Shane Craig I've told literally everyone that this one of the greatest films ever made. So why do I love it so much? I love how ahead of its time and immersive it is. I was having a conversation with my Dad the other day and he said he remembered it when it was first released in the US in 1999 (elsewhere in '98). He had an interest in seeing it, but it was pulled from theaters before he could. Grossing 0.02M, scoring a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes, and averaging a 4.9/10 User score on IMDB, the film couldn't find an audience for a time. I've read countless positive reviews from several years ago. That indicates to me that some were able to appreciate it, while most showed a cynical/ skeptical view. People weren't ready for this. Since I got my Letterboxd, I have seen it receive more recognition on that site. There are reviews that I've read on there that are among some of the best film analyses I've ever come across. IMDB, not so much. But a lot people seem to get it now and that makes me feel betteI love how brutally honest it is. There are things I see in this that reflect on our society today. For one: sexism. Almost every male character is a misogynistic asshole, but that doesn't mean I can't find any redeeming qualities within them. Many of the subtleties in the film reveal themselves on each viewing, but this concept was clear to me from the first time I saw it. Both Fox and X are blatantly sexist. One of the first examples I noticed was coincidentally, in the beginning. In the brothel, Fox watches Sandy. He inquires to the other guests about her, wondering who she is. The scene cross fades to Sandy's tattoo, presumably during the night that X first had sex with her. Fox arrives and says "So, what's her story?" X replies, "What do you mean?" Which Fox follows with, "She didn't say anything? She had your c*ck in her mouth the whole time or what?" Maybe some will disagree with me here, but I find it disrespectful that Fox has no problem having this conversation in front of a woman. Just as he did in the brothel when he told Madame Rosa he was a "women magnet." Even when Sandy walks into the room he doesn't change his attitude. When he comments on her "cheap shoes" and her outfit, this indicates to me that he's kind of a dick. Sandy clearly knows what she's getting herself into and is used to people being intolerant/sexist. I was surprised she didn't walk out when Fox said to X, "She doesn't meet guys everyday who offer her one million dollars to do what she did with you just now for what--a couple of hundred?" Talking about her as if she's not even there. I question X's behavior in this regard as well. We are lead to believe that he loves Sandy, but he makes fun of her with Fox in the restaurant. Once again, these characters don't have respect for women. It is a society where women are treated as toys. The next: Manipulation. Everyone is deceptive in the world of New Rose Hotel. Manipulation is the key to getting what you want. If it's about money or power, these people will do anything. The quote, "If you believe, then he will. You have to fall in love. That's the key to all of this." That reflects the whole film right there. Relationships aren't authentic. Everything is about sex or personal gain. In the flashbacks we see X with another girl after the orgy right in front of Sandy. Her response is to join in. Once again, it's all about sex. The other: Journalism. You cannot prove anything that took place during this film. It is a reflection on secondary information and word of mouth. In this world, almost nothing is a reliable source. Even the scenes you saw, you cannot prove. My reasoning behind that is, when X is trying to make sense of everything that happened, the flashbacks show different takes than previously. This is not a mistake. This shows you that what you were previously lead to believe may have been wrong, or X's memory is distorted, or both. For example, in the beginning when Fox finds out about Hiroshi, he tells X: "I just found out Hiroshi's making plans to attend a conference in Vienna. I got the hotel where he's staying. It's his wife's favorite. Only--Hello--she won't be there. She's going to a spa." This conversation takes place in the brothel. However in the flashback he says: "I just found out Hiroshi's making plans to attend a conference in Vienna. I got the hotel where he's staying. It's his wife's favorite. Only--Hello--she won't be there. She's going to a convention." This isn't the only difference. Here, this encounter is in a totally different location than before. The final sequence is not only about this, but it also serves as X realizing he's been played. I love the character development. I notice more about X each time I watch it, but something I've picked up on is how he lets his desires override anything else. It doesn't take much to convince him of something if it involves money. When he tells Fox that he's "Through with it. No more Hiroshi." Fox says "Before you and I hooked up you had a helicopter flying over a smokestack, etc." He is trying to convince him that his previous job was insufficient and he needs to stay with corporate defectors. X just nods his head and smiles. Fox barely said anything and yet he goes along with it. That is because money is one of his desires and he will do anything to get it. Going back to his memories of Sandy's deception: There is a scene where she is asleep and he spots the card for the synthesizer in her passport, along with several identities other than the one they had discussed (Angelica De Mayo). When he is reflecting on this, he remembers that he didn't take action when seeing that she was going to betray them. Because he is allowing his lust for women to overtake this. I don't think I've ever seen such a character arc. It's incredible. To have a strong arc, a character should learn something or change in some way. X has learned that these desires: the money, the women, the things he keeps submitting to, have cost them their $100 million and Fox's life. On my first viewing I didn't quite wrap my head around the surveillance footage. It was on re-watches that I was able to see what it was all about. For me, it makes Hiroshi mysterious. Each time we see him it's on a fuzzy surveillance video. He is never actually there. What I love so much about that is it's telling us that Hiroshi's arc is the only thing being told to us explicitly. This is an aspect of the film where one can actually prove what's going on. This is a video being taken when Hiroshi is being his true self. Hiroshi is genuine, the other characters are not. So yeah. Half of you probably opened this, saw how long it was, and then clicked out of it. But if you did manage to stick around the whole time, this should answer the question as to why this film means so much to me. It manages to be an enticing Science Fiction/Cyberpunk Thriller and at the same time be a commentary on our society and the direction we're headed in. Unquestionably a Top 5 favorite by now.

XweAponX And unless you are very familiar with William Gibson's style and stories, this film will make no sense at all to you. So I encourage anyone who is NOT very familiar with William Gibson and the whole Cyberpunk genre of Science Fiction to avoid this book and film if at all possible-It will make no sense to you and you will not enjoy it, but if you are familiar and if you know what Cyberpunk really means, then this is for you, because it is a graphic and true representation of William Gibson's works.Gibson himself never really describes things - He uses imagery and future slang to paint his tapestries.So, unless you know anything about Gibson's "The Sprawl" - This film will make no sense whatsoever. If you are however a reader of Gibson's works, then this film captures perfectly the bleak future created by him.In the future, after a short Third world war, the governments of the world and economies thereof have collapsed, leaving only Corporate Entities who war between themselves. The Corporation's ammunition are the minds they can accumulate to do their work.This story is about two guys, named here "X" and "Fox" (In the short story, "X" is the narrator of the story) who play the two main corporations against each other by brokering personnel between the two.This time, they have a man, Hiroshi who they can get to change sides by using the services of a "Shinjuku-Girl" (Basically, a whore). "X" Is warned by "Fox" not to get involved with the girl, but he does.And she basically betrays them, by replacing Hiroshi's "Hosaka Chip" with one that would scramble a DNA Sequencer he would work on causing a Virus.Now, I had to look this up on several websites because it had been a while since I read The Sprawl Trilogy, but within the context of Gibson's works, this film is remarkably well done.The corporation that was to pay these guys sends out assassins, who kill Fox, while "X" finds a "New Rose Hotel" to climb into and die. A "New Rose Hotel" is kind of like a Roach-Hotel, but for humans. They are basically a honeycombed network of free rooms that can be used for homeless people to crawl into and die in.As "X" (Played by Willem Dafoe) waits to either die or be assassinated, he has a number of flashbacks where he realizes, with 20/20 Hindsight, the Duplicity of his Shinjuku-Girl, played by Italian Actress and Director Asia Argento. Whose Tattoo is real, by the way. Christopher Walken plays "Fox" and I keep thinking of Mulder for some reason.The only dialogue filmed is between X and Fox and Asia, the rest are filmed in a kind of dream-fugue, it is like we are seeing these people through the eyes of the AI which is always in the background of these stories.If you want some background into the world of "The Sprawl" then I suggest a short story by Gibson called "Skinner's Room" (And once again, the name Skinner brings to mind The X Files)-Remember, these stories were written in the 80's and very early 90's - So The X Files may have been influenced by Cyberpunk long before Gibson ever wrote "Kill Switch" in that series.(Note - Actually I was wrong, "Skinner's Room" is part of "The Bridge" books)

overlordofmu This film is based on a William Gibson short story by the same name in a collection of shorts titled "Burning Chrome". This story itself is less than a dozen pages with no quotation marks appearing anywhere in the print.From this short story with absolutely no dialog, master director Able Ferrara crafts a haunting film that is primarily dialog driven. The small cast's intimate conversations, which are woven together into a disjointed collage, are the heart of the film.One might assume that this divergence from the original media's style would result in a derivative work that no longer held true to the essence of the original. This is wonderfully not the case.This is one of my favorite Ferrara films, precisely because it translates the written work so aptly. This film is not intended for mass market appeal, but is instead uncorrupted artistic expression. I do not believe that this film was intended by the director to be a financial success (I wish it were so I could see more like it) but to be an artistic success.The film is technically a science fiction work because it is set in the future. This is a future of gritty realism. The filth, violence, and crime of our present has not been washed away by the years. It is omnipresent as always. Ferrara has used very few "special effects" to indicate future technology as there was no need to do so. In the decadent underworld that is his setting, said future tech is in cell phones and surveillance equipment which are subtle background, not flashy foreground. There are no laser guns or flying cars.This is a story about memory and feeling. It has a tendency to be non-linear. The music selected and performed in the film is a perfect compliment to the shadowy, disjointed imagery. The acting from everyone including the three principals, Walken, Dafoe and Argento, is superb. Ferrara films often involve small tight-knit casts with soulful dialog and this is more of the director and his cast at their best.This is a film from a lover of film to lovers of film.

lemon_magic I was very disappointed by "New Rose Hotel" - how can something featuring Christopher Walken and Willen Defoe be this bad? - but I should have seen it coming, given the nature of the source material. William Gibson is a great writer who I hardly ever read anymore. He's incredibly inventive and is a master at fabricating convincing, compelling future societies...but his world-view and opinion of human nature is just too glum and depressing. And, unfortunately for a film adaptation, Gibson dialog that sounds convincing and right in the context of the printed page often rattles in the ear like a tin washer when declaimed by a human actor. Simiarly, 90% of the plot development in Gibson's fiction is mysterious, ambiguous, muffled, and cryptic - much like a John LeCarre "Smiley" Cold War novel, there is so much dealing, double dealing, betrayal and backstabbing going on behind the scenes, much of which the reader is not privy too, that it required intense concentration on every aspect of the plot to keep from being completely buffaloed by the events.On top of this, this is a science fiction story that requires a convincing visual setting to pull the viewer in, the way Gibson's telling details and rolling "techno-speak" pull his readers in. "New Rose Hotel" didn't seem to have much of a budget, so it had to skimp on the settings and the props and just concentrate on the characters and the plot.All these issues can make for very problematic material for a cinematic adaptation, and alas, the director and screenwriter don't come close to solving those problems. They seemed to have opted for mood and character study over plot momentum and story arc, and as a result, we spend vast amounts of movie time watching Defoe sit glumly in a tiny hotel "capsule", brooding over his mistakes while the movies interrupts with recaps and flashbacks of various scenes of people sitting around drinking and talking at each other. As much as I like Defoe and Walken, even they can't carry this for entire film. The overall impression I get is of a movie just sits around and mopes whenever it isn't being cryptic and dull. Much has been made of the supposed "hotness" of actress Asia Argento, but since this is a movie where sex is just another tool for corporate espionage, the screenplay itself seems to strip her character of any real humanity, and she comes across as a simple "hooker Barbie" character. That may actually be a tribute to deliberate efforts of both Argento and the director, but it doesn't make for on screen erotic charge. I will say that I've seen her in other roles, and I have to admit she can be a tasty dish. But not so much here.I liked the original story - it's pure Gibson through and though - but this version of it just doesn't work unless you're an obsessive fan of moody lighting and muffled, expressionistic nihilism. It's too well made to give less than a 5, but that score is a grudging concession to how hard the actors and the cinematographer worked to pull off impossibly stilted and scrambled material.