Rating: 
Summary: Ethan Hawke's Directing Debut Is Too Somber and Artistic
Review: "Chelsea Walls" is Ethan Hawke's debut work as a director, recording the miscellaneous characters living in Chealse Hotel, a real-life hotel in New York famous for its series of residents. Now a kind of sightseeing spots, Chelsea Hotel attacted many people, especially artists of various fields -- writers like Dylan Thomas, for example -- and it is natural that Ethan Hawke, raised in Texas, is also drawn to the material.The script or the story is almost non-existent. We see various artists, all of whom seem soaked in past dreams, or simply drunk. Uma Thurman aspires to be a poet, but ovbiously her dream is already shatterd when we see she cannot hung up the phone call from her irresponsible lover; Vincent D'Onofrio is Jackson Pollock-like artist, who conceals his love for Uma Thurman's character, but is afraid of speaking it out. In addition, we see Steve Zahn, Robert Sean Leonard, Kris Kristofferson, Tuesday Weld, Natasha Richardson, Rosario Dawson, Mark Webber, and even Harris Yulin. Plus, you can even listen to Jimmy Scott's rendition of John Lennon classic song "Jealous Guy" (Yoko agreed to use it for Ethan Hawke). With this cast, you cannot complain anything. But the result is far from satisfactory. The digital video camera, which has been used recently more than it should be, provides here some beautiful shots, but as a whole the film needs clearer lightling. The dialogues are often sleep-inducing, not knowing how to engage our interests in the characters. For all its good intenions, just like "Million Dollar Hotel" which goes through the similar territory but fails to make us care the characters, "Chelsea Walls" is a missed opportunity for the great cast. The film tries to capture the characters with some hollow, ghostly images of artist in mind, and that is the director's purpose, it is clear. But the film is too ghostly; I mean, the film, while introducing the people in the hotel all depressed for some reasons or other, makes point within its first 10 minutes, but then goes nowhere after that. Directors like Laas Von Trier would somehow get away with it, presenting his unique, original, and interesting characters all around, but not "Chelsea Hotel." Great cast give great performance, especially Uma Thurman who breaks her "sexy and gorgeous" images in the past, but her role is too underdeveloped. It is a pity, indeed.
Rating:
Summary: Ethan Hawke's Directing Debut Is Too Somber and Artistic
Review: "Chelsea Walls" is Ethan Hawke's debut work as a director, recording the miscellaneous characters living in Chealse Hotel, a real-life hotel in New York famous for its series of residents. Now a kind of sightseeing spots, Chelsea Hotel attacted many people, especially artists of various fields -- writers like Dylan Thomas, for example -- and it is natural that Ethan Hawke, raised in Texas, is also drawn to the material. The script or the story is almost non-existent. We see various artists, all of whom seem soaked in past dreams, or simply drunk. Uma Thurman aspires to be a poet, but ovbiously her dream is already shatterd when we see she cannot hung up the phone call from her irresponsible lover; Vincent D'Onofrio is Jackson Pollock-like artist, who conceals his love for Uma Thurman's character, but is afraid of speaking it out. In addition, we see Steve Zahn, Robert Sean Leonard, Kris Kristofferson, Tuesday Weld, Natasha Richardson, Rosario Dawson, Mark Webber, and even Harris Yulin. Plus, you can even listen to Jimmy Scott's rendition of John Lennon classic song "Jealous Guy" (Yoko agreed to use it for Ethan Hawke). With this cast, you cannot complain anything. But the result is far from satisfactory. The digital video camera, which has been used recently more than it should be, provides here some beautiful shots, but as a whole the film needs clearer lightling. The dialogues are often sleep-inducing, not knowing how to engage our interests in the characters. For all its good intenions, just like "Million Dollar Hotel" which goes through the similar territory but fails to make us care the characters, "Chelsea Walls" is a missed opportunity for the great cast. The film tries to capture the characters with some hollow, ghostly images of artist in mind, and that is the director's purpose, it is clear. But the film is too ghostly; I mean, the film, while introducing the people in the hotel all depressed for some reasons or other, makes point within its first 10 minutes, but then goes nowhere after that. Directors like Laas Von Trier would somehow get away with it, presenting his unique, original, and interesting characters all around, but not "Chelsea Hotel." Great cast give great performance, especially Uma Thurman who breaks her "sexy and gorgeous" images in the past, but her role is too underdeveloped. It is a pity, indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: A poetic start
Review: Although it might seem a bit pretentious at start, the movie has great dialogues filled with poetry. It's also beatifully cut and the subtle connection between characters feels like a rough trip into people's desire to love and the lonelyness of urban human beings.
Rating: 
Summary: A creative 'moment to moment' collage
Review: An assortment of highly talented actors paint the canvas of this very creative collage of artistic, tormented and lonely lives, set in NYC's Chelsea Hotel. Don't expect a plot of any narrative coherence but rather a series of vignettes rich in emotions depicting love, loneliness and the simplicity of daily human living.
The dialogue and simple emotional exchange between Kris Kristofferson and Tuesday Weld in one scene is superbly rich. There is also some excellent acting by Vince D'Onofrio and Uma Thurman.
The music by Jeff Tweedy of Wilco really sets the emotional mood for this 'moment to moment' film and some guitar playing and folky music by Robert Sean Leonard is a pleasant surprise. Other noteworthy surprises include a performance by jazz veteran, Little Jimmy Scott (which adds immensely to the collage of diverse personalities and also to the mood of the soundtrack) and a cameo from Issac Hayes in an elevator scene.
Director, Ethan Hawke does a fine job of painting from a diverse palette of actors whose emotions richly color these Chelsea Walls.
Rating: 
Summary: If these walls could talk...
Review: Ethan Hawke's Chelsea Walls is an interesting, multi-faceted portrait of life at the infamous Chelsea Hotel in New York city. The film is loosely-defined, shadowy, yet ultimately an engaging work of art unto itself. The film follows several storylines as it meanders along.. unfolding dramas between several 'major' characters in a sort of real-time exploration of their lives. There is the tortured writer whose alcohol fuels him and whose love interests try to soothe him, whether or not they ultimately succeed. A touching storyline (Kris Kristofferson and Tuesday Weld share an especially beautiful scene). The young couple who try to stay together and who share some beautiful, simple times, and have soft remnants of security in a very uncertain time (and place) (Rosario Dawson, wonderful as ever). The singer-songwriter and his friend, who though near each other physically are very much alone in spirit (the hugely talented, under-used Robert Sean Leonard (where is the Robert Sean Leonard romantic comedy?! I want one! Great to see him and Ethan Hawke are still working together after their wonderful, classic work in Dead Poet's Society, one of my favourite films) and Steve Zahn). There is Uma Thurman's struggling single woman, somewhat adrift on less-than-stellar relationships, but trying slowly and somewhat unsteadily to gain a sense of self, among several would-be suitors. There is the elder jazz singer, who waits for his moments to shine as he sings at a nearby club in the evenings (a nice touch is that Uma Thurman's character quietly goes about her business as a waitress in the same club.) All of these characters come together in a sort of montage.. the film has a real-life grittiness and fluid time which set it apart from most others.. one gets the feeling that this approach really is a good way to portray the Chelsea and its would-be denizens. Focus too much and you lose the sense of place, the fact that all these people and their stories are intertwined, as in real life. Tie them together any tighter and they would become too "fictional" and lose their freedom, their ability to change and reflect and be three-dimensional, real-seeming characters. Pull back from their stories any more, on the other hand, and it would become any other place, and the walls holding the story together would disappear, the essence of the film/place along with it. As this film went on and gathered momentum, I was drawn in more and more... as it came into the last 3/4, I was mesmerized, it became pure poetry, pure art, dancing on the scenes, the emotions, like undulating water in a lake at sunset... glimmering, gorgeous. If you are an artist, or simply love art, if you want to see visions of the would-be history of a very real-life historic place, see this movie. Hawke should be proud, it's a great work.
Rating:
Summary: For true artists
Review: Great subtle, raw poetic movie. Good for the starving artist in all of us.
Rating:
Summary: Fine Indie Film
Review: I have no idea why the other reviews have railed upon this film so harshly. I found all aspects of this film up to par with other good indie films of this time. The acting was gritty and true to character (ie, Kris Kristofferson played a writer who could incessantly write about love but couldn't love anyone; a person who could blankly stare back at someone who loved him with cold eyes). The filming was all on digital cam so there's that grainy quality to it; plus lighting filters were used to distinguish the plot threads: pink for Sean Leonard and Zahn's characters, blue for Rosario Dawson's scenes, and a yellowish tint for Kristofferson's parts. The plot may seem scattered but so are the lives of these artists, the budget of this film may seem low but so are the artists it portrays, the acting seems less like acting and more like reality because for many artists these images are snapshots of their life. You feel tension between certain characters, deep love between others, and growing resentment in all for the cage their locked in for life: being an artist. If you don't subscribe to the starving, self-deprecating, helpless, lost artist cliche then maybe you aren't one so you just wouldn't understand. I applaud Ethan Hawke for what he tried to accomplish and ultimately did accomplish with this work. The best quote that sums up this movie is on the back of the box, "Like an extraordinary jazz solo the film transcends reality and becomes something special. It approaches art."
Rating:
Summary: Poem as Film, Film as Poem
Review: I think if Charles Bukowski, Dylan Thomas, and Fellini collaborated on a piece of writing, it's possible they would have come up with this screenplay. This movie is exciting because it's soooo different from anything I've ever seen. Deliciously non-linear. The substance abuse aspect is a little overdone but that's the destiny of "artist movies". I loved hearing the dialog, and Kristofferson's acting is the best I've ever seen by him. Anything so daring and so unconventional will naturally upset some people (like other reviewers here), but if you ask me that only validates the work. If ever I go to New York City, the Hotel Chelsea will be at the top of my list of places to visit. My favorite lines were by the crazy guy in the elevator, who after claiming to have had a conversation with Dylan Thomas said that ghosts naturally reside in places like the Chelsea because people will listen to them there. The DVD extras contain a couple of quirky interviews, one with director Ethan Hawke and the other with Robert Sean Leonard who plays a deeply troubled folksinger in the film.
Rating:
Summary: Great Achievement for Ethan Hawke
Review: I was fortunate enough to view this film in a small Boston theater where Ethan Hawke was there to introduce it and discuss it afterwards. I found it to be a beautiful work of art, very moving, thought provoking, and also realistic and relateable, if thats a word. Some woman from the audience said that she had lived in the Chelsea and she felt that Ethan had really portrayed its atmosphere quite accurately. The best way to describe this film would be with the words Ethan used himself, "its a collage of moments" throughout a day in the life of several people struggling to live in the Chelsea. If you like artsy films, watch this on a rainy night with a friend.
Rating:
Summary: it all depends on how you watch it...
Review: i was really looking forward to this movie. the hotel is intrigueing, the cast looked amazing, and i'm a fan of ethan hawke. however, at first i was turned off by the movie.
all of the characters are tortured poets and society drop outs. just know that. because that kind of irresponsibility will turn a lot of people off instantly. thats okay though, now you know. also, some "storylines" just don't develop, and you don't get any answers or much insight into any of them beyond what you see.
other than that, the script...well, it is different, and that is a good thing i'll explain next, but its hard to write poetic lines that no one would ever really say (no one would ever say most movie script dialogue anyway) but even with an amazing cast like this some of the lines make you want to roll your eyes. also, the digital cameras make for a cool independant movie (i believe made for 100,000 dollars, very cool)and the grainy-ness fits, but i'm just not a huge fan of the look of digital camera's ("once upon a time in mexico" features digital cameras and i liked that much better.) and the constant slow motion just doesn't work. still shots would have had the same effect, and would have reminded you of paintings rather than pulling you out of the movie.
so why four stars?
as i began the movie, i was thinking about what i just complained about in the last paragraph. i checked online a bit to see what people thought, and realized that it is just what it is. its an art film, a lot of it is just not going to make sense. so i made a cup of coffee and just enjoyed it.
i really think some art, movies, paintings, poems, etc. work better when you just let it be. enjoy the mood, the snapshots of lives (kris kristoffersons scenes i thought were the best, as did most reviewers proffesional and not) the excellent acting. i imagine this was a lot of fun to film as well, as the actors seem to just have have fun bringing odd characters and tiny moments to life.
did it make sense? no, in fact, i'm actually confused about the end. but i'd like to see more movies like it. i was able to just watch and enjoy it and not worry about where it was going. in fact, i kind of dozed through part of it, and you know what? it was nice. its a movie about artists, and i'm guessing, for artists. and its just there. watch it for what it is and you'll like it. try to watch it as a standard movie, and you'll hate it.
|
