Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

SnoopyStyle Jack Whitman (Jason Schwartzman) is alone in a comfortable European hotel room. He gets a call from a woman (Natalie Portman) who insists on joining him. She tells him that she doesn't want to lose his friendship but he tells her that he will never be her friend. They make love and afterward, they go out on the balcony.Director Wes Anderson makes this short as a prologue to 'The Darjeeling Limited'. I love Wes Anderson but Darjeeling is not one of my favorites. This short definitely has the Wes Anderson touch. Schwartzman and Portman are fine. They're not doing anything really deep but there are snippets of interesting insights into their relationship. The one thing I love above it all is the song 'Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)'. It's classic Wes Anderson.

bob the moo At the end of The Darjeeling Limited, Jack has written the end of a short story and it is essentially the majority of the short film Hotel Chevalier. Francis reads it and comments that it is hard to judge without knowing the rest of it and indeed this may have been a reference to the fact that you need to watch this short film in immediate combination with the film. Others have asked why this part of the story was broken up from the film when it is clearly part of the story but my feelings on that are to simply shrug and ask when Wes Anderson ever did anything that was straightforward? So a separate short film it is and to appreciate it you do need to know "the rest of it".Looking back on it from more of a knowledgeable position in regards the character is to introduce a level of understanding and emotional interest that is lacking the first time you watch it. Dealing with the film as a short film in its own right, this is clearly a failing because it cannot (or does not) deliver this on its own but does need the feature to do it. Even with the film it is more a matter of back-story than really informing the events of the short – ie the short fits into the film rather than the short suddenly holding a lot of meaning to the viewer. So in terms of content, while it is "better" watched with the film, it still doesn't deserve to be a separate entity.I suppose the one thing in its defence would be that, as an upmarket trailer, it will really work for Anderson's fans. The short has a great air to it and all the style and tone that exist within his films. The restrained and yet brooding emotion of his two characters are well painted in the dialogue but, more importantly, Schwartzman and Portman nail it – the former in particular showing as much pain as desire in his actions and language. The colours and the shots all make the film look great and Anderson makes great use of the limited space within the hotel and for fans it will be a matter of lapping this up. But for me I have the same reservations as I have had with one or two of his features in the way that the style and manner may interest me but there is nothing of substance to really engage with or feel for.Hotel Chevalier is a strange beast then; it can be viewed in several ways but it is not that great in any of them. As a part of the Darjeeling Limited feature it is a solid couple of scenes but not more or less remarkable than the rest of the film. As a stand alone film it offers style and typically Anderson manner but very little in the way of real meat. While as a high-brow trailer it does have the style and content to excite fans but then also feels a bit "big" just to be used to sell a product. Regardless it does have good stuff in the style, the performances, the simmering emotion and the overall delivery but it badly needed to either be part of the film or expanded and strengthened to be able to stand alone as a short film that "connects" to the feature rather than being "connected" to it (if you appreciate the difference).

lastliberal I am afraid to see the The Darjeeling Limited. I cannot stand Owen Wilson, and now that I have seen Jason Schwartzman, and know that certain friends think he is something special, I don't know what to do. There are also those who think that you have to "get" Anderson, or you are some ignorant rube.This short film did not make me want to check out Wes Anderson's new film. I found Schwartzman to be particularly obnoxious and need to explore further before I make a commitment. I will watch Rushmore and Shopgirl, and maybe The Royal Tenenbaums this week before I commit. That ought to give me enough Swartnman and Anderson to determine whether I "get it," or am just a rube.I do, however, like the idea of shorts as a prelude instead of trailers. More should explore this.

stephentheh One of the things i've always liked about Wes Anderson is how well he can subtly imply certain characteristics or histories in a dry sort of humor. This film accomplishes that in a more pronounced scale than a longer film might have.Jason Schwartzman is great, perhaps the stronger of the two performances, although Natalie Portman is not to be dismissed here.Without giving anything away, the film accomplishes its goal of setting a mood and not forcing itself to tell the entire history - something too many other directors might have tried in a 13 minute time span and thus sacrificed most if not all of the actual feeling behind the couple's reunion.I rate this a ten out of ten - a great short, and even though i'm a big fan of Wes Anderson's, i'm glad he didn't over-stylize it. It's simplistic, humorous, and yet bitter-sweet and thoroughly enjoyable.