Bad Times at the El Royale Reviews

  • 2h ago

    There were some great moments and strong performances but it did occasionally get lost and not even the well-chosen sound track could save it in those moments...

    There were some great moments and strong performances but it did occasionally get lost and not even the well-chosen sound track could save it in those moments...

  • 5h ago

    The movie starts with a striking scene that puts you right in the mood, you keep asking yourself questions all the way through the first act, wich I think is fantastic, very reminiscent of an Agatha Christie story. But then, halfway through the movie, it started losing me with the whole Charles Manson wannabe subplot, it just drags on for too long. Still a good movie though, and I would totally recommend it, the whole cast is great. Pretty good visuals too.

    The movie starts with a striking scene that puts you right in the mood, you keep asking yourself questions all the way through the first act, wich I think is fantastic, very reminiscent of an Agatha Christie story. But then, halfway through the movie, it started losing me with the whole Charles Manson wannabe subplot, it just drags on for too long. Still a good movie though, and I would totally recommend it, the whole cast is great. Pretty good visuals too.

  • 2d ago

    If you want to watch this movie, just watch Pulp Fiction. I was watching this movie that I had never seen before with a very enjoyable yet strange deja vu. Then it dawned on me that this "film" is Pulp Fiction. Far too many similarities not to be down right plagiarism. Someone mentioned the place cards. Those were used in "Four Rooms". This movie had Jeff Bridges and was it's only redeeming quality. Quentin should get 90% of any of the profits from this movie. Unbelievable. SPOILER ALERTS: Even down to the mysterious film that people look at and say, "Is that who I think it is?" gives the audience the same feeling as "Is that what I think it is?" in the briefcase. The voyeurism, the "game" (roulette for this movie, eeny meeny for PF), Vietnam moment flashbacks in both, Even the set and decor looked like Tarrantino picked it himself. The flashbacks, coming back to different perspectives...so badly done.

    If you want to watch this movie, just watch Pulp Fiction. I was watching this movie that I had never seen before with a very enjoyable yet strange deja vu. Then it dawned on me that this "film" is Pulp Fiction. Far too many similarities not to be down right plagiarism. Someone mentioned the place cards. Those were used in "Four Rooms". This movie had Jeff Bridges and was it's only redeeming quality. Quentin should get 90% of any of the profits from this movie. Unbelievable. SPOILER ALERTS: Even down to the mysterious film that people look at and say, "Is that who I think it is?" gives the audience the same feeling as "Is that what I think it is?" in the briefcase. The voyeurism, the "game" (roulette for this movie, eeny meeny for PF), Vietnam moment flashbacks in both, Even the set and decor looked like Tarrantino picked it himself. The flashbacks, coming back to different perspectives...so badly done.

  • 3d ago

    I finally made an account on RT and wrote a review because it baffles me how well this movie is rated by both critics and audience alike. Bad Times at the El Royale is a bonafide paradox. Never have I seen a movie try so hard to do everything that a great movie should, and then fail so spectacularly in every way. Never have I seen a movie that simultaneously treats the audience as both a context-savvy sleuther and a slack-jawed moron. I don't really know where to start. This started to be very long so I'll try to just stick with general grievances. First is the only thing everyone can agree on: it's way too damn long. Goddard can't decide who he loves more: Quentin Tarantino or himself. The thing about long shots or dialogues that he fails to understand is that they have to grab your attention and keep it(Tarantino himself often loses this gamble). If your movie's running, it needs to be providing information to its audience. What does Jon Hamm's five minutes of sitting there watching a woman sing inform us? And then Dakota Johnson's character does it again later! Granted, there was more going on in that scene, but god, did this movie need some editing. Speaking of editing, this movie did not need a single flashback. I'll say one positive thing about the movie, almost every characterization and setting that we need is already in the movie without them. We know Erivo's character has had a rough time as a black woman in the 60's because we see the way white men treat her at the Royale. Was a ten minute sequence of a straw man record exec prattling on really necessary? We know that Jeff Bridges stole stuff and has alzheimers because he tells us. We know Rose is in Chris Hemsworth's cult because she's a hippie and in love with this psychopath. Miles' background is the only clarification we needed but it could have been solved with more context clues(add some medals in his room and dog tags along with the existing Vietnam talk and we get it). All any of this does is add runtime. Cut the dialogue or the flashbacks, but don't have both. Honestly I don't want to waste any more time on this, but there were other things which put the nail in the coffin for me. The dialogue was pretty awful, a lot of the music was shoved in(I love movies with classic music, but when Hemsworth's character literally notes the lack of it in a scene, it becomes too self aware), the switching back and forth was constantly taking me out of the moment. You can't start a mystery and then switch to another mystery, and then switch, etc. You make one major mystery, and then as you're building on that one, other, smaller mysteries present themselves to be solved. The thing is, this would have been great as a mini series. Each episode would start building on each character and the time period, maybe nestling in some themes about the culture and fears and dreams of 60's America. Then the second half could forward the plot a bit, moving all the pieces together, after the pieces themselves have been properly established as real, three dimensional characters. But in a two hour movie, it's a rambling, masturbatory mess.

    I finally made an account on RT and wrote a review because it baffles me how well this movie is rated by both critics and audience alike. Bad Times at the El Royale is a bonafide paradox. Never have I seen a movie try so hard to do everything that a great movie should, and then fail so spectacularly in every way. Never have I seen a movie that simultaneously treats the audience as both a context-savvy sleuther and a slack-jawed moron. I don't really know where to start. This started to be very long so I'll try to just stick with general grievances. First is the only thing everyone can agree on: it's way too damn long. Goddard can't decide who he loves more: Quentin Tarantino or himself. The thing about long shots or dialogues that he fails to understand is that they have to grab your attention and keep it(Tarantino himself often loses this gamble). If your movie's running, it needs to be providing information to its audience. What does Jon Hamm's five minutes of sitting there watching a woman sing inform us? And then Dakota Johnson's character does it again later! Granted, there was more going on in that scene, but god, did this movie need some editing. Speaking of editing, this movie did not need a single flashback. I'll say one positive thing about the movie, almost every characterization and setting that we need is already in the movie without them. We know Erivo's character has had a rough time as a black woman in the 60's because we see the way white men treat her at the Royale. Was a ten minute sequence of a straw man record exec prattling on really necessary? We know that Jeff Bridges stole stuff and has alzheimers because he tells us. We know Rose is in Chris Hemsworth's cult because she's a hippie and in love with this psychopath. Miles' background is the only clarification we needed but it could have been solved with more context clues(add some medals in his room and dog tags along with the existing Vietnam talk and we get it). All any of this does is add runtime. Cut the dialogue or the flashbacks, but don't have both. Honestly I don't want to waste any more time on this, but there were other things which put the nail in the coffin for me. The dialogue was pretty awful, a lot of the music was shoved in(I love movies with classic music, but when Hemsworth's character literally notes the lack of it in a scene, it becomes too self aware), the switching back and forth was constantly taking me out of the moment. You can't start a mystery and then switch to another mystery, and then switch, etc. You make one major mystery, and then as you're building on that one, other, smaller mysteries present themselves to be solved. The thing is, this would have been great as a mini series. Each episode would start building on each character and the time period, maybe nestling in some themes about the culture and fears and dreams of 60's America. Then the second half could forward the plot a bit, moving all the pieces together, after the pieces themselves have been properly established as real, three dimensional characters. But in a two hour movie, it's a rambling, masturbatory mess.

  • 4d ago

    In each act of the film gives a twist. If The Cabin In The Woods liked it, Bad Times At The El Royale will fascinate you. A Masterpiece By Drew Goddard

    In each act of the film gives a twist. If The Cabin In The Woods liked it, Bad Times At The El Royale will fascinate you. A Masterpiece By Drew Goddard

  • 5d ago

    Definitely not what I expected it to be. Tries way too hard to be a Tarantino movie. But still mostly entertaining and kept me on the edge of my seat. And had great acting performances led by the surprisingly tremendous Chris Hemsworth. Pretty unsatisfying ending.

    Definitely not what I expected it to be. Tries way too hard to be a Tarantino movie. But still mostly entertaining and kept me on the edge of my seat. And had great acting performances led by the surprisingly tremendous Chris Hemsworth. Pretty unsatisfying ending.

  • 5d ago

    I'm sure Tarantino loves this movie because it's basically an homage to him. And they manage to pull it off for the most part.

    I'm sure Tarantino loves this movie because it's basically an homage to him. And they manage to pull it off for the most part.

  • 6d ago

    This is what Tarantino movies are supposed to be like. Unlike that garbage that was the hateful Eight but alas this is not his film. Weird, mysterious, wild, overall a fantastic time. This would have a 90 percent if Quintin T's Name was on it.

    This is what Tarantino movies are supposed to be like. Unlike that garbage that was the hateful Eight but alas this is not his film. Weird, mysterious, wild, overall a fantastic time. This would have a 90 percent if Quintin T's Name was on it.

  • 6d ago

    Did not know anything about this movie going in & was totally blown away by the unique story line & crazy good acting.....Definitely worth the watch.

    Did not know anything about this movie going in & was totally blown away by the unique story line & crazy good acting.....Definitely worth the watch.

  • 6d ago

    Twists around every corner. A heartfelt ending and my new favorite movie.

    Twists around every corner. A heartfelt ending and my new favorite movie.