NEW ROSE HOTEL (1998)

Directed By: Abel Ferrara

Written By: Abel Ferrara and Christi Zois

Based on a short story by William Gibson

Cinematography: Ken Kelsch 

Editor: Jim Mol and Anthony Redman

Cast: Willem Dafoe, Christopher Walken, Asia Argento, Annabella Sciorra, Victor Argo, Gretchen Mol, John Lurie 

In the not-too-distant future, two New York businessmen plot to play two multinational rival corporations against each other, with a little help from a shady Italian street woman, to obtain an important Japanese businessman for the company they work at, only things are not always as they appear.


Abel Ferrara is a talented writer and director who always seems to dip his toe into things that could be seen as shocking. It might be that is just his interest in the stories that he wants to tell. Nowadays he makes more personal, dramatic, artistic films, but for a time he seemed to be a provocateur when it came to cinema stories of the streets of New York, in particular, starting out with more horror films, then seemed to have a period where it was mostly crime related films.

He is a filmmaker of interest who is very unapologetic, though I will admit since his movie, BAD LIEUTINENT, and his one studio-made film a remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, his films have been for me at least hit or miss. Unfortunately, it feels like they usually miss or fail to make a connection. Though he’s a filmmaker where you can always find something of interest in his films or his filmmaking.

I remember at the time being interested in this movie, more to see Asia Argento and I felt because she looked very enticing, and the story sounded somewhat interesting. Not to mention liked the cast of it mostly being her Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken, even though at the time it seemed like Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken were almost in everything so seeing them in yet another film wasn’t that enticing but with her as the added attraction. 

As I had only seen pictures of her and not really seen her in a movie, not to mention with Abel Ferrara directing, I knew it would be dark and troubling, but reading the synopsis of the story and plot it never quite gelled with me, especially from people who have seen it They just didn’t seem like it was worth going to movie theaters to check this movie out.

Watching it now. Almost 25 years later I’m kind of glad I didn’t see it in theaters. It’s not a bad movie, but I would’ve been greatly disappointed and it would’ve probably been more forgettable to me. I would’ve seen it as more experimental and artistic, so it would also show how the story could be told more on a limited budget, especially one that is set in the future and kind of cyberpunk. As after all, it is based on a short story by William Gibson. This might be why the film seems so rebellious and Avant Garde or striving to be different. 

The film has a lot of cutaways of digital video and photography that we come back to throughout the story.

There is a lot of eroticism and a few scenes of sex on display. One of the themes of this film seems to be fantasy and how much you let it take over especially as you know the truth but you want to believe.

It seems like the film is more about all these vipers being hustlers on their own, being brought together to take down a big fish, and slowly turning on each other, as at the center of it one makes the dangerous decision of not only trust, but love, especially with somebody who works as a professional seductress were acting is their professional, so you never know when they’re being genuinely Trust or telling you what you wanna hear to their own satisfaction

It seems like the camera is as captivated with Asia Argento as much as The characters are as it always seems to be exploring and exposing her allure, so while it doesn’t provide her an acting exercise where we see her day-to-day. this is a goddess movie. Where it seems the allure and the strength of the film is on the femme fatale and how the audience feels about her as a film and its own wife fetishizes her to a degree, making the film and the protagonist see her more as a goddess.

There is Something about Asia Argento, her films, and her career. I’ve always been kind of in awe, but she rarely got a chance to shine or have that career-defining performance. It was more she was in hit movies, but you don’t, in particular, remember her performances or character, because you could point out movies like LAND OF THE DEAD or MARIE ANTOINETTE or XXX, yes she was in those films as a cast member, but none of her performances stand out.

Even when she directed her own films such as an adaptation of the book THE HEART IS DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS. which were more controversial and shocking, she made a little impact, but never long-lasting unfortunately, as they were artistic, but seemed more poised to shock. so I always look at her career as a kind of example of promises made, but never quite capitalizing on all the talk, hype, or Fame. there might’ve been more personal reasons as to why her career stalled at a certain point, but I still find her talented, beautiful, and stunning and half the time when I watch some of her movies. It was just to see her in it And she looked sensational and in most of them captivating. 

It’s also interesting that the film has great actress Gretchen Mol featured in a small but important role throughout as at the time she was also considered an ingenue in the acting world, the next big thing or flavor of the month at the time, though she is displayed for less in this film.

The film comes across as a futuristic tale that had an idea that was original but did not have the budget for the ambitions of the script so it feels like the third act is made to put the story of what actually happens or happens from scenes we’ve seen earlier as flashbacks or memories to explain it all.

It’s an interestingly constructed film with a good soundtrack. that uses a lot of it looks to be handheld video and a bunch of scenes, or at least the beginning of digital video being used and more professional films.

Offering a third-act explanation of everything by pointing out what was evident in playing sight from before now that might be because I just didn’t have enough money to finish and film. Actually, it is very creative but can be seen as frustrating to someone in the audience who is traditional filmmaking or is used to having, their hands held to end to the end

Does it have an ending? Strangely it feels somewhat unfinished. This would be a film that definitely could stand the case of being remade.

A bit disappointing but creative. Its artistic flourishes seem born out of not having the budget that was expected and making the best out of the situation. Though definitely a film where the camera is in love with Asia Argento. As much as the main character.  As it spotlights her almost fetishistically. 

Grade: C

ANTZ (1998)

Directed By: Eric Darnell & Tim Johnson 
Written By: Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz & Todd Alcott 
Editor: Stan Webb

Cast: (voices) Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez, Christopher Walken, Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtain, Anne Bancroft, Danny Glover, John Mahoney, Paul Mazursky, Grant Shaud, Jim Cummings 

Z, the worker-ant strives to reconcile his own individuality with the communal work ethic of the ant colony. Falling in love with the ant-Princess Bala, Z strives to make social inroads, and then ultimately must save the ant colony from the treacherous schemings of the evil General Mandible that threaten to wipe out the entire worker population. Themes of individuality run rampant.


This was one of the first animated films to really have an all-star cast of voices and really put the film out like a blockbuster with real stars. It is a hit most studios thought that that formula would work. It worked for a short period of time until the audience realized the story matters too. 

While the ensemble all-star cast is here some are odd casting choices that reek of Stunt casting at times and are More like picking actors who would never co-star together regularly.

One of the reasons now anytime an animated film comes out that it is successful for the most part is more than it seems as there are no purely live-action kids films. Animated is usually the only form of children’s entertainment that is coming out unless you count fantasy films though those are aimed at the whole family.

Woody Allen perfectly cast this as his comedy film with broad humor and from an outsider viewpoint amongst his peers, again an unbelievably gorgeous female lead he gets to romance. Though essentially it also feels like a Woody Allen Movie. Only with more action and outside of New York and of course for a younger audience. 

This film came out against the similarly themed A BUGS LIFE life from Pixar.  which I will admit is more impressive visually, but I find this film to be more all-around enjoyable. This is more pedestrian and not as impressive in the animation. This is kind of basic. Not made to be so special. Full of more enjoyment.

A BUG’S LIFE seemed to think visuals first story second believing the audience to be so enraptured by the animation they won’t care about the other details as much. The same type of thinking that reminds me of the film AVATAR

Grade: C+

ANTZ (1998)

Directed By: Eric Darnell & Tim Johnson Written By: Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz & Todd Alcott

Editor: Stan Webb

Cast: (voices) Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez, Christopher Walken, Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtain, Anne Bancroft, Danny Glover, John Mahoney, Paul Mazursky, Grant Shaud, Jim Cummings 

Z, the worker-ant strives to reconcile his own individuality with the communal work ethic of the ant colony. Falling in love with the ant-Princess Bala, Z strives to make social inroads, and then ultimately must save the ant colony from the treacherous schemings of the evil General Mandible that threaten to wipe out the entire worker population. Themes of individuality run rampant.


This was one of the first animated films to really have an all-star cast of voices and really put the film out like a blockbuster with real stars. It is a hit most studios thought that that formula would work. It worked for a short period of time until the audience realized the story matters too. 

While the ensemble all-star cast is here some are odd casting choices that reek of Stunt casting at times and are More like picking actors who would never co-star together regularly.

One of the reasons now anytime an animated film comes out that it is successful for the most part is more than it seems as there are no purely live-action kids films. Animated is usually the only form of children’s entertainment that is coming out unless you count fantasy films though those are aimed at the whole family.

Woody Allen perfectly cast this as his comedy film with broad humor and from an outsider viewpoint amongst his peers, again an unbelievably gorgeous female lead he gets to romance. Though essentially it also feels like a Woody Allen Movie. Only with more action and outside of New York and of course for a younger audience. 

This film came out against the similarly themed A BUGS LIFE life from Pixar.  which I will admit is more impressive visually, but I find this film to be more all-around enjoyable. This is more pedestrian and not as impressive in the animation. This is kind of basic. Not made to be so special. Full of more enjoyment.

A BUG’S LIFE seemed to think visuals first story second believing the audience to be so enraptured by the animation they won’t care about the other details as much. The same type of thinking that reminds me of the film AVATAR

Grade: C+

THE FAMILY FANG (2016)

Directed By: Jason Bateman 
Written By: David Lindsay-Abaire 
Based On The book By: Kevin Wilson 
Cinematography By: Ken Seng 
Editor: Robert Frazen 

Cast: Jason Bateman, Nicole Kidman, Christopher Walken, Kathryn Hahn, Marin Ireland, Harris Yulin, Josh Pais, Michael Chernus, Danny Burnstein, Steve Barrish, Steve Witting


The first trailer for the film wasn’t released until three weeks before the release date. So the film never really had a chance. Which is strange considering the film’s pedigree.

Whatever I write about this film. It will come off as seeming bitter. As I read the book first and was a big fan of the book. I looked forward to watching this film as, after all, I liked Jason Bateman’s directorial debut BAD WORDS. And since the book was also a dark comedy. I thought it was a match that made sense. The film speeds up the story. Realized that most likely the book’s story would have to be condensed and the dynamics of the story reworked. Not necessarily changing details but leaving less informed turns and losing a certain context hurts the story overall.

It certainly hurt my appreciation of the story presented here. Probably because I read it so recently We would of course expect what you enjoyed being on display. If not in the story then at least in the mood. A film that you would expect more from or certainly handled by a director who had more of a reputation and history with similar material.

I believe I would have enjoyed the film more if I wasn’t so familiar with the material. The films seem smaller-scaled then needed. Shrinking the story to a degree. As it seems to try and be more intimate with the characters to be like a study by not moving the story forward as the book did with so many actions and distractions.

The novel ranked among Time’s “Top Ten Fiction Books of 2011”.

In the translation, it feels like certain layers are lost. The book could have made a great movie. Just. It. This is not this film, unfortunately. As the changes also impact the story. But makes it feel more grounded in reality and not so fantastic in the situations and parts. It never seems to have the impact that it should. As things happen and the film just seems to let them slide off the character’s soldiers. Never taking the time or accepting the consequences. Jason Bateman seems to be playing his usual type of characters. So that it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. Maybe he wanted it to be easier as he also must direct the film. He plays the role with as many issues or sensitivity as the story provides for his character. His character here is more put together and takes charge. Not as distraught as he should be.

He moves forward as a filmmaker showing more depth and talent. Though I thoroughly enjoyed his first film as a director. Here it seems he is more interested in making a strange story more conventional. Understand he must condense, cut scenes and characters as well as events.

Nicole Kidman seems to wear her character on her sleeves, but she is good in the role of the damaged sister who becomes an actress. She gives a good performance that is more serious and how’s how grounded and good an actress she can be if given the right material. As she comes off less recognizable and less of a star even though she is playing one.

Jason Bateman and Nicole Kidman both have several credits on the project. Bateman is the director, star, and producer of the film, while Kidman brought the rights to the book, served as a producer, and as the leading lady.

This is a project that is obviously very close and personal to both the stars. Who I wonder if they didn’t let their influence and their own visions of what they felt the story was really about and letting them reach a catharsis to challenge themselves. As well as letting it be their own homecoming and look at their careers For instance, it has a reunion of Steve Witting and Jason Bateman. The earlier collaboration was the Television series ‘Valerie’. Thought hey share no scenes together. He also casts Kathryn Hahn in a small role. This is their third time working together including being his romantic interest in his directorial debut. As well as Kidman hiring David Lindsay-Abaire who previously wrote the film RABBIT HOLE which she starred in

Trying to condense an epic story into a confined space that limits it and it’s beauty as well as shortening it’s reach.

The film maintains it’s questioning of art and artists throughout. The argument of life and art and what exactly is art is never answered. Which I believe is intentional to make the audience constantly wonder. As the film seems more nostalgic tinged and twee like a dysfunctional family as quirky more than devastating.

Feelings and emotions are on display as the story seems to be about overcoming your passion. Making reactions of others the real art. Turning it on the audience to make them more the performers. As the film puts an essential mystery in the middle of the film, but as the characters get more clues to try and solve it the film. Doesn’t make it feel urgent at all and seems like it is more of an annoyance than anything else. The film goes for a look of southern gothic.

The film is disappointing, both as a representation of the book and as a film on it’s own. Not a bad film as it has it’s own strengths of note, though the story feels more rushed then it should. It barely takes it’s time before it is off on another lead.

So many details that could have been explored or slowed down instead seem more plot-oriented then necessary. Characters that had a darkness to them to match where the story goes are lightened up. So it feels more upbeat. Though truthfully there is nothing wrong with the film technically.

It’s nice to see the cast is filled with naturalistic looking actors rather than unbelievably good looking stars.

Maybe as the adaptation of the book is written by a playwright. The film ends up feeling more like a play or at least more a theatrical piece than necessary The film lacks the depth of what made the original so magical and a delight to read. As well as softening the ending. Making the film feel too cut and dry. Though it seems like a quirky film that normally would be Oscar bait. That comes across as slight more than anything.

Grade: C

THE STEPFORD WIVES (2004)

stepford_wives

Directed By: Frank Oz
Written By: Paul Rudnick
Based On The Book By: Ira Levin
Cinematography By: Rob Hahn
Editor: Jay Rabinowitz 


Cast: Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Roger Bart, Matthew Broderick, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken, Faith Hill, Matt Malloy, David Marshall Grant, Jon Lovitz, Kadee Strickland 


Joanna Eberhart, a wildly successful president of a TV Network, after a series of shocking events, suffers a nervous breakdown and is moved by her milquetoast of a husband, Walter, from Manhattan to the chic, upper-class, and very modern planned community of Stepford, Connecticut. Once there, she makes good friends with the acerbic Bobbie Markowitz, a Jewish writer who’s also a recovering alcoholic. Together they find out, much to their growing stupor and-then horror, that all the housewives in town are strangely blissful and, somehow… doomed. What is going on behind the closed doors of the Stepford Men’s Association and the Stepford Day Spa? Why is everything perfect here? Will it be too late for Joanna and Bobbie when they finally find out?

Continue reading “THE STEPFORD WIVES (2004)”