New Rose Hotel (1998) - Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi

Hohum Score

94

Hohummer

Two businessmen are hired to steal secrets from a rival, and decide to use a beautiful, but volatile call girl to do so.

IMDB: 5
Director: Abel Ferrara
Stars: Christopher Walken, Willem Dafoe
Length: 93 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 18 out of 73 found boring (24.65%)

One-line Reviews (50)

But what YOU must know is that the end of this movie is a Cut & Paste of the beginning, and that the 30 last minutes are awfully boring.

An unbelievable mess, this incredibly confusing movie makes Ferrara previous "The Blackout" a model of narrative clarity.

But literally nothing happens.

3- Boredom.

The dialog is nonsense like an uninteresting Little Steven's Underground Garage.

I will give Mr. Ferrara credit where it is due with his film - he creates a very evocative and sensual Tokyo underworld, and gets a strong performance from Christopher Walken as Fox, the head of a syndicate that is going to seduce and snatch the world's top genetic biologist from one mega-corporation to work for another.

I really wanted to like this movie, but there's just nothing there except for one of Walken's canned sociopath characters (although well done) and Argento's boobs, which are exposed so many times by the end of the movie, I actually got bored of seeing them.

This film was probably the most disappointing, boring, repetitive (of nothing), poorly made movie I can ever remember seeing, and that is saying a lot.

A good but boring movie .

The film never creates the tense, doom-laden atmosphere of William Gibson's short story about corporate espionage in a grim near-future setting, leaving the viewer to spend a numbing hour and half with unheroic and uninteresting characters doing not much of anything.

And way, way too long.

A truly intriguing film, of a quality and style i have very rarely seen.

Simiarly, 90% of the plot development in Gibson's fiction is mysterious, ambiguous, muffled, and cryptic - much like a John LeCarre "Smiley" Cold War novel, there is so much dealing, double dealing, betrayal and backstabbing going on behind the scenes, much of which the reader is not privy too, that it required intense concentration on every aspect of the plot to keep from being completely buffaloed by the events.

The best excuse that I can make for this complete waste of time is that it was obviously low budget, since there are only about 50 minutes of unique footage, with the other 42 minutes being flashbacks of previous scenes (exaggeration?

This movie is just plain tedious.

The movie takes an intriguing approach, very drastically different from mainstream hollywood movies, in that there is no buildup of traditional suspense, or tension so to speak.

Ferrara's latest is a bizarre bore...

Measured up against other "atmospheric" films such as Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, it seems weak and pretentious.

The film is both convoluted and boring, a lethal combination.

New Rose Hotel (1998)Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken, two ageing A-listers along with the sexy Italian Asia Argento, star in this slow paced tale.

Godard tried and bored us to tears.

It did feel like the most important scenes were not filmed, and the rehashing of earlier scenes in the third act is really tedious.

An intriguing and beautifully stylish movie .

He's incredibly inventive and is a master at fabricating convincing, compelling future societies...

The worst movie I've ever seen...

I found it fascinating to see earlier scenes again, augmented with now-meaningful dialog, from the POV of our updated knowledge of Sandii's deception (though I think the original technique worked better).

In this film, New Rose Hotel, there's nothing, only banal and commonplace things, stupid gags, terrible actings (Asia is tremendous), Christopher and Willem at lowest levels.

I figure any movie with Walken's name listed in the credits first is worth watching.

All his earlier work (except maybe for "Snake eyes" which I found too slow to be compelling) satisfied me on many levels.

It is a torture I would only subject my worst enemies to.

Christopher Walken is very entertaining as usual.

It's just like remembering an intense event in real life.

Discounting the bland nudity, the only distinct pleasure is watching Christopher Walken's line delivery.

I actually enjoyed it much more than that travesty Johnny Mnemonic (my apologies to Gibson, I know he liked it).

But still worth watching for Walken and Dafoe.

Horrible, tedious garbage.

I suppose if you're used to watching films like Independence Day and never get to see an independent film or a film which strays from the norm, this might be vaguely interesting to you, if you can stay awake through it.

The movie is quite faithful to Gibson's story, and is quite enjoyable for a while (although some people will hate Ferrara's lackadaisical pacing and Walken's histrionics (and the return of his Dead Zone limp)).

This movie is worth watching MORE than once, and if you look around at current reality, you will see the themes and the images presented in this film to be pervasive and true.

You'll either love it as a character study or hate it for being a boring, muddled mess .

"Only Abel Ferrare can attract big time actors for sleazy and plotless movies.

Truly dreadful, slow, boring.

Either I have to care about the characters, or the plot has to be interesting, or at very least the "atmosphere" of the film has to be engrossing.

Has any living director created a body of work as unpredictable and frustrating as Abel Ferrara?!

I was surprised by how intriguing and interesting the movie was.

Others have called it a boring, flickering mess, which is a much harder charge to beat.

William Gibson must be getting awfully desperate or greedy to sell his story's name to such a pointless and dull piece of trash.

Any adaptation of a good book by an author you like is worth watching, at least once.

What bothered me: 1- Needless and pointless erotic scenes in the bar.

Painful and plodding .