Simply Perfect

Sadly Over-hyped

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

"Hotel" is a German-language movie from 2004, so this one is already considerably older than a decade. It was written and directed by Jessica Hausner who is probably among Austria's most known filmmakers, maybe even top of the pile if we talk about females. This film received a pretty strong deal of awards recognition back then, for example also at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. It is a really short movie as it gets barely to the 75-minute mark and this already includes the credits. In terms of the cast, lead actress Franziska Weisz is among Austria's most known while Birgit Minichmayr made it even bigger and is really well-known here in Germany too. This film is the story of a young woman and we find out about her first days as a hotel employee. It is all about the mystery really. It is a film that is really uncomfortable to watch, but this atmospheric take also makes it so efficient. The woman who worked there before Weisz' character disappeared without a trace apparently and there are other creepy aspects about the film. I personally enjoyed the mystery more than supernatural references about witches, but that is of course just personal take. These parts (i.e. the middle part of the film) is where the movie does the least perhaps. The beginning is much better and the ending is really nice too, especially the very final shot and sound. The apparent dislike from the other employees towards the central character also add a lot to the story as you never know what is wrong with these people and what may be the reason for the reactions. The lost chain scene is one of the very best the film has to offer. So yeah, as a whole I can understand why this film was received so well, maybe not necessarily by critics, but by audiences. A lot stays in the dark and hidden here and this is exactly the approach I like. There is a reason why Blair Witch Project is my favorite horror film of all times. Sure this one here is not anywhere near that level or best of the year material, but it is worth checking out fur sure. It is also not really an actors' movie, but this is nothing new about horror films and frequently the case there. of course this doesn't mean that the actors were weak or anything. they are as good as the rest about it all. I suggest you watch it. Thumbs up.

I think this movie was quite good in parts, because it had atmosphere. Also, I could relate to the main character, Irene - a young woman who starts working in an isolated hotel. I was quite like her when I was young; well-behaved, nice and neat - yes, I even wore glasses! :-) - so I recognize the unpleasant situation, when you have to associate with fellow school- or work-mates that are of another kind. Stupid, vulgar, rude, not so well-brought up... I am sure you know what I mean. I also became lonely and left out in that kind of company, so I felt very sorry for Irene who had to both work and live with them! But the ending was a big disappointment. Nothing is explained. What happened to Irene? What happened to Eva, the former employee who had disappeared from the hotel..? Was it the witch, or was it a human killer..? What was that smell in Irene's (and formerly Eva's) room..? What was the point with the change of glasses..? Was the cross a protection, and did Irene's work-mate borrow it on one occasion, and steal it on another, out of malice..? Because she hoped for Irene to be killed without it..? Was she even an accomplice in the crime (IF there was a crime), in some way..? No questions are answered, and because of this I find the whole movie quite meaningless.

The idea of the film appealed to me. It seemed promising but I bought the DVD and was disappointed. The film was too obviously pieces from other films like "the Shining", "Picnic at Hanging Rock" and even "A Passage to India" (the kiss in the cave). It could have been a good mix of these mysterious and eerie elements but it did not work. The film was predictable and not scary in the least. There were too many confusing jumps in time. All of a sudden it was night time, then day. One moment the girl was indoors, the next outside... It was not helped by the one-note performances by the actors. The lead girl had no charisma and I finally did not care what happened to her. I do not know why it was shown at cinemas in Sweden or even released on DVD! Maybe people thought the photography was arty. A lot of modern photography today looks like scenes from this movie. You can see stuff looking like that in art museums. As a film there was too little worth remembering.

Before I buy a flick on DVD, I read reviews. First, I come here to IMDb to see what other viewers think. Then, I seek professional reviews to help me determine whether or not I should shell out $20.Had I listened (as I normally do) to these reviews, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near Hausner's "Hotel" and would've checked in at the Motel 6 down the block. It seems, across the board, the reviews of this film call it "technically adept, but dull," or they complain that "Nothing happens! There's no plot!" Indeed, I almost DID listen to these reviews, but something about the premise of "Hotel" intrigued me. So, I decided to buy it, and I just finished watching it ten minutes ago.Suffice to say, I feel inclined to come to the aid of this much maligned film. First, I agree with many reviewers about how the film is photographed. Without question, it is technically adept. The cinematography is precise and beautiful; carefully crafted (and often static) shots fill this flick, much like a Tarkovsky film. Colors are both vibrant and menacing--especially the void-like blacks (of the night forest) between the gray bark of the bare trees. Also the sterile greens and grays of the hotel interior. And don't forget the blood reds (of the front-desk-clerk's uniform) as she disappears into those horribly beckoning trees...Now onto the ubiquitous "nothing happens" complaint. The movie depends much more on atmosphere (and brilliantly so) than jump scares or plot turns. So if you are looking for big action, you will not find it in "Hotel." And (NEWS FLASH!) this is precisely the purpose of the film. Like many great films (and I'm not calling this great, just exceedingly well done and marginally upsetting--in a good way), this film does not tell the viewer what to think. In fact, most of time, it doesn't even show the viewer what happens. Imagine that! Indeed, this is where the IMAGINation of the viewer (if the viewer has ever practiced using his or her imagination) fills in the dreadfully empty gaps.The hinted-at story of the "forest witch" who used to live in the cave near the hotel (and the accompanying tales of vanishing hikers in the thick forest) is anything but fairytale-like. The cold, black crack in the mountain wall (the cave itself) seeps off the screen as it draws in the new young hotel desk clerk inch by inch. There's a lot of pathos here--the nervousness of beginning a new job for our protagonist; the impersonal darkness and dead-end corridors of the angular hotel; generally unfriendly and persnickety (even zombie-like) coworkers (one of which, in an understated dramatic moment, soullessly tells the protagonist to "Leave the hotel" and begins reciting the Rosary while mechanically cleaning a room); the suggestion of a "disappearance" (or perhaps, supernatural murder) of the previous desk clerk and everyone's unwillingness to discuss it. Yes, there's plenty of pathos.But a warning is in order: This is not "The Shining." Kubrick's great film had a lot of Big Wheel action and Nicholson's drooling and babbling. Hotel has neither. But to create its own sterile, haunting effect, "Hotel" doesn't need Redrum or Scatman Crothers.The clincher, however, is the ending of "Hotel." (Editorial: It reached valiantly for similar territory as the ending of Tarkovsky's "Solaris," in my opinion--"Hotel" didn't quite make it, but WOW!) Of course, I read many reviews that complained that "Nothing is explained" in the end. Whine, whine, whine! I guess ever since the "big-splashy-ending-that-explains-everything-in-a-surprise-twist" of "The Sixth Sense" and similar films, viewers are spoiled and need everything explained in a way that knocks their socks off. Well, my socks were absolutely knocked across the damn room, and at the same time NOTHING was reduced to a nugget-like explanation! I thought the abrupt, strange, pushed-off-a-cliff feeling invoked by director Hausner was PERFECT! It will stick with me for a while, and I recommend this film because of it.And to those of you who "want your money back" from this "boring" film, I suggest you relax. Stop watching movies with expectations of having your entire life (and the lives of those on screen) explained away into absolute nothingness. News Flash #2: You don't know everything; you can't know everything. In fact, you may know very little about ANYTHING. (Just like the protagonist in this film; she knows so little--even about herself--that she may in fact BE the dreaded witch who dispatched her predecessor--who knows?)You want REALLY SCARY? Here's a suggestion: Try existing in uncertainty. That's where "Hotel" lives. It's probably the scariest of all places to be.