Skip to main content

Come for the Character, Stay for the Chaos


There’s a lot of character and a lot of mystique to Drew Goddard’s slick and stylish neo-noir, Bad Times at the El Royale. A 70’s-set ensemble crime film, it’s got a lot of the same cleverness to it as Goddard’s previous directorial effort, Cabin in the Woods, missing only the flourish and wit of a Joss Whedon script. But Goddard’s an accomplished screenwriter himself, and though clearly a better writer of plot than character, still manages to craft a mostly intriguing, intense, and fun thriller.
Four strangers: a soul singer (Cynthia Erivo), an old priest (Jeff Bridges), a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm), and an abrasive young hippie (Dakota Johnson) check into the El Royale, a once luxurious hotel built on the border of California and Nevada, which has fallen into disrepair. Its’ sole employee is a nervous young clerk (Lewis Pullman) who checks them into their rooms. But each guest is hiding something, and as secrets unravel and stakes escalate it becomes a question of who will be able to survive their night at this shady old lodge.
This movies’ visual language is spectacular. It utilizes circular pans, tracking shots, and long takes really smartly, emphasizing a foreboding mood, suspense, and even a mysterious terror. The film is also meticulously edited. There’s a lot of music in this movie, mostly soul, R&B, and a little rock, and the cutting often accommodates the music to near Baby Driver levels of rhythmic cohesion, especially in the opening scene. The lighting and colour scheme, informed by time sensitive kitschy interior design patterns and bright neon signs outside lends a vibrant look to the El Royale, which is itself a seedy, enigmatic character and den of corruption and crime. And the films’ concession to images conveying something more than dialogue in multiple sequences is a good use of the medium.
However, Goddard’s script is still really solid, for the most part. The story is structured very interestingly, broken up by episodes honing in on a particular character at a time, revealing their history, and setting up their role in the larger narrative. Through this, the movie’s also able to show multiple actions and revelations from different perspectives, throwing in an implicit red herring or two along the way. Much like Cabin in the Woods, this film is constantly out to surprise you, and though its twists aren’t nearly as radical as in that film, they’re still plenty effective. It builds tension with the skill of a Hitchcock movie, and its’ presentation and artistic choices keep you firmly invested.
That’s not entirely true of the characters, who are very sharply written, but some of them lack satisfying development. There’s backstory, intrigue, and build-up for a few that ultimately goes nowhere. The actors are all good though. Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm bring their usual level of dedication to their roles, Dakota Johnson succeeds at being genuinely intimidating (the Fifty Shades movies should not be held against her), as does Chris Hemsworth, who shows up later in the film as a dangerously sadistic cultist. Newcomers Lewis Pullman and Cailee Spaeney are really good respectfully as the fearful, damaged young employee and a vacant, warped young woman connected to Johnson’s character. But the stand-out is Cynthia Erivo, and not just for her superb singing voice which underscores a number of important scenes. There’s little artifice to her character, yet Erivo keeps her relatable, sensitive, and bold. Nick Offerman appears in a minor albeit important role and Canadian director Xavier Dolan makes a cameo appearance, as does Shea Whigham and The Good Place’s Manny Jacinto as a thug.
However the movie does have pacing and story issues. The near two and a half hour runtime doesn’t bother me as much as the last act feeling inordinately rushed (particularly near the end where it feels like it’s on a tight schedule not to overtake one-hundred forty minutes) and loses focus of some of the more interesting elements of the plot. One of the character backstories comes in here and interrupts the flow of the action drastically, while three of the other characters, their compelling history and relationships, are left insufficiently explored. The climax is still well-shot, performed and edited, but it can’t help feel a little careless. And the movie ends without all of its questions answered, some of which should remain unresolved, but others definitely warranted more explanation.
Bad Times at the El Royale has a brilliant set-up, clever and engrossing enough that its merely competent pay-off is disappointing. However it is coloured by strong performances, superb dialogue and plotting, excellent visual and technical prowess, a darkly comic tone, and a brazenly fun narrative style that make it just the right kind of 70’s themed pulp it aspires to be.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...