onthemetro
Chelsea Walls is no less than a moving masterpiece. From stage to screen, the integrity of this modern fairytale was not only preserved, but heightened by Hawke's abstract depiction of the hotel and its tenants. Captivating visuals and a kind of sensual stillness give the film a lulling quality, with a near-flawless cast and hypnotic monologue. The score, developed by none other than the incredible Jeff Tweedy, rounds things off to a smooth edge. I, myself, was highly impressed by the subtle references to the artists of the past. Some were apparent from the beginning (Bukowski, Ginsberg, Cassidy, Dylan), while others crept up from the corners of the story, embedding themselves in the minds of audience members everywhere. It's a film you've got to see beyond the picture. A film not fit for the short attention span. A film intended to pull you down into the depths of madness, toss you around at the violent hand of love, sing you to sleep and wake you back up in the morning. Yes, Hawke has done it again, and this time he's done it with jazz and cigarettes.Key Moments: The Poem, The Speech, The Session, The Madman, The Drunk Best Performance: A surprisingly stunning delivery from Rosario Dawson
xaing9
All these characters have problems. But i think that is the point. Because the movie is mostly supposed to be about the hotel itself. The people in it are just passing through. The film is showing how the people change, but ideals stay the same. The ideals that the hotel was built on and for the first place. Is it creativity? Or madness? Or apathy? I like all the open spaces in this story. You can fill in whatever you want. It's the sort of spirit of the Chelsea Hotel of old. But most people these days probably won't get it. Or don't want to. Or can't. Nobody dreams about art anymore. Everybody wants a million bucks. Who's life is richer?
coedog3
I don't know why most people don't like this movie, especially if your a connoisseur of the cinema. I admit I am not a big fan of Kris Kristofferson, but aside from him I thought it was a well done movie. It was a bit hard to understand what was going on sometimes, but I think that might have been Ethan Hawke's intention. Any how, if you like indy films, and don't mind being confused, I think this movies worth watching. There were just certain moments in the film when the natural beauty was almost overwhelming it was so powerful. I think Ethan Hawke is on his way.
martinf-3
Christopher Walken is credited as a character without a name (and his name appears on the VHS cassette). Can anyone tell my exactly what part he plays and/or when he appeared? I surely didn't see him - and I watched for him through the whole movie as I expected him to fit in quite well in this original movie. Or maybe I just went blind?
AD
