Customer Reviews

Chelsea Walls (Widescreen)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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.

While an interesting effort, the most noteworthy scene is with the luminous TUESDAY WELD! I had almost fogotten what a terrifically talented and gorgeous actress she is. Acting students take note and watch her in action for she is the real thing. Why doesn't she work more? I didn't even realize she was in the movie and when I saw her scene, I was riveted. A true pro in every sense of the word. Only complaint was her role was too small. MORE TUESDAY!!

I'm a huge Wilco fan which turned me on to this movie and soundtrack. Despite the bitter reviews by folks hoping for every plot twist and character to be instantly revealed to them in a snappy ending, this film is brilliant. Arent the best songs ones that when they are over seem too short? Arent the best books the ones that end with the fate of the protagonists as yet undetermined? Such is Chelsea Walls, a film about starving artists and tortured souls living a day in their lives. The performances, soundtrack and lighting are genius....if you like movies such as Memento, Usual Suspects, etc....where you are left wanting more...this movie is for you. If you like cheesey copouts like Lethal Weapon or Lord of the Rings....dont watch it.

Puh-leeze. Spare me the tortured artist hooey. I don't care for mainstream Hollywood movies *and* I'm lucky to have some artistic souls in my circle of friends *and* I still found this movie to be pretentious. First and foremost, the major problem with this movie (and I assume the play as well) is that you never get to know these people. Neither the playwright nor the director needs to rely on backstory, but how about giving the audience a point at which to move forward or something to care about? Just being An Artist doesn't cut it. A solid cast is wasted on half-written scenes, stilted lines and stereotypes. Speaking of the cast, Uma Thurman seems to be included only--other than being the director's wife, of course--because she wanders around in a tight tank top. In addition, the idea of mood in Chelsea Walls is distinguished by lighting. How original. You've got your young attractive lovers in cool blue, your disaffected midwestern songwriter in red and your alcoholic writer in brownish yellow. Since when did Paint By Numbers become the accepted formula for a good film?

On the plus side, even if Amazon.com offered a rating of 0, I would still give it a star because of Jeff Tweedy's score. In addition to the background music, there are two new Wilco songs you can't find elsewhere. His musical genius is the best thing about this movie. I would recommend picking up the soundtrack and avoiding the film entirely.

"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.

I'm not going to disagree with people who feel this film is pretentious. If it's not your kind of thing, I can see why you'd feel that way. But I think I can understand and appreciate what Ethan Hawke was trying to do here. The Chelsea hotel in NYC is unique--so many famous writers have lived and worked there that the place should be a literary landmark and tourist attraction. I guess to a certain extent it is, but it's also a squalid pit whose residents are a mixture of disenfranchised people and artists/writers trying to follow in the footsteps of previous Chelsea denizens. It's this contradictory atmosphere that Hawke is trying to capture, and I think he did a good job. True, there's not much of a plot. It's mainly just a glimpse at several people as they struggle with life and whether their creative impulses are fulfilling enough to sustain them in such a marginalized existence. I thought Robert Sean Leonard, Kris Kristofferson, and Rosario Dawson gave particularly moving performances. And there is a plot, in a way--watch the policemen at the beginning of the film; they'll be important at the end. There's no question that the screenplay (written by Nicole Burdette, not Hawke) is somewhat flat and inert, but the acting and directing rise above it. Months after I watched it, I keep thinking about this movie. I'm going to have to rent it again or maybe even buy it. If you don't like unconventional films, I think you can probably already tell that you're not going to like this one. If you like to see different, experimental movies, however, give this one a try and make up your own mind. At the very least, you'll be supporting independent film in this country, which needs all the help it can get.

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.

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.

What's with all the hostility from some of the reviewers about this film? These are obviously people who're still (and only)impressed by blockbuster,mainstream feel-good films and have a narrow wolrdview.Hawke's bleak take on Nicole Burdette's play about a group of artists,writers and musicians living a New York hotel is done very well and with a gritty touch(thanks,once again,to the wonders of filming in digital video).Sure,some parts of the movie and the acting is a bit overdone(especially by Kristofferson at the very end)or amateurish(Kevin Corrigan comes to mind) but it's still a great "day in the life"pic that is features great background music by Jeff Tweedy of Wilco. The fact they actually filmed at Hotel Chelsea adds an even more cinematic gracefulness. The color-specified rooms and lighting for each of the characters,while not a unique move in cinemaphotography,is still a nice touch.The stories may seem to have nothing to do with one another but they all tie into one general theme that I won't ruin by telling here. All in all,it's the perfect movie to watch late at night.