<p>Hotel (2001) </p>
<p>A film review by Scott Wood </p>
<p>For Critical-film.com </p>
<p> </p>
<p>“I thought it would be useful to lay down some thoughts of the system I wish to use. </p>
<p>1. I like the actors to wear their own clothes. </p>
<p>2. There is no hair or makeup department. </p>
<p>3. There is no transport system ( Venice is car-free). </p>
<p>4. … All the actors get the same money. </p>
<p>5. There is no script. Much of the film is improvised, but that is not as scary as it sounds. </p>
<p>These are the ground rules…” </p>
<p align="right">-Mike Figgis in a letter attempting to attract potential actors </p>
<p align="right"> </p>
<p>The thought of something like this being pulled off is such an exciting one, isn't it? If only a director could truly strike gold with something like this, it would be such an achievement. “Timecode” made an attempt at accomplishing something similar, but it lacked a truly interesting story, so instead it became more a unique experiment, than a good movie. Figgis had so much success with the brilliant “Leaving Las Vegas” (which was also an experimental film), that he is now allowed to make films like “Hotel.” Even though he fails at these pointed attempts at avant-garde, as a budding filmmaker myself, I have to respect that he's gotten this far. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I say fails, because while “Hotel” has an interesting story with a crazy blend of humor, sex, violence, and satire, its improvisational technique is far too confounding to enjoy. As I watched “Hotel,” I was waiting for my brain to catch up to its rhythm, much like I've had to do in certain Baz Luhrmann pictures, or Merhige's “Begotten.” My brain didn't stand a chance with this film, however, and I spent the entire movie trying to catch up to it. It's exhausting, and not in the good, fun way that it should be. It has the aesthetic of an amateur filmmaker filming a rich celebrity's birthday party. There are a lot of characters, and a lot of stuff happening, but none of it involves you, and it is only enjoyable (to watch) to the people in it that like seeing themselves on (digital) film. It may also be interesting to those actor's friends, or people who are entertained by seeing their favorite actor in what looks like a (well edited) home video. But seeing as though I don't belong to any of these groups, I didn't like watching it. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It should also be mentioned that this is a hybrid film, and (if you've read some of my other reviews) you will know that I am critical of cinema that suffers in identity crisis. I will not however say that “Hotel” is bad because it doesn't seem to know if it's a horror, comedy, or satire, like other critics have argued. Figgis is well aware of his elements, and weaves them like the musician he is into a cohesive film. The horror elements don't interfere with comedy, and vice versa, etcetera. Chances are, if another film critic didn't recommend this picture, it was probably for the same reasons I don't. There is something slightly embarrassing about disliking a film because of its aesthetic, especially if it's an independent aesthetic. I will not be ashamed, however. I just didn't like it. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>(one-and-a-half stars) </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="style1">This review was provided in HTML format, as your browser is not capable of displaying flash content. To experience Critical-Film.com the way it was meant to be seen, please download the flash player from <a href="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&promoid=BIOW">Macromedia</a>.</p>