Really enjoyed this movie. A full range of emotions as you watch it. I was satisfied with the ending. Would recommend.

Enjoyable movie. Not sure if it was intentional, but I was amused that the name of Bridges's character is Flynn.

TCTTS said:

---

Ha, man, I had the exact opposite reaction. I was honestly surprised that they stuck the landing so well, IMO.

---

I actually thought the movie got substantially better halfway through. I'd agree that the ending was great.

wasnt the spectacle that some here are making it out to be, but a very watachable flick.

Watched this a month ago. It was good all around. Intriguing. Great characters. Nice scenery. Not mind shattering but enjoyable escapism.

I really liked the movie. There were parts that dragged a bit.

And guess what? The viewer was the detective.

Cool movie. Great at times. Worth the watch anyway.

Its funny ive stumbled on a run of movies about places ive stayed. Cal neva hotel when i was there was pretty freaking sleepy, but still cool

Then saw kiss kiss bang bang just after staying in the standard. And then q hit.

I loved the first half of the movie. Just saw it BTW.

But... the whole cult leader holding them prisoner seemed...out of left field? So, this guy has minions willing to murder people for him? And just hold people captive and then slowly kill them over an extended period of time? That part felt weird and forced in order to get to the dialogue they were wanting between Flynn and Doreen(?) and then Flynn and Miles.

I've been trying to figure out if there was some intended symbolism with several characters walking right down the red line between Cali and Nevada and also with Miles dying right down the center. Plus the burning hotel around them. Kind of a "hell is coming" sort of thing.

Overall, I really enjoyed it. Something different and overall well done.

It was fun. It was like 65% of a QT ripoff, which can still be an entertaining film. Reminds me of all the QT ripoffs in the 90s right after pulp fiction (like Go).

2 hrs 20 minutes is 30 min too long for a movie with no real clue what its point it, and the macguffin film strip was so dumb that they had to toss it in the fire because anyone they revealed it to be would have felt silly and inauthentic.
Overall, I'm glad I watched it in the couch for free but it would have been disappointing to see in theaters.

Yeah,

Decent movie with some interesting stuff, but took itself way too seriously. And follows the recent trend of movies apparently thinking that editing was optional, it shouldn't have been over 1:45. Made it hard to watch at points as scenes were dragged out interminably.

Caught this on the plane over the weekend and overall enjoyed it. I do think they could have played the hotel's "character" a little more into the story. The clerk intro into the hotel is so interesting and sets up many possibilities between what happens on each side of the state line, but they pretty much ignore it the rest of the movie.

A couple of questions:

(1) Why wasn't Emily concerned about Rose leaving or doing something after the agent let her loose? Seems like she tied her up for a reason to deprogram her or something, but she forgot all about that when she decided to go play Nancy Drew.

(2) Why did she investigate the pervert corridor anyway? Why was she interested at all and didn't just pack up Rose and take off immediately? It's not like she left her name or any identifying information. And what's more, she left her formerly tied up sister alone, in a hotel room with a phone and an open door, while she did it. Was it to check on Miles? If she thought she might have to kill him anyway, why did she care about checking on him? Was it just curiosity?

(3) Why did the agent pull Sweet's spark plugs? Was he disabling all the cars? Why? His mission was to presumably to figure out what the El Royale knew about JFK. If he would have pulled Emily's wires, that was one thing. But why everyone's?

I can't speak for the 1st 2, but on the 3rd Hoover told him to make sure no one left until he found the missing film.

Thought it was alright. Saw it broken up over about 4 days, unfortunately, so that probably affected my enjoyment. Good performances all around. Definitely some actors to watch after this one, if I didn't already know them.

Overall I would have liked a more trimmed-down version, but also... it took me 4 days. New pup kept making it hard to sit and watch!

It felt like what would have happened had Tarantino directed Clue.

First hour and a half was incredible. Last half I couldn't tell you if I finished it or fell asleep. Either way, it was entirely forgettable.

I think the first point was due to panic discovering her room was being secretly monitored and she needed to find anyone else who might have incriminating evidence of her kidnapping. She also knew Billy Lee would be looking all over for her and Boots and she can't afford to have anyone find anything about her.

I read the hype and bought this "film" on Prime. I agree it was awesome then dove quickly to below average.

Overall, I really liked this a lot, but the whole scene with Billy Lee holding them all captive & killing them one-by-one kind of lost me. The cult leader character and storyline were great, but my mind started to drift in that scene.

Also, I don't think I would've cast Hemsworth for that role. Billy Lee & Rose were clearly inspired by Charles Manson & the Manson family, so a "sexiest man alive" kind of guy seemed inappropriate. In fact, cult leaders are rarely like that (Manson, Koresh, Jim Jones, Applewhite, Asahara, etc).

As far as the symbolism, I was picking up a strong purgatory vibe: All the deaths, the repentance, fire, line down the middle, everyone was trapped there. A couple of false prophets also added to the religious undertones.

One thing I'm surprised about is who survived. Nearly every character turned out to be nothing like what we expected with the exception of the cult leader & the singer, although one was good & the other bad. I'm not surprised the singer lived, but the priest surviving as well was surprising.

Apache said:

---

The "El Royale" hotel is based on the old "Cal Neva" hotel at Lake Tahoe which has an interesting history. (Sinatra owned shares along with the Mob, the Kennedy brothers debauched with hookers and strange, etc)

It's an interesting read if you enjoyed the movie or that era of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Neva_Lodge_%26_Casino

---

Thanks for the link, that was a good read.

I thought it was obvious that this was a mob hotel that had lost its gambling license, and they had to be talking about JFK as soon as the younger sister said she recognized the guy on the film and he's dead now.

Late to the party as usual on this one, but watched it on HBO and thought it was solid. Agree Abs-worth was a weird choice for the cult leader, but his abs weren't so distracting that they took away from the story and feel.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Social Media Influencer said:

---

Apache said:

---

The "El Royale" hotel is based on the old "Cal Neva" hotel at Lake Tahoe which has an interesting history. (Sinatra owned shares along with the Mob, the Kennedy brothers debauched with hookers and strange, etc)

It's an interesting read if you enjoyed the movie or that era of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Neva_Lodge_%26_Casino

---

Thanks for the link, that was a good read.

I thought it was obvious that this was a mob hotel that had lost its gambling license, and they had to be talking about JFK as soon as the younger sister said she recognized the guy on the film and he's dead now.

Late to the party as usual on this one, but watched it on HBO and thought it was solid. Agree Abs-worth was a weird choice for the cult leader, but his abs weren't so distracting that they took away from the story and feel.

---

I don't get this.
I can completely believe someone with Hemsworth's looks and charisma would be a successful cult leader.

---

I agree to an extent, but the thing that always creeped me out about cults was the concept of the average looking dude brainwashing people. I can understand people wanting to follow a beautiful person out of desire or jealousy, but devoting yourself to regular joe always seemed to require an extra level of creepiness.

See, e.g.,

Who shot Nick Offerman?

Even more connective tissue between this movie and Tarantino. (From both this and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.)

I watched this last night and thought it was just ok. If it was a Tarantino film, it would be the worst movie he's directed. Jeff Bridges was amazing though. He may be the greatest over 60 actor ever.

Quote:

---

Jeff Bridges was amazing though. He may be the greatest over 60 actor ever.

---

Truth. I now watch anything he's in without question, which is why I watched this movie.

This movie should have ended before Hemsworth showed up, the third act was totally weird and unconnected to the first two.

Eugene4x said:

---

Who shot Nick Offerman?

---

Just watched. I had the same question, though I believe we are meant to think it was the 3rd partner who robbed the armored car with Jeff and Nick. The odd part is it does not show us the reason that the two would have split up after Jeff left the scene of the crime, so I guess we're supposed to fill in that story for ourselves.

Overall, really cool film. Someone said it earlier, but I also said out loud about 10 minutes into the movie that it felt like a mix between Tarantino and Clue.