Skip to main content

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

Not everyone has responded so favourably, though. One of the common charges levelled at Bad Times seems to be is that it's Tarantino-lite, meaning it tells multiple, intertwining crime stories, juxtaposes time frames and relies on withholds and reveals – often of sudden, violently decisive variety – all the while supported by a dazzling soundtrack to tell its story. Superficially valid perhaps, but Tarantino isn't really a complex story guy. Most of his plots are fairly simple; it's how he unspools them and the accompanying dressing that begs attention. Give him a conversation that disguises the true motive of a scene, and you pretty much have his modus operandi sussed. Goddard’s plotting is giddier, more gymnastic and elastic. "Neo-noir" is right in this case, and it reminds me more of the approach found in, say Shallow Grave or John Dahl’s '90s noirs. There's also Goddard's earlier The Cabin in the Woods as an introductory text, hopping genres but with a similar obsession with surveillance and unseen pullers of strings. 


Indeed, following a masterfully composed scene-setter a decade prior to the main event (to the accompaniment of 26 Miles (Santa Catalina) by The Four Preps), it's the almost De Palma-esque walkabout of the surveillance setup behind the walls by Jon Hamm's FBI agent Dwight Broadbeck – note perfectly overenthusiastic in his guise as vacuum salesman – that lends the picture its first unsettling frisson. Such a scenario has become more usually the domain of the horror flick – as opposed to it period "pure" purpose here – and Goddard instinctively knows to tap into the necessary warped vibe in that regard. It also grants the picture the feeling that anything untoward may happen, and to anyone. It isn't a surprise when Broadbeck exits the picture early, but that's mainly because Hamm, while a natural leading man, hasn't really broken into such territory in the movies; we naturally assume he's a supporting player, and therefore expendable. It might have been different if Russell Crowe, originally cast, hadn’t dropped out.


Some criticisms have also focussed on the ultimately extraneous nature of the retrieved incriminating film reel – is the subject MLK? RFK? It’s a politically very high profile someone who is no longer living when this is set, in '69 – but it never felt that was an end in itself to me. Just checking in to the El Royale represents a detour from the normal course of service (if you like, in the way vampires derailing a crime movie in From Dusk till Dawn does). So we were never going to meet "management" or fully explore Chris Hemsworth's Manson-esque cult (Manson-esque if Manson had a six pack). Although, Billy Lee doesn't seem explicitly bent on engineering societal change, and whatever nastiness he's no doubt done in his time, the specifically cited murders he's involved appear to be down to the psychotic Rose (Cailee Spaeny), whose sister Emily (Dakota Johnson) has extracted her from the cult. The latter reveal is one of number that turns what we think we know on its head, and even when we settle into a groove for the final act, Goddard still has a few twists in store (if I were to level a criticism, it would be that Goddard settles for a much more recognisable plot scenario at this point, but the way he plays it out leaves you feeling in no way short changed).


The main protagonists, though, are Darlene (Cynthia Erivo) and Flynn/O'Kelly (Jeff Bridges), the former having the distinction of being exactly who she appears to be at first glance, even though the occasional development throws that off, in particular bashing Flynn with a bottle; her voice is the key to her arriving at the hotel, and also to her winning through against the odds at key moments, soothing the troubled Flynn and ensuring a common bond, and in a virtuoso set piece allowing him to dig unnoticed for his brother's loot while Emily observes through the room's two-way mirror. Darlene being the "good" or "innocent" lead brings with her the danger of the character coming across as one dimensional – the "weak man who talks a lot" scene could have fizzled with a lesser performer – but Erivo brings such presence and conviction, it's easy to see why she's being hailed as one of the breakout stars of the year. 


Her chemistry with Bridges makes them a great unlikely pairing too. I was genuinely (pleasantly) surprised that his character got to walk away from the carnage, since he seemed to have all the necessary baggage for going out tragically before the final curtain: slowly losing his faculties; being responsible for a botched robbery and therefore requiring movie justice; simply not being the chief protagonist. I'll admit to going through the movie most concerned over his fate (since there was no way Darlene would be killed), and even moments designed to throw you off – his drugging her drink suggested he might even turn out to be a variant on his The Vanishing character – didn't lessen my interest in his fate. Bridges is much less mumble-mouth in this one than he has been in a few things of late (R.I.P.D., Kingsman: The Golden Circle), so either he's got a new set of dentures or he just wears the voice for the role. I particularly loved his reaction to Deep Purple on the juke box, and his decision to beat the shit out of Billy Lee, doing a pretty convincing job of it too.


The other character of note is Lewis Pullman's concierge Miles, probably the clearest marked out to have a dark secret, but no less enjoyable for it when he "hulks out" and is revealed as a crack shot. As with the political assassination element and the murderous cult, Goddard takes the Vietnam motif and marries it to the material in a manner that feels fresh and anti-formulaic. The closest you get to Miles' malaise is something like Jacob's Ladder, but Goddard isn't detouring into that genre. Pullman's performance is possibly the most affecting of the bunch, even as it's undercut by gags at Miles' expense when he discovers Flynn isn't actually a priest.


Hemsworth proves again that he's a compelling screen presence when he's got a strong part, but is pretty vanilla when he doesn't. Johnson leaves you wanting more and Spaeny is suitably dippy-vicious. Memorable small roles too for Nick Offerman and Shea Whigham. And I want more Hamm in movies where he's got a juicy role – you could see him really vibing with the material, relishing the opportunity, and it was a thrill to watch. The picture looks great courtesy of Seamus McGarvey, and Michael Giacchino provides a dependable score. The hotel set, with its California-Nevada split, extending into the nefarious areas, is a marvel too. 


One wonders if Goddard hasn't rather got the drop on Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, incoming next year and set in '69 against the backdrop of the Manson murders. Of course, they'll be entirely different – Tarantino's will be a hit, for a start, and won't be nearly as focussed (if there's a complaint about his most recent works, above all, it's that they desperately need an editor unafraid to shut his butt down and tell him when to cut). In that regard, I find the complaints that Bad Times at the El Royale is slow and indulgent mystifying, as I haven't been as fully immersed in a movie in a long time. Maybe it's a positive that El Royale hasn't been universally applauded, as it's sure to embed its cult status, certainly exponentially more so that another writer-director's guest-house set movie from earlier this year, Hotel Artemis. Although, the danger is that it puts it in good company with The Cabin in the Woods; Goddard has gone through various floundering comic book movie possibilities with Sinister Six and then X-Force (good luck on that one with the Disney-Fox deal), and I just hope he's able to get a hit under his belt before long, so he can keep making movies as original and gratifying as this one. El Royale has delicious cheese.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
(SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II’s on YouTube, and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983)
(SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bonds in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball, but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again, despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Charming. Now she's got the old boy's money, she's making a play for the younger one.

Woman of Straw (1964)
(SPOILERS) The first fruit of Sean cashing in on his Bond status in other leading man roles – he even wears the tux he’d later sport in Goldfinger. On one level, he isn’t exactly stretching himself as a duplicitous, misogynist bastard. On the other, he is actually the bad guy; this time, you aren’t supposed to be onside his capacity for killing people. It’s interesting to see Connery in his nascent star phase, but despite an engaging set up and a very fine performance from Ralph Richardson, Woman of Straw is too much of a slow-burn, trad crime thriller/melodrama to really make a mark. All very professionally polished, but the spoiled fruits of an earlier era.