Chelsea Walls | | Cast : | Paz de la Huerta, Vincent D'Onofrio | | Director : | Ethan Hawke | | Studio : | Lions Gate Home Entertainment | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | January 01, 2001 | | DVD Released Date : | July 20, 2004 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON | Customer Reviews
| Rating |     | | Date | January 09, 2005 | | Summary | A creative 'moment to moment' collage | Content
 | 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 |     | | Date | November 13, 2004 | | Summary | it all depends on how you watch it... | Content
 | 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. |
| Rating |      | | Date | May 19, 2003 | | Summary | If these walls could talk... | Content
 | 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 |     | | Date | March 09, 2003 | | Summary | Poem as Film, Film as Poem | Content
 | 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 |    | | Date | February 28, 2003 | | Summary | NOBLE EFFORT | Content
 | 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!! |
|