Bad Times at the El Royale

I'll watch it just for the shirtless dancing Hemsworth.

So can Jon Hamm play anyone other than Don Draper?

"So can Jon Hamm play anyone other than Don Draper?"

Go with your strengths, girl!

I'm in.

On a scale of one to ten, I say, Sassy!

Sounds like fun, and not just for shirtless Hemsworth.

I really hope it doesn't suck.

It looks like it was a great concept but I can totally see it sucking. It looks like it's trying a little too hard, and that's never a good look.

Finally a thread about this movie featuring the actual title.

It definitely looks like it's trying way too hard and I'm getting severe levels of ham from Hemsworth so that's not good. The exterior shots intrigue me, though. I doubt I'll see it but I'm interested in what the critics will make of this.

I don't mind Hemsworth hamming it up, r8. It's not like he's gunning for an Oscar, so he should just lean into the campy material (and he does seem to have a sense of humor about these things).

The question is just whether the movie as a whole can avoid being lame.

r9 I liked him goofy in Thor and Infinity War, but I'm getting Andrew Scott levels of hammy cringe here, and that's a big no-no for me, sorry.

The trailer looks awesome.

This will be the movie that finally makes Kin Hamm a movie star

How is Jeff Bridges still so sexy?

R9 and R10 - And I loved him in the all-female (except him) Ghostbusters revival. He was a different kind of hot in that.

R13 - I thought the EXACT same thing when Bridges first smiled in that trailer! Damn!

So...the hotel is really Hell?

I hope it's not a lame twist where they're all in hell and Chris Hemsworth is the devil.

Bingo!

Disappointed with the new trailer

Reviews are not good

I don't care about the reviews, I still want to see it. It looks like campy fun, and it has both Jeff Bridges and a partly-shirtless Hemsworth in it, so I'm all in!

The majority of reviews (5 out of 7) are good according to Metacritic (and the lesser RT).

I hate when people link to one or two critic's reviews and then say that reviews (implying most) aren't good.

I'm here for Cynthia Erivo. I hope she sings in the film.

Looks like a whole heap of WTF.

It's got Bill Pullman's son Lewis in it. What does DL think of him?

R25, pinched, tight, closed off face. Ferret-like. Could probably play villains or disturbed young men.

^ Agreed.

Anyone else planning to see this?

Hell or maybe Purgatory, r15.

Didn't we see this movie in 2003?

I have no idea what the hell that movie is about. Shorten it to 5 minutes of just Chris Hemsworth's shirt falling off and you've got a Best Picture nomination.

I really like the editing job in the trailor. I admire editors who can cut rhythmically like that.

This looks like an "Identity" rip-off, and that's fine by me since I love that movie.

Cynthia Erivo’s career is taking off. “Widows” next and then “Harriet”

So, I watched it this afternoon. Fun entertainment for a dreary, grey saturday. A bit too long. It would have been more effective had it been tighter.

Cynthia sings well, Jeff is good. You wait for a shirtless Chris forever and when he appears, his character is so unpleasant and hateful that you don't even enjoy the view.

SPOILERS !!!!!!Don't complain, I didn't warn about the SPOILERS !

So, the hapless, repentant, young clerk was the accomplice who killed the brother at the beginning, right ? Fitting that he begged forgiveness to the priest. He is not a real priest, but he was the victim's brother. Ha !

A question, though, weren't the CIA agents supposed to arrive at one point ? Their spy called them. He is ordered to keep everyone from leaving the motel until they arrive and ... we never hear from them again ? Yes, there was a storm, but still. What about the day after ?

Like R35, saw it today.

I enjoyed it. It was not a "oh my God you have to see this movie" though.

I really have to give it up for all the actors (including Hemsworth). Sold jobs all around. Fair amount of "twists" (who you think will survive may not survive). Have to agree with R35 that it is too long. They could have cut 30 minutes from this move easily and not impacted the plot in any way, shape, or form.

7/10. Worth it IMHO.

I agree with you, R36.

The mystery at the beginning is intriguing and fun, but they didn't manage to keep that mood. Several twists. Some forseeable violence.

Good actors.

SPOILERS AGAIN

Do you think that the man they were refering to in the film reel was JFK ? Or it doesn't matter maybe ?

Hemsworth is so bad.

I didn’t think on the first viewing that the clerk was one of the robbers R35, but now that you say that (and factor in the guilt issues), I’m seeing it. I’ll have to watch it again.

I assumed JFK as well but really doesn’t matter really.

Actually no, R35. The robbery took place 10 prior to the film. Factor in the clerks military service, he is too young.

Just deleted my comment because r40 took the words out of my "mouth". Clerk was too young.

Lewis Pullman did a really good job.

I liked it, but it was too long and the second act suffers from being repetitive due to needing to see everyone's perspective.

R36, I thought about that. Especially since the actor is only 25 !

But I really think his is the third man in that robbery. The one they had just hired, who crawhed the truck, and wonder if he is rotten or just dumb, etc. In the flashback they were all masked, but I think it is him.

If not then, the movie left us without a solution as fo who killed the first character we see.

Well, R36 and R41, if it is not that, then, the director left loose ends. And the poor young clerk was whiny. What are his crimes then ? Just because he killed enemy soldiers during the war as a sniper ?

No. I like my theory a lot better.

[quote]What are his crimes then ? Just because he killed enemy soldiers during the war as a sniper ?

After his entire platoon was wiped out, he drops to his knees and prays. I think he prayed a vow to be a better person after escaping death, but once he worked at the hotel he had to go back on that vow because he had to be involved with all the goings on in the hotel (what he tells Jeff's and Dakota's characters), as his drug use. I think that's why he wanted so badly to unload and seek forgiveness.

Exactly R30

Makes sense, R44.

I really thought the platoon/praying episode was him finding back his faith at being spared/put through so much horror and that he would try to atone for the bad things he did before (ie betraying the brothers and killing one of them).

It might not be that, but then as I said earlier who killed the first character, ten years before ?

Maybe the sniper flashback was a way to re-introduce the wimpy clerk, as a badass sniper, so that would explain why he suddenly was able to kill the Manson-like family.

Meh.

R30 and R45, if I remember correctly, Identity had a supernatural aspect to it. It is not the case here, although the premise is similar.

SPOILERS

There were a few things left for the audience to figure out on their own : what was Hamm really doing at the hotel (remember, in his call his boss wanted him to find out if "they" were on to them), why did Dakota's sister kill the couple and did that happen after they left the cult or prior and that's why Dakota abducted her; who killed Jeff's brother, and the identity of the man on the film (one site says it was likely meant to be RFK).

Not knowing the answers to those things doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the film, though.

Oh, I have another SPOILER question.

When Emily is dying, the two sisters stare at one another and there is quick flashback of.... what ? The little sister being taken away ? The child seems indifferent to it ? What does it mean ? That dispite her attempt at saving her little sister from their abusive father, child-Emily failed ? Is Ruth resentful about that ? Or she is suffering from Stockholm syndrom and always sides with the dominant male ? The ending between the two sisters seems a bit mean spirited. But I think they were aiming for unpredictable.

I just got home from this movie.........it was kind of a mess but an interesting mess....and Chris Hemsworth has the sexiest chest/stomach/abs.......his character's personality is not attractive so there is a dichotomy of being turned on and kind of repulsed at the same time.....

I would only recommend seeing if you are the kind of person who appreciates a non-linear storyline and loose ends that are left open.....

From the ads on TV, which are constant on the channels I watch, it seems a lot like "Hard Eight" by PT Anderson.

how many variations on this theme will be hurled at us,

and yes i know i don't hafta go see it.

Sounds like a bad remake of When You Coming' Back Red Ryder? (1979). It has a Hemsworthless in it so it must be bad.

[quote]When Emily is dying, the two sisters stare at one another and there is quick flashback of.... what ? The little sister being taken away ? The child seems indifferent to it ? What does it mean ? That dispite her attempt at saving her little sister from their abusive father, child-Emily failed ? Is Ruth resentful about that ? Or she is suffering from Stockholm syndrome and always sides with the dominant male ?

Yeah, I think it was to show the damage was already done; that the abuse had already affected Ruth and present day, just like in the past, Emily couldn't save her.

Ruth was just brainwashed. The difference between her not being affected by Emily's death versus Billy's shows that she was fully under his sway.

Thanks R54. Yeah, she was in love with the guru and doesn't realise he doesn't really love her back. He is just exploiting her. Her sister loved her and cares for her well-being. Oh well. Most people in the movie are really unlucky.

Two will turn their luck around. For the others, though, there is nothing to be done.

How's Dakota?

I'm shocked she has a career as an actress. Both because of her lack of talent and monstrous forehead.

R56. she is serviceable, doesn't ruin anything, but she is not the actor you notice the most or who touch you the most. Cyntia, Jeff, the clerk and John Hamm are more nuanced and remarkable.

The little sister has dead, unsympathetic eyes, which fits the role.

I thought Chris' character was surprisingly disappointing. He is gorgeous to look at , but for such a nasty "Charles Manson" figure he lacked charisma and menace.

His actions were unpleasant and dangerous, but he didn't ooze with it.

I wonder what a young Colin Farrell could have done with that role.

This movie is AWESOME and surprising.

Tarantino-meets-Hitchcock-meets-Sophocles!

Cynthia Erivo and Lewis Pullman were revelations as performers.

And GOD BLESS CHRIS HEMSWORTH for swaying his glorious pecs and abs at us for 40 minutes. He sure gave us a hem's worth of eye candy!!!!!

This is among my Top Ten favorite films of 2018 so far.

You shouldn't be comparing Hemsworth to Charles Manson, r57.

The character wasn't THAT depraved and evil.

The Manson Family were psychopathic, organized murderers. That is not at all the purpose or nature of Hemsworth in this film.

Manson wasn't the only hippie cult leader in the '60s, nor today.

Hemsworth's character is much more like Father Yod and the Source Family, the Black Bear Ranch or even the Reverend Jim Jones.

But Manson?

NO, GURL.

Saw it on Thursday night (opening night) and really liked it. It reminded me a bit of In Bruges and other Martin McDonagh movies.

Dear r49,

The flashbacks suggested that Ruth killed her father with that knife for being abusive. They also revealed she did it in an unremorseful, dead-eyed way that suggest Ruth might even be a psychopath, which is partly how she supported killing her own sister so easily -- and took to fighting so aggressively.

Ruth is resentful of Emily because Emily kidnapped her, tied her up and tried to permanently remove her from Chris Hemsworth's cult and his love, because Emily was fucking him first. Didn't you get that there was a love triangle there?

[quote]The flashbacks suggested that Ruth killed her father with that knife for being abusive.

The murder happened in Malibu, if I recall. She and Emily were not from California. Emily followed her there to get Ruth back.

To me there wasn't a love triangle. Emily came to the cult looking for Ruth, saw the control Billy had over her and the rest of the women (the near fight to the death to get to sleep with him) so she abducted Ruth.

More spoiler answers for r48:

Hamm was working for the F.B.I., investigating the El Royale and its mobster owners for any number of crimes he would have learned about from any number of sources and related cases. The "they" Hamm's bosses wanted Hamm to keep disguised from were just the owners of the El Royale, who must be mafia.

I don't remember which couple you think Ruth killed. The flashbacks implied that Ruth killed her own abusive father with the bloody knife and that's why Emily took her far away from there -- because Emily knew the father "had it coming," in a way. Did you see their mother killed as well? I missed that.

This all happened before they moved to California and joined the cult.

Also, didn't Bridges say his brother was caught and killed by the authorities the day of the heist, as he was trying to rendezvous and escape?

And the likeliest candidate for the film philanderer is President John F. Kennedy, not Robert.

The movie seems set earlier than 1968, when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. And Pullman/Miles mentioned the room-spying activity quieted down after the last election, which I think could only have been 1964. Plus, J.F.K. had a much grander reputation for womanizing than R.F.K. ( I don't even know any R.F.K. philandering stories). But John's infidelities were legion and famous.

In truth, the movie keeps it vague because it could apply to tons of politicians or cult leaders. And it shouldn't slander anybody for fiction.

No, no, r62, Emily was the first one Chris Hemsworth approached on the beach wearing her boots.

Emily joined the cult first, partially attracted to Hemsworth, and brought Ruth with her to escape.

Emily clearly had a romantic relationship with Hemsworth first -- that's what all the jealous glances were when Ruth entered the contest to sleep with Hemsworth and that's why Emily forcibly removed Ruth from the cult.

These hippies and cult leaders were polygamous/ polyamorous and it caused love triangles. Love tetradecagons, even.

[quote]I don't remember which couple you think Ruth killed.

There was a news report about the murder of a couple - it was either when Jon Hamm went to investigate or when Jeff and Cynthia were having dinner. Billy referenced it while he was talking to Emily while everyone was being held hostage.

Others on Reddit also picked up on Ruth killing the couple.

Guys, Miles/Pullman was in no way one of the robbers.

Bridges said he spent 15 years in jail for it, there's no way Miles was old enough to be the bumbling accomplice who wrecked the getaway truck.

Plus Bridges and he would have recognized each other at the start of the movie and Miles would know he was definitely NOT a priest.

Bridges also said his accomplices all died.

Miles would not have left the money in the floor if he was working at the El Royale for years before Bridges showed up!

Dear r43,

Even some soldiers on "the good guys' side" commit atrocities during wartime. Vietnam had several well-documented cases where U.S. soldiers killed innocent people, napalmed or killed entire villages for retribution against just a couple of bad apples and that sort of thing. What if Miles killed prisoners of war or people he later found to be innocent? War is a fucking mess. It was also an immoral war to begin with -- the Vietnamese people at large never voted for the governments that tore their country apart or to approve U.S. intervention. Miles could have felt guilty just for that.

But you have to add possible war crimes to a long list of spying and racketeering that Miles conducted for the mob that owned the El Royale when he came back home. He was doing their dirty work and they obviously hired him because he was a good killer.

No, Hemsworth referenced Ruth's murder of her father "while he was talking to Emily while everyone was being held hostage."

That's why there was a flashback to her front porch in Alabama with her dad's body on the kitchen floor or whatever.

r35, the F.B.I. is a federal law enforcement agency that would handle investigations inside the United States.

The C.I.A. is a foreign spy agency -- they don't have any jurisdiction to investigate on U.S. territory.

And yes, Bridges and Cynthia/Darlene were right to figure that backup from Jon Hamm's agency would soon follow after losing contact with him.

But there was plenty of time for all the events of the movie to happen before the cavalry got there. Who's to say when Jon Hamm was supposed to check-in with his colleagues next? And the El Royale is in the middle of nowhere -- they could be hours or over a day away from any federal backup. Plus, there was a storm.

So not showing the F.B.I. cleanup is not a problem. The point is, the survivors got out in time to escape.

Chris can’t act.

Is Dakota's relationship with Chris Martin real? Because he's a gay man.

Thank you to all who answered my questions.

For the flashback about Ruth, I'm not refering to the dead man + the knife. No, when Emily is dying, her eyes lock with Ruth's and then you have a quick flashback of a blond little girl (young Ruth) who is being carried away, but we don't see by who and the child looks indifferent. A man's hand carresses the child's cheek and then Billy Lee carresses Now-Ruth the same way.

It means Emily couldn't save her then and can't save her now ? Boots is a little ingrate, but what are you gonna do.

I really think Billy Lee is indeed comparable to Manson. He and his "family" have probably killed the old couple in California and descend on the motel during the night like a nightmare, eith violent intentions. Their actions don't reach Manson 's height of depravity and horror, but still they taunt, kill gratuitously and sadistically abuse. The girls worship him, kill for him, seem brain dead

Also the false priest was sentenced to 15 years but got out after 10 years. The young clerk could have been a teenager.

I will reformulate my question about the third accomplice. Can anybody confirm who is the actor playing him ? I really thought it was Pullman, hence my theory. Don't forget the priest has memory problems.

I was looking forward to this but it was not good. Overlong, convoluted, and Mr. Hottie doesn't show up til the last 30 minutes.

Bummer

Could've been a cult classic

Lots of spoilers in this thread. I predict kaput! before the end of tomorrow.

The NO SOILERS! chicks can be quite strident.

Seven strangers, each with a secret, meet at... wait! is this a CLUE remake?

It's an amazing movie, r73. 71% of professional critics disagree with you, so it WILL be a cult classic.

And for all the time Hemsworth IS there, he's flexing his bare flesh for us. You can't say that about THOR or any, other movie.

R74, I did warn peopleabout the SPOILERS at R35.

But since it is a movie where you leave with more questions than answers, it is to be expected. People want to discuss and compare their theories.

Not enough Hammaconda!

The sister’s name is Rose. She is mostly called Rosie by her sister Emily. She is called “Boots” Billy Lee. She is the one Billy Lee met on the beach. Emily joins the cult later to reconnect with Rose. That’s what the scene with Emily and Billy walking through the woods was about.

There is a news report playing on the television about the stabbing slayings of a middle aged philanthropist and is his wife. It seemed pretty clearly modeled after the Labianca murders to me.

I believe there was a different flashback during the Emily room segment involving Rose that directly pointed to her being the killer but I can’t say for sure now as they’re kind running together in my mind.

Rose’s white dress being so stained with blood that it looked like a red on white print seems to be a reference to Abigail Folger’s white nightgown turning red from the bleeding wounds inflicted on her body.

R63 The movie is set in 1969.

[quote] I believe there was a different flashback during the Emily room segment involving Rose that directly pointed to her being the killer but I can’t say for sure now as they’re kind running together in my mind.

Billy intimates that Rose killed the couple while he's taunting Emily.

Yeah I noticed that he didn’t seem very pleased about it either. I don’t Billy Lee realized how fucked up Rose was and Emily just wouldn’t let herself see it.

Rose killed the couple in the news story. She's a Sadie/Susan Atkins. Emily realizes when she's dying that her sister is a psychopath and there was no saving her. It was all a waste. Rose chose her correct family and they were psychopaths.

The accomplice from the robbery killed Nick Offerman. Jeff knew the money had never been recovered and thus knew where it was. The brothers wouldn't have shared the info on the hiding space.

It was RFK on the film. The kid knew him. He was nice to him which is why he kept the film hidden. He could not have possibly have filmed JFK.

Hamm was FBI. He called Hoover's office. The other bugs were probably CIA. The mob had their own method of hearing what was going on in all the rooms. They owned the motel

Liked it very much because I couldn't see a lot of the angles they played out coming. The ads were very deceptive, They made it seem like Dakota was some sort of femme fatale killer .

I feel for CH.....being so fat

Saw it last night what a dreadful poor boring movie. Hamm's opening scene when he's walking thru the hotel is about 30 minutes long it felt like ... awful writing, awful directing.

Anyway it was a bad bad bad Tarantino flick -- non linear ten characters none of them likable and all tied together in a bloodbath.

So fucking derivative. Who the hell is Drew Goddard? He's no Godard I'll tell you that.

Hemsworth doing his best Pitt imitation in inflection and body movement and abs ... fucking waste and redone. Copying Pitt in every way.

Dakota's closeups with her same hairstyle every movie bangs over her face to cover her MONSTROUS FOOTBALL FIELD OF A FOREHEAD is also starting to annoy the piss out of me.

How unoriginal is Hollywood?

This was a terrible terrible movie.

Wa-yaoooo!

I like the movie a lot. I LOLed at the little moment of Chris dancing around Jeff Bridges.

IMHO the scene of Jon Hamm being in the hallway behind the mirriors while Darlene sings her first song was the best scene of the movie.

Lewis Pullman impressed me very much.

Call me Mary! or ignorant trash, but I think it's a great movie.

I loved it. Chris was so sexy it hurt. Please God I hope he does full frontal one day. Yes he is a villain but the only person he killed was someone who killed an innocent person and who shot the most liked character with no remorse.

I absolutely loved Cynthia. I want to see Widows now and not because of that bitch Viola Davis. Pullman also great. You spend almost the whole movie hoping he doesn’t die

Jeff Bridges is always good and I loved it when he briefly appeared to be winning the fight with Chris. This is the only time I thought Jon Hamm was good in a movie.

I was entertained but it wasn't a great movie. And Dakota was HOT in this!

Is Chris Martin really gay?

Nice twists and turns, very colorful. I don't usually care for violent entertainment, this was a stylish exception.

And yes, the little Pullman guy is oddly fap-worthy.

I don’t like Pullman’s last scene. First he is a super soldier then he lets his guard down and should of been wary of psycho sister.

Kind of enjoyable, but so derivative and cynical.

Cynthia Erivo's character was solemn and boring. Dakota Johnson was similarly meh.

Lewis Pullman was hands down the best thing about this movie.

It's included with Amazon Prime now.

This really should be a Netfliz movie. It has no business in theatres

An interesting failure of a movie.

Interesting idea, way cool setting. Could have been good if it'd been a bit tighter and Dakota Johnson hadn't been there. As it was, it was a let-down overall, but Chris Hemsworth was SO charismatically sexy that it was worth two hours of my life. Okay, it wouldn't have been worth two hours of my life and twelve bucks, but I saw it on TV and not in the theater.

Looks like 4 movie plots in one film!

[quote]Lewis Pullman was hands down the best thing about this movie

He really was. I saw it in the theaters and the reveal about his character being a badass got a huge reaction. I'm glad Tom Holland turned down the role because I think he would not have pulled it off the way Pullman did.

Just like "Ready or Not" it's a film with a great concept and is interesting and fun but something is missing.

This was the shittiest movie. I'm a true Indie queen. I like dark, offbeat movies. I never watch the shit that gets shown in theaters. But this was shit