Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Andy (film-critic) The Chelsea Hotel is a landmark in American culture, alas, due to modern advances in low-income housing; it has become nothing more than a demolished idea coupled with a forgotten past. Hawke, using nearly every technique patented by Richard Linklater, attempts to revitalize the forgotten hotel with non-sequitur stories and impossible characters, yet incredible actors. Using now-cliché camera style (a.k.a. The grain of pure film school) and a powerful score by Wilco, Hawke pulls every grunge independent filmmaker technique known to man, mashes them together like potatoes, and hopes – actually prays – that it will be a big "hurrah" at the cinematic Thanksgiving. Enough references for now, but truthfully, Hawke creates an eyesore of a film with "Chelsea Walls'. Beginning with characters that never develop AT ALL, coupling with a story that is never existent, Hawke horribly displays whatever talent he may have thought he had by employing friends to carry the burden. "Chelsea Walls" was a smear on cinema, not because of the subject (of which I do believe an honest film needs to be made of the events leading to the demise of this building), but because of the surroundings. Hawke borrows, as mentioned before, unsuccessfully from Linklater's work, attempting to bring a "Waking Life"-esquire story to the surface sans the animation. Where Hawke failed was that he brought unexcited characters into a place that really needed an introduction. He needed to guide this audience through his train of thought – not just assume we were all as intellectual as he portrayed himself to be.What upped me about this film was that we had intelligent, powerful actors giving us nothing. From the beginning of the scene until the end, there was nothing solid for us to stand. Kris Kristofferson is a phenomenal actor, but he couldn't bring me to the surface in "Chelsea Walls". He cried, he drank, he womanized, but for what purpose – this critic has absolutely no idea why. The same can be said for Natasha Richardson, whom in my eyes, cannot do wrong, was misguided from the beginning thanks to Mr. Hawke. Rosario Dawson gave the only comprehensible portrayal throughout the film, but she was flanked by horrid direction and choppy "anti-independent" cliché surroundings. She tried, but Hawke wouldn't allow her to prosper. The only one that went the distance, albeit horribly, was Robert Sean Leonard who only was given screen time because of his friendship with director Hawke. He did have a moving story, and if we were left with just the central focus of Leonard's character as he interacted with the others of this building, I think we could have had a keeper of a film, but we didn't. We jumped. We jumped from one actor to another hoping that we could see the chaos surrounding these talented artists. Alas, all we witnessed was Jell-o slipping down a wall -- nothing was sticking.I hate to be pessimistic because I had high hopes for this film. Look at the billing for "Chelsea Walls", who wouldn't get excited. What did happen is that Hawke went to the Linklater school of direction, but abysmally failed out, possibly never quite going to the first class, but instead just copying someone's notes. This was a dark depressing tale that had elements that could work, but just like any first year filmmaker, it all depends on how you put those ideas together. Hawke had some great ideas, but he could not assemble them. He tried to bring music into the scene, and the use of Wilco was genuine, but overbearing – not to mention overused – throughout the film. This seemed to be the common theme or pedestal that Hawke used for "Chelsea Walls" – overuse, until it becomes painful to the viewer. You can obviously see that with the extra lack-tastic features attached to this disc. There are some additional scenes, which only continue the abrasive, unknown of the film. There are some interviews, but done many years after the film. Hawke tries his best, but the funniest is Robert Sean Leonard who forgets everything and attempts to change the subject. My favorite, "What was your favorite scene Mr. Leonard", answered with a long pause and the phrase, "…anything with Rosario". That sums this film up in a nutshell.Overall, I cannot suggest this film. I love the actor Ethan Hawke, and I like this style of film-making, but for "Chelsea Walls" it just didn't seem put together. Linklater would have been upset with the results – just as we were as we watched it. Do not be fooled by the big names associated here, they accomplish nothing and in the end, make you want this hotel to be torn down. This was a sad attempt at film-making, and I can only suggest watching a better combination film with these actors called "Tape". I have mentioned this in a couple of other reviews and truly believe this is the best Hawkes/Leonard/Linklater combo platter you will ever get.Grade: * ½ out of *****

dredyoung I watched, with unenthusiastic anticipation, Chelsea Walls last pm. Ethan Hawke directed it, and well, and it was filled with top actors and a few good unknowns. Another independent, Art-house movie no one saw! A collage of struggling artists in a rundown New York hotel once haunted by great and famous artists. Interesting and sad. An authentic commentary of the lives of people who would wrench beauty and truth from their starving souls, bodies, and lives in a surrounding world of indifferent walls and lost, disconnected, bustling, solipsistic climbers. For the casual movie goer or average movie buff? - too raw, too realistic, too deep into the nightmare life of those simultaneously struggling, slavishly, and exclusively devoted, full of emaciated hope, to their art and, yet, never having been loved enough are still - and eternally and desperately - reaching with withered and scared hands and hearts for connection. While both wanting to and searching for elusive care, even while self imprisoned in their anguished solitude, they labor, possessed by and surrendered to their evolving dream creations, to just eke out survival so as to have one more day to forge one more note, one more line, one more stroke of their brush, or one more verse. It is a portrayal of a tattered but soulfully beautiful social Ghetto in the midst of a dazzling, opulent, technologically overly well-appointed, commercially successful, sky-rocketing, Gotham-like Empire. To the artistically inclined: Look and listen to its intimately personal, heart-singeing, message at your own risk. You may find it more informing and rewarding than entertaining.

acearms This story didn't have a story. Bouncing around the lives of several couples living in a run down seedy hotel had no real plot. All the characters seemed to sit around, dance down the halls, strum guitars or otherwise providing inane performances. Frank Whaley, as an example, played the part of a want-a-be stand up comic, a second attempt for him for which he again failed miserably. Ethan Hawke should keep his day job as an actor, something he does extremely well and quit trying to be a director. The rest of the actors were equally inane in their performances. The camera angles were faulty, the multiple colors from one scene to another added nothing all the while the various characters moped around whining about their sad lot in life. A movie you will be glad you missed. I gave it a 1/10 only because they don't allow zeros. Waste of time.

coedog3 I don't know why most people don't like this movie, especially if your a connoisseur of the cinema. I admit I am not a big fan of Kris Kristofferson, but aside from him I thought it was a well done movie. It was a bit hard to understand what was going on sometimes, but I think that might have been Ethan Hawke's intention. Any how, if you like indy films, and don't mind being confused, I think this movies worth watching. There were just certain moments in the film when the natural beauty was almost overwhelming it was so powerful. I think Ethan Hawke is on his way.