← Back to Reviews
in
Bad times at the el Royale
Four strangers show up at a motel called the El Royale before a rainy night and everyone is not who they seem to be including the motel itself. What ensues is a twisty thriller.
In one of my other reviews I have mentioned my problem with Tarantino. He ruined it for rest of the directors to tell a lot of different types of stories. He managed to step on many different film-making techniques and made them useless for other directors. Because they will be called out if they use it and be accused of copying. He took a style of film-making that was obsolete and used it in modern setting. Audience in the current generation doesn't have any idea about the auteur directorial styles of 60s or 70s or before and if he copies them there is no one that can call him out on that because the one's who know it are in their late 70s or over.
I have been excited to see this movie for quite sometime. But this movie's hype has been tainted a bit from the get go with comparisons to Quentin Tarantino style of film making. The concept is little similar to Hateful eight and the word Royale in title reminds audience of Royale with cheese from pulp fiction. These kind of comparisons pisses me off. Can't people ever do a movie about group of criminals ever again ? So with that critique out of the way lets delve into this movie. Of course there are no spoilers until the last section of this review. 10 minutes into the movie I noticed two things. The direction of the movie seemed a little self indulgent and that can be expected from a lot of directors. But the movie starts with a very elaborated single frame shot that shows a character doing something in a room over the course of few hours with very few time lapse cuts. But the problem with the shot is that as gorgeous as it is the sequence didn't have any weight to it. Its almost like shooting a person eating his cereal for the whole duration. No matter how cleverly it was shot there is very little content there. The second thing I noticed is that the atmosphere of the outdoors of the motel is quite interesting and it has a life of its own. As I said before, all the characters in the movie enter the motel on an afternoon before a rainy night. So we see the climate changing as the movie goes along. The characters are not who they are and the trailers gave away some of the twists. But the actual reveal of each of their true identities is not intriguing enough. The most clever aspect of the movie is the way it uses the singing ability of a character.
The problem I have with the movie is that it didn't meet my expectations. That's partly because the best movies in this genre usually have a very strong and satisfying pay off. Its all about the pay off. Because this is a suspense thriller and its all building up-to something, if the pay off doesn't merit the build up then the whole movie falls apart. The best characters in the movie are Cynthia Erivo and Jeff bridges. That's partly because we spend most of the time with them. Dakota Johnson fits her part pretty well even though her character isn't fully fleshed out. The disappointing characters in the movie are that of Jon Hamm and Chris Hemsworth. From the trailers you can figure out that Hemsworth's role is that of a leader and an influencer but apart from his looks his acting doesn't convey any kind of charm or charisma. Jon Hamm is one note. Lewis Pullman character has lot of flaws in the way its written. The character of the motel is very good. Some of the twists in the movie felt very basic. They felt amateurish and are of low quality. I was able to connect the dots from the trailers. However despite all these flaws it was entertaining. I was intrigued for the most part. Its not because of the secret of the characters or the twists but it was the way things unfolded that kept me engaged for the most part. The movie was able to hold my attention until a twist happens and after that it was able to hold my attention until the next twist. There were also some socially relevant character undertones that I was able to recollect once I got out of the movie. So all in all this movie is decent theater watch for anyone who is into thriller/mystery genre and have time to kill.
Spoilers
So the movie starts with robbers having completed a heist enters a hotel room where he hides a bag of money. This whole scene takes place in a single frame. The problem with the scene is that there is not much happening there. Its just a guy hiding a suitcase very well and gets shot in the back by someone he knew.
The movie jumps back and forth in time. The transition is very organised that it doesn't feel jarring. But oddly it feels inconsequential. The whole movie could have been linear and audience wouldn't have liked it any more or less that they did this version. That's a problem. When you choose to tell a story in non linear fashion then it better be worth it. As for the characters we have an undercover FBI agent , a war veteran bell boy/in-charge of the hotel, an ex-robber coming back to collect his money, a singer looking for a better life, two sisters escaping a cult and finally the cult. The history of the hotel is much more intriguing than any of the characters in it. It is around the time of Vietnam and Nixon administration and cold war. The motel is used to spy on its customers and blackmail them to get information. It feels like a government approved facility where the positioning of the motel and the type of people who come in there are of high value to government. There is also Russian intervention in the spying. The motel is bugged to the bone. The FBI agent is tasked with getting all the bugs out of the Motel. But in his process he uncovers that there is a secret passage behind the rooms where all the characters are being watched and the videos are being sent to the management who in-turn trades that information with interested parties. So essentially he seems to have uncovered a second layer of surveillance which his superiors might have known but not him. The movie never makes it clear who knows how much about the various layers of surveillance in the hotel. The robbery plot line interweaves with this motel timeline in quite interesting manner. Before the hotel has been modified into this surveillance facility the robbery takes place and the money is stashed. After the hotel becomes what it is, Jeff Bridges comes back to get the money.
The most predictable plot-lines in the movie are Jon Hamm being an FBI agent and Dakota Johnson and her sister running away from a cult. From the trailers I was able to tell that her sister is member of cult. Even the cult is little stereotypical where in Chris Hemsworth's ulterior motives are that he just wants to sleep with his female followers. You have a bonfire scene as with any cults. I knew that in the end all the characters in the movie will be tied up by the cult and something unexpected will happen and someone worthy survives. That happens. The sudden reveal that the bell boy is a Vietnam veteran addicted to drugs and an expert shooter felt tagged in. It didn't flow with the movie. But the warmth between Cynthia Erivo and Jeff Bridges is the only thing that felt real and natural. It almost feels like a throwback to 60s films where after all the crazy stuff happens the good guys and the actual characters that lead us into the story are the ones that survive. The movie does a decent job of highlighting that a robber coming back to get his money from under the floor boards of a hotel room is the least crazy thing that happens in the movie.
One thing I noticed is that there was significant money spent in recreating the robbery when the money was stolen 10 years before the present setting. It takes place in a snowy town with ice mountains in the background. There was also significant money spent in recreating the root of trauma for the army vet bell boy by showing him in the battle. But the problem here is that both these recreations are not adding to the movie. There is something disjoint between the tone of the movie and choice of setting for these recreations. Main story-line takes place in a tropical location on a rainy day. But one of this side story takes place in Vietnam and the other in some snowy location. Both those kinda deprecate the impact of main story-line. Compare it to something like Hateful Eight where none of the story-line takes place in a tropical climate. The whole movie including the flashbacks take place in deep snow. The exteriors of the whole movie is during winter. That in a way heightens the experience and danger of the movie.
Speaking of the pay off. All Tarantino movies have a pay off that works. For example, Django Unchained had the pay off at candy-land and it is so strong that it sustained the whole way through all the shoot out. But in this movie the director cornered himself into a situation where he is forced to retrieve back to tired cliches. No matter how much of a homage your movie is, it should still stand on its own merit. This movie falls way short of that. Chris Hemsworth does nothing to convey his charm as a cult leader apart from the way he looks genetically. He brings nothing to the table. His dialogue delivery and performance is the same in every movie.In a way this movie made me understand why Tarantino uses lot of blood in the movie. There are lot of gruesome deaths in this movie but the blood on screen is kept to bare minimum. But I personally think that the more blood there is on the screen the more audience will feel the impact of violence. Without using guts if you can show audience enough blood on screen then you can influence their subconscious mind into thinking that there is something dark and disturbing happening on screen for real. I do think this movie might have benefited from a better soundtrack. 80's style soundtrack with demented undertones is the way to go. The cult leader must have been menacing and charming at the same time. Hemsworth is just hot.
Four strangers show up at a motel called the El Royale before a rainy night and everyone is not who they seem to be including the motel itself. What ensues is a twisty thriller.
In one of my other reviews I have mentioned my problem with Tarantino. He ruined it for rest of the directors to tell a lot of different types of stories. He managed to step on many different film-making techniques and made them useless for other directors. Because they will be called out if they use it and be accused of copying. He took a style of film-making that was obsolete and used it in modern setting. Audience in the current generation doesn't have any idea about the auteur directorial styles of 60s or 70s or before and if he copies them there is no one that can call him out on that because the one's who know it are in their late 70s or over.
I have been excited to see this movie for quite sometime. But this movie's hype has been tainted a bit from the get go with comparisons to Quentin Tarantino style of film making. The concept is little similar to Hateful eight and the word Royale in title reminds audience of Royale with cheese from pulp fiction. These kind of comparisons pisses me off. Can't people ever do a movie about group of criminals ever again ? So with that critique out of the way lets delve into this movie. Of course there are no spoilers until the last section of this review. 10 minutes into the movie I noticed two things. The direction of the movie seemed a little self indulgent and that can be expected from a lot of directors. But the movie starts with a very elaborated single frame shot that shows a character doing something in a room over the course of few hours with very few time lapse cuts. But the problem with the shot is that as gorgeous as it is the sequence didn't have any weight to it. Its almost like shooting a person eating his cereal for the whole duration. No matter how cleverly it was shot there is very little content there. The second thing I noticed is that the atmosphere of the outdoors of the motel is quite interesting and it has a life of its own. As I said before, all the characters in the movie enter the motel on an afternoon before a rainy night. So we see the climate changing as the movie goes along. The characters are not who they are and the trailers gave away some of the twists. But the actual reveal of each of their true identities is not intriguing enough. The most clever aspect of the movie is the way it uses the singing ability of a character.
The problem I have with the movie is that it didn't meet my expectations. That's partly because the best movies in this genre usually have a very strong and satisfying pay off. Its all about the pay off. Because this is a suspense thriller and its all building up-to something, if the pay off doesn't merit the build up then the whole movie falls apart. The best characters in the movie are Cynthia Erivo and Jeff bridges. That's partly because we spend most of the time with them. Dakota Johnson fits her part pretty well even though her character isn't fully fleshed out. The disappointing characters in the movie are that of Jon Hamm and Chris Hemsworth. From the trailers you can figure out that Hemsworth's role is that of a leader and an influencer but apart from his looks his acting doesn't convey any kind of charm or charisma. Jon Hamm is one note. Lewis Pullman character has lot of flaws in the way its written. The character of the motel is very good. Some of the twists in the movie felt very basic. They felt amateurish and are of low quality. I was able to connect the dots from the trailers. However despite all these flaws it was entertaining. I was intrigued for the most part. Its not because of the secret of the characters or the twists but it was the way things unfolded that kept me engaged for the most part. The movie was able to hold my attention until a twist happens and after that it was able to hold my attention until the next twist. There were also some socially relevant character undertones that I was able to recollect once I got out of the movie. So all in all this movie is decent theater watch for anyone who is into thriller/mystery genre and have time to kill.
Spoilers
So the movie starts with robbers having completed a heist enters a hotel room where he hides a bag of money. This whole scene takes place in a single frame. The problem with the scene is that there is not much happening there. Its just a guy hiding a suitcase very well and gets shot in the back by someone he knew.
The movie jumps back and forth in time. The transition is very organised that it doesn't feel jarring. But oddly it feels inconsequential. The whole movie could have been linear and audience wouldn't have liked it any more or less that they did this version. That's a problem. When you choose to tell a story in non linear fashion then it better be worth it. As for the characters we have an undercover FBI agent , a war veteran bell boy/in-charge of the hotel, an ex-robber coming back to collect his money, a singer looking for a better life, two sisters escaping a cult and finally the cult. The history of the hotel is much more intriguing than any of the characters in it. It is around the time of Vietnam and Nixon administration and cold war. The motel is used to spy on its customers and blackmail them to get information. It feels like a government approved facility where the positioning of the motel and the type of people who come in there are of high value to government. There is also Russian intervention in the spying. The motel is bugged to the bone. The FBI agent is tasked with getting all the bugs out of the Motel. But in his process he uncovers that there is a secret passage behind the rooms where all the characters are being watched and the videos are being sent to the management who in-turn trades that information with interested parties. So essentially he seems to have uncovered a second layer of surveillance which his superiors might have known but not him. The movie never makes it clear who knows how much about the various layers of surveillance in the hotel. The robbery plot line interweaves with this motel timeline in quite interesting manner. Before the hotel has been modified into this surveillance facility the robbery takes place and the money is stashed. After the hotel becomes what it is, Jeff Bridges comes back to get the money.
The most predictable plot-lines in the movie are Jon Hamm being an FBI agent and Dakota Johnson and her sister running away from a cult. From the trailers I was able to tell that her sister is member of cult. Even the cult is little stereotypical where in Chris Hemsworth's ulterior motives are that he just wants to sleep with his female followers. You have a bonfire scene as with any cults. I knew that in the end all the characters in the movie will be tied up by the cult and something unexpected will happen and someone worthy survives. That happens. The sudden reveal that the bell boy is a Vietnam veteran addicted to drugs and an expert shooter felt tagged in. It didn't flow with the movie. But the warmth between Cynthia Erivo and Jeff Bridges is the only thing that felt real and natural. It almost feels like a throwback to 60s films where after all the crazy stuff happens the good guys and the actual characters that lead us into the story are the ones that survive. The movie does a decent job of highlighting that a robber coming back to get his money from under the floor boards of a hotel room is the least crazy thing that happens in the movie.
One thing I noticed is that there was significant money spent in recreating the robbery when the money was stolen 10 years before the present setting. It takes place in a snowy town with ice mountains in the background. There was also significant money spent in recreating the root of trauma for the army vet bell boy by showing him in the battle. But the problem here is that both these recreations are not adding to the movie. There is something disjoint between the tone of the movie and choice of setting for these recreations. Main story-line takes place in a tropical location on a rainy day. But one of this side story takes place in Vietnam and the other in some snowy location. Both those kinda deprecate the impact of main story-line. Compare it to something like Hateful Eight where none of the story-line takes place in a tropical climate. The whole movie including the flashbacks take place in deep snow. The exteriors of the whole movie is during winter. That in a way heightens the experience and danger of the movie.
Speaking of the pay off. All Tarantino movies have a pay off that works. For example, Django Unchained had the pay off at candy-land and it is so strong that it sustained the whole way through all the shoot out. But in this movie the director cornered himself into a situation where he is forced to retrieve back to tired cliches. No matter how much of a homage your movie is, it should still stand on its own merit. This movie falls way short of that. Chris Hemsworth does nothing to convey his charm as a cult leader apart from the way he looks genetically. He brings nothing to the table. His dialogue delivery and performance is the same in every movie.In a way this movie made me understand why Tarantino uses lot of blood in the movie. There are lot of gruesome deaths in this movie but the blood on screen is kept to bare minimum. But I personally think that the more blood there is on the screen the more audience will feel the impact of violence. Without using guts if you can show audience enough blood on screen then you can influence their subconscious mind into thinking that there is something dark and disturbing happening on screen for real. I do think this movie might have benefited from a better soundtrack. 80's style soundtrack with demented undertones is the way to go. The cult leader must have been menacing and charming at the same time. Hemsworth is just hot.