the Special Features, we see a bewildered Saffon Burrows (The Bank Job) and a disbelieving Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights, Deliverance) in a meeting of the actors, when it becomes clear that their characters have no names, no backgrounds, no motivation, and no guidelines. In fact, an increasingly irritated Reynolds seems to be almost stunned when Figgis tells him that the actors can create that on their own, but its totally up to them whether they want to share it with the director or not.

I'm not sure what the thinking was that this would turn out to be a good film. There are some funny scenes, and it is a tribute to the actors that this movie turned out as good as it did when you realize how little they had to work with. And its bad. As far as I could determine, there was an implication of cannibalism somewhere in there, described on the DVD cover as a major plot point. The rest of the film was primarily the actors reacting to each other in different situations, a good bit of steamy but meaningless sex scenes, and a whole lot of use of the F word. That is pretty much it.

A big mess and, honestly, an embarrassment for those involved. Anyone who has seen this and has a different take or can make some sense out of it, please let me know. I'm stumped.


History Channel Presidential Collection

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.flick-notes.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/82

Leave a comment

Categories

Powered by Movable Type 4.31-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Colon published on October 17, 2009 11:38 AM.

PRIMARY COLORS (1998) was the previous entry in this blog.

HARD LUCK (2006) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Shop the Official Bio Store



Shop the Official A&E Store