The Worst Film Ever

Strictly average movie

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

I've told literally everyone that this one of the greatest films ever made. So why do I love it so much? I love how ahead of its time and immersive it is. I was having a conversation with my Dad the other day and he said he remembered it when it was first released in the US in 1999 (elsewhere in '98). He had an interest in seeing it, but it was pulled from theaters before he could. Grossing 0.02M, scoring a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, and averaging a 4.9/10 User score on IMDB, the film couldn't find an audience for a time. I've read countless positive reviews from several years ago. That indicates to me that some were able to appreciate it, while most showed a cynical/ skeptical view. People weren't ready for this. Since I got my Letterboxd, I have seen it receive more recognition on that site. There are reviews that I've read on there that are among some of the best film analyses I've ever come across. IMDB, not so much. But a lot people seem to get it now and that makes me feel betteI love how brutally honest it is. There are things I see in this that reflect on our society today. For one: sexism. Almost every male character is a misogynistic asshole, but that doesn't mean I can't find any redeeming qualities within them. Many of the subtleties in the film reveal themselves on each viewing, but this concept was clear to me from the first time I saw it. Both Fox and X are blatantly sexist. One of the first examples I noticed was coincidentally, in the beginning. In the brothel, Fox watches Sandy. He inquires to the other guests about her, wondering who she is. The scene cross fades to Sandy's tattoo, presumably during the night that X first had sex with her. Fox arrives and says "So, what's her story?" X replies, "What do you mean?" Which Fox follows with, "She didn't say anything? She had your c*ck in her mouth the whole time or what?" Maybe some will disagree with me here, but I find it disrespectful that Fox has no problem having this conversation in front of a woman. Just as he did in the brothel when he told Madame Rosa he was a "women magnet." Even when Sandy walks into the room he doesn't change his attitude. When he comments on her "cheap shoes" and her outfit, this indicates to me that he's kind of a dick. Sandy clearly knows what she's getting herself into and is used to people being intolerant/sexist. I was surprised she didn't walk out when Fox said to X, "She doesn't meet guys everyday who offer her one million dollars to do what she did with you just now for what--a couple of hundred?" Talking about her as if she's not even there. I question X's behavior in this regard as well. We are lead to believe that he loves Sandy, but he makes fun of her with Fox in the restaurant. Once again, these characters don't have respect for women. It is a society where women are treated as toys. The next: Manipulation. Everyone is deceptive in the world of New Rose Hotel. Manipulation is the key to getting what you want. If it's about money or power, these people will do anything. The quote, "If you believe, then he will. You have to fall in love. That's the key to all of this." That reflects the whole film right there. Relationships aren't authentic. Everything is about sex or personal gain. In the flashbacks we see X with another girl after the orgy right in front of Sandy. Her response is to join in. Once again, it's all about sex. The other: Journalism. You cannot prove anything that took place during this film. It is a reflection on secondary information and word of mouth. In this world, almost nothing is a reliable source. Even the scenes you saw, you cannot prove. My reasoning behind that is, when X is trying to make sense of everything that happened, the flashbacks show different takes than previously. This is not a mistake. This shows you that what you were previously lead to believe may have been wrong, or X's memory is distorted, or both. For example, in the beginning when Fox finds out about Hiroshi, he tells X: "I just found out Hiroshi's making plans to attend a conference in Vienna. I got the hotel where he's staying. It's his wife's favorite. Only--Hello--she won't be there. She's going to a spa." This conversation takes place in the brothel. However in the flashback he says: "I just found out Hiroshi's making plans to attend a conference in Vienna. I got the hotel where he's staying. It's his wife's favorite. Only--Hello--she won't be there. She's going to a convention." This isn't the only difference. Here, this encounter is in a totally different location than before. The final sequence is not only about this, but it also serves as X realizing he's been played. I love the character development. I notice more about X each time I watch it, but something I've picked up on is how he lets his desires override anything else. It doesn't take much to convince him of something if it involves money. When he tells Fox that he's "Through with it. No more Hiroshi." Fox says "Before you and I hooked up you had a helicopter flying over a smokestack, etc." He is trying to convince him that his previous job was insufficient and he needs to stay with corporate defectors. X just nods his head and smiles. Fox barely said anything and yet he goes along with it. That is because money is one of his desires and he will do anything to get it. Going back to his memories of Sandy's deception: There is a scene where she is asleep and he spots the card for the synthesizer in her passport, along with several identities other than the one they had discussed (Angelica De Mayo). When he is reflecting on this, he remembers that he didn't take action when seeing that she was going to betray them. Because he is allowing his lust for women to overtake this. I don't think I've ever seen such a character arc. It's incredible. To have a strong arc, a character should learn something or change in some way. X has learned that these desires: the money, the women, the things he keeps submitting to, have cost them their $100 million and Fox's life. On my first viewing I didn't quite wrap my head around the surveillance footage. It was on re-watches that I was able to see what it was all about. For me, it makes Hiroshi mysterious. Each time we see him it's on a fuzzy surveillance video. He is never actually there. What I love so much about that is it's telling us that Hiroshi's arc is the only thing being told to us explicitly. This is an aspect of the film where one can actually prove what's going on. This is a video being taken when Hiroshi is being his true self. Hiroshi is genuine, the other characters are not. So yeah. Half of you probably opened this, saw how long it was, and then clicked out of it. But if you did manage to stick around the whole time, this should answer the question as to why this film means so much to me. It manages to be an enticing Science Fiction/Cyberpunk Thriller and at the same time be a commentary on our society and the direction we're headed in. Unquestionably a Top 5 favorite by now.

What more could Abel Ferrara ask for: acerbic Christopher Walken, inscrutable Willem Defoe, hot Asia Argento channeling Cat Power, Schoolly D laying beats. Dynamite. Unfortunately, Abe couldn't find the fuse. A dud.The opening credits, in three different languages like a DSLR instruction manual (German, Chinese, and English), are accompanied by Schoolly D's great soundtrack, the best part of the movie.Asia, the heroine, is of the kinky persuasion, a denizen of dark underground group gropes. Shades of Jack Smith and Andy Warhol.The dialog is nonsense like an uninteresting Little Steven's Underground Garage. Someone needs to tell Abel that gangsters spouting philosophy doesn't work. Godard tried and bored us to tears. Like Jean-Luc, Ferrara stretches his scenes interminably with dialog that made its point after the first two lines but for reasons that can only relate to stretching to meet a budget goes on forever. Gangster films are about, as Sam Fuller famously said, emotion and violence, not long interludes of one thief pitching a caper to another.Abel is a consummate hustler, his packages find big money, but wind up garbage. It's not as if the movie ran out of ideas early on and the director had to pad it to deliver the requisite hour and a half to meet his business commitment, the movie has no ideas. "New Rose Hotel" serves only one purpose, as an investment loss to a tax write off. The last 20 minutes rehash scenes already shot, as if the director had run out of production money and had to make up the time in post-production. Thus the movie is in two parts: the first part bad, the second part, a rehash of the first, worse.A low brow effort with high brow pretensions clearly beyond the director's capabilities. Abel, stick to street punks.In summary, the best part Schoolly D. (See the extra on Schoolly D from the DVD of "The King of New York." It's better than the feature.)

Corporate raiders use any trick conceivable to lure a genius into their fold...oh, and to win.This was a rambling and unfocused tale with some mildly interesting plot elements, which suffer completely convoluted execution. Other than some nice camera angles and lighting details, there is nothing at all to redeem this work.Not even Christopher Walken's wonderful performance could save this flop. Willem Dafoe comes close, but no cigar. I suppose it may be worth watching for their performances, but you surely have to be a connoisseur to derive a moment's pleasure, even from that. OH, they're good, don't get me wrong, but the screenplay is horrid. Simply horrid.All in all? Don't bother.It rates a 0.7/10 from...the Fiend :.

What bothered me: 1- Needless and pointless erotic scenes in the bar. I appreciate an erotic scene if it is truly erotic, which these scenes weren't, and if it forwards the plot, which these scenes didn't. 2- The low budget. Some directors can turn a low budget into a virtue, but I'm afraid Ferrara isn't one of them. 3- Boredom. Almost nothing happens, and what does happen, happens over and over. 4- Improvisation. Some scenes seemed improvised, and while Walken is up to the task, Argento is definitely not. 5- Wasted Dafoe. A great talent is given nothing to do. 6- Too clean. The cyberpunk world should be grittier.What I liked: 1- Christopher Walken, or rather the juicy dialogue he is given. 2- Atmosphere. While I don't feel it captures the same feeling of atmosphere one gets from reading Gibson, it does create an effective environment of stress and oppression.Overall: It could have made a good short (after all, the source material is a SHORT story). As it is, it is a wasted effort and should be avoided.