Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

wallismcclain Having seen this film several years ago, I am now somewhat hazy on the details. However, it left an indelible impression and I really want to see it again. The friend with whom I watched it hated it, but I was more positive, being a big fan of Toni Colette and Daniel Craig. The creaky old hotel was perfectly and appropriately disgusting, and cast expertly limned the miserable staff with gusto. The somewhat grotesque scenes in the bowels of the hotel (sorry!) were, as some reviewers have noted, not altogether pleasant, with the hotel's sewage bubbling through ancient pipes, but they were hysterically funny. And as a part of a satire of various misguided schemes to advance loony notions of healthful lifestyles, it works quite well. As Kath, Toni Colette brings a spark of sanity to the hotel and its downtrodden employees, and her attempts to introduce edible food lead to predictable conflicts. This is a role Ms. Colette took on only about six years after her career-making turn as Muriel in "Muriel's Wedding." It marks an interesting phase and perhaps a transitional moment in what is a brilliant career. However, it appears that the film is available on DVD only in a non-U.S. format. Does anyone know why? Are there other options?

urenxa-1 Just watched the film and certainly haven't seen anything like it in a long time. Sort of a weird cross between an Ealing comedy and a Gothic horror. Loved the texture and atmosphere but didn't get that engaged with the story, which is is at times comic and at other moments disturbing or just plain strange, though the characters are beautifully drawn and very memorable, especially Stanley, the neurotic virgin, and the sister, Cora.People seem to either love or hate this one - maybe because it's so different from the run of the mill Brit film. It seems to draw on an earlier period in cinema for its style and references, which I thought was refreshing. At the end I had the feeling that it might have begun as an even darker and stranger story that has had some element or other removed, maybe to make it more accessible. It does have some really haunting images and a great sound effects track. Definitely worth watching, for its atmosphere alone.

miseryguts36 I've with rbrb on this one. 98 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I can, in all honesty, say that this is the worst film I have EVER seen and I've seen Starsky and Hutch (and Morvern Callar)!! Any pleasant memories I've had of the Edinburgh Film Festival have been eroded by this film, which was so bad I can't shift it from my memory. It's like a recurring nightmare. One word sums it up for me: mess.There are no redeeming features for this "movie" and use the word movie in it's loosest terms. I suspect that the Tommy Lee-Pam Anderson home video has more cinematic credibility that this piece of nonsense. It angers me just thinking about it. As I recall the Cameo cinema showed this free to Cameo Film Club members and now I know why because you just wouldn't pay to see this out of choice.

marcopop I love this film. It is stunning, visually and aesthetically beautiful, works perfectly as a whole and is perfectly crafted. What negative things could possibly be said about it? Well, the problem is, we've seen it before. In the films of the french duo Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Marc Caro.Hotel Splendide is, in its essence, a typical Jeunet/Caro-film; you'll find that virtually all the characters and aesthetics are lifted from "Delicatessen" and "The City of Lost Children". A hint of Greenaway perhaps, and a fairly large portion of Britishness... what we end up with is an extraordinary, beautiful, funny and moving film. In itself, the film is fantastic. What brings it down a bit is the fact that you find 90 % of this film in the two films by the French duo (J&C), which suggests that although transformed, the ideas weren't originally the writer/director's own. However, if we go beyond the surface of the film we find a nicely crafted story and some subtle philosophical symbolism - the characters' inner struggles and their blind faith (that makes them unhealthy and miserable, although believing the opposite) can be seen as a a statement against fanatic religious or political believes, and the repression of individualism and the free mind. It's not profound in any way, but it's there, conscious or not.The ending is, I'm afraid, exactly what you expect. I wish it wasn't, but apparently that's how it has to be in a film like this. The music is most of the time very annoying because it's obviously synthesizers trying to sound like an orchestra, and it's not very well done. Utterly bad use of an oboe-sound in the lead melody so stale it is laughable, and some tasteless pizzicato-sounds that scream out "cheapness" (and what's with that crash cymbal?). All in all the synths don't blend very well with the warm and very well played live violin that occasionally appears and brightens the day.Finally, a word on the acting. It is overall superb. Hugh O'Conor's portrait of Stanley Smith is spot-on, intense but never over-acted. Katrin Cartlidge too gives a moving performance, and last but not least, Toni Collette is amazingly spellbinding as lovely Kath.Well acted, well directed and well done, although not as original as it might seem. A good film, though. See it.