MovieChat Forums > Hotel Chevalier (2007) Discussion > A shoe-in for the 'Most Self-Indulgenent...

A shoe-in for the 'Most Self-Indulgenent Ego Award' of 2007?


I have TRIED to watch this short over and over on my laptop...

* Late at night in my bedroom, with all the lights off

* In the morning in the kitchen, with a hangover bigger than Texas

* After making love to a beautiful woman and asking her to watch it with me

* With my mother

* After watching Darjeeling Limited.

...and other times as well.

After all of these viewings, and to be honest, I have to say that it is one of the most self-indulgent wastes of film to come out of the Hills since "Billy Jack Goes To Washington."

It had a worse ending than the slow-motion finale of "Zabriskie Point," duller than the entire viewing of the "experimental" film "Sunrise" by Murnau, and... well, I just have to say it's just pretty awful.

It's a slow, meaningless, devoid-of-substance, injection into the madulla oblongatta with novacaine kind of numbness.

I wanted to see the "hidden meanings," the "subtlety," or ANYTHING, but... ah, forget it.

I was left languid and wanting.

Ugh.

And please, watch it again.

You'll see the waste eventually for yourself.

reply

Have you seen The Darjeeling Limited? You'll get this short if you watch the movie, it's quite vital to the story.

reply

Roo, I have to say I disagree. I've seen the movie and I've seen the short. I loved the movie but I definitely didn't feel the short was vital to the story at all. I found it rather pointless.
I actually think it would have been much more interesting to see the back-story of one of the other brothers. Find out how the weirdness started between Adrien Brody's character and his wife or how Owen Wilson's character ended up driving himself into the side of a mountain.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree, as well. Have seen both the movie and the short and don't find Hotel Chevalier to be necessary to enjoying the full Darjeeling Limited. It adds absolutely nothing -- the ex-girlfriend dilemma was already mentioned in the film and didn't need 13 minutes of its own. A waste of time.

reply


I totally agree! It was just a waste of time

reply

Heck, I got this short just fine -- and the only other Wes Anderson movie I've seen is "Fantastic Mr. Fox"! It's not that hard to grasp, at least in the generalities.

= = =

"I'M OKAY -- YOU'RE OKAY -- THEM THERE'S WHAT IT IS!" -- H.I. McDonough

reply

Dude, it's a 13-minute short film. That you're comparing it to movies like Murnau's masterpiece "Sunrise" and Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" is silly.

Trust me, there are plenty of worse films out there than Anderson's 13-minute little gem.

reply

I assumed it was just Schwartzman's elaborate way of getting to see Portman naked?

reply

[deleted]

"Dude, it's a 13-minute short film. That you're comparing it to movies like Murnau's masterpiece "Sunrise" and Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" is silly. "

It gets worse when you realise he actually disliked those films, and he was saying this was worse


I can think of no higher compliment to Hotel Chevalier than the fact it was hated so much by someone who managed to trash Sunrise and Zabriskie Point in the same sentence.

reply

Zing!

reply

Hey, the guy who reviews movies like this:

"I was left languid and wanting."

immediately forfeits the right to apply descriptions like 'Most Self-Indulgenent Ego Award' to anything. Get over yourself.

reply

Agreed. Not to mention "medulla oblongatta" really isn't that hard to spell.

"Can I borrow your...movie...machine?"

reply

Att: surfer312

You just gave ME a hangover bigger than Texas.

Ugh.

Seen it again, and again, and yet again!

It's a masterpiece!!!!!

I suggest you stick to point break & other Hollywood "Classics"

reply

haha oh my god, dude...you read my mind.

reply

[deleted]

"After making love to a beautiful woman and asking her to watch it with me"

"I was left languid and wanting."

I'm sorry. The short was self-indulgent? Stop trying. You sound like a douche bag.

"Can I borrow your...movie...machine?"

reply

To the OP, I think that this short film explains a lot about Schwartzman’s character, as a writer, he is Deceptive, with no talent and lack of imagination and creativity. Every thing he writes is about his real life events “literally”. As a person he is a typical cheater, who runs away from any serious relationship or any form of a long time commitment.

So, basically it’s a matter of elaboration and study of character, as a common viewer you might not be interested in that and it’s really up to the director wither to choose to share this with the viewers or not.

P.S: I liked it a lot and it adds a lot to the context of the movie.

reply

The main reason for the shoot was to have Natalie show her .. you know. It was great.

Other than that, waste of money for the production.

It was also great for the Bose Sounddock (portable).

= Natalie's butt + Bose Sounddock. That's it.

reply

I think that this short film explains a lot about Schwartzman’s character, as a writer, he is Deceptive, with no talent and lack of imagination and creativity.
There's no way you'd need this short to tell you that. There's a running joke in The Darjeeling Limited where the other two brothers obviously read his work as a not-at-all-veiled account of events that happened in their past, to which he responds, "But these are fictional characters".


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply