MovieChat Forums > Hotel Artemis (2018) Discussion > Really big ideas in a really small film....

Really big ideas in a really small film...

posted 3 years ago by cyguration (3951)
5 replies | jump to latest

I wish this had ended on a much bigger note. The action scenes were so underwhelming, and the setup very much reminded me of some sort of interconnected universe to John Wick. I was almost half expecting someone to pop out a coin to pay for the "Nurse" services.

In any case, the film had a much bigger idea within its worldbuilding and the setup for its universe than what was executed on screen. It was like one-half Smokin' Aces and one part of the Continental from John Wick, but without any of the action from either film.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8615) 3 years ago

I understand what you're saying. It's like a small, intimate story set in a much bigger world and, as you say, kind of feels like a spin-off of another franchise.

Wikipedia states that the budget was only $15.5 million, so that will help explain why the movie has such a small feel. Still though, I enjoyed it well enough and appreciated that it WASN'T just another sequel/prequel/reboot/remake. You would think that with a budget that small, and a cast as good as it had, that it would be destined to make money but somehow it still failed, only making about $13 million worldwide.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Interesting.

I guess when you see films like The Raid (made on a $1.1 million budget) or The Yellow Sea (made on a $9 million budget) it just leaves you scratching your head as to what they were trying to achieve. It's not quite long enough to delve into all the character motivations and history, so some characters feel a little blank slate, or only there to move along certain plot elements while others actually get some depth.

They also had no real cool action sequences. Hollywood really seems intent on making Sophia Boutella into an action heroine, but despite her long legs and visual allure, I just don't buy her in the role. Maybe if they had Julie Estelle it could have been better.

I was also sorely disappointed with the way they had Bautista's character posture up against the gang members, but we didn't actually get to see the fight.

I think that there was definitely a combination of things that led to it failing, the lack of action being a pretty huge factor. Though, to be fair it wasn't until three-quarters into the film did I recognize that there were no big action sequences, so it certainly held my interest even while being more of a slow-burn character drama/thriller.

A really good action choreographer could have elevated this movie to cult-classic status. If they ever make a sequel they need a really good hallway fight scene with a legitimate action star and a nice one-take sequence for everyone to spread around on YouTube to help bolster its appeal.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8615) 3 years ago

I agree it needed more action. If I remember correctly, the trailers sold it as more of an action movie than it actually is.

I suspect a great deal of the budget went to the cast. You mentioned The Raid cost $1.1 million to make. I suspect that you couldn't even get Jodie Foster for $1.1 million. Then you add in Goldblum, Sterling Brown, Bautista, Boutella, and Zack Quinto, as well as writer/director Drew Pearce, and I imagine a good portion of that $15.5 million got soaked up pretty quickly just by paychecks.

Regarding Sofia Boutella, honestly I haven't made much of an effort to follow her career, but I did think she was pretty good in Tom Cruise's Mummy movie, which I feel is overall an underrated film.

I suspect that the idea here WAS to turn this into a franchise, but considering the fact that it couldn't even make its money back on a $15.5M budget does not bode well for any sequels. I'd say there's a very small chance of ever seeing another movie set in this universe.

Why did it perform so poorly? You say it having no big action scenes is a huge factor, but how does one know there are no big action scenes unless you've already seen the movie? I didn't know that going into it and it sounds like you didn't either. I actually think it has more to do with the fact that it's much too hard to get audiences interested in a property that has no history--no book its based on, or historical event, or previous films its related to--and I think that's a damn shame, because we really need more original stories.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Why did it perform so poorly? You say it having no big action scenes is a huge factor, but how does one know there are no big action scenes unless you've already seen the movie? I

Right, but we also have to consider the social germination effect. I skipped the movie as did a lot of other people I knew, because while the trailer looked interesting it didn't quite scream that it was an action film, and that intuition proved true.

For the people who did see it, they were given a movie that was more drama than thrills, and so there was nothing to germinate to the in-group or out-group of action fans or moviegoers in general in relation to what it had to offer. A perfect example, is Ip Man or SPL: Killzone. These movies weren't huge international blockbusters, but they steadily picked up a strong following because the people who did see them recommended them to friends, or made videos about them or spread the word via social media. The same thing with The Raid; even if you didn't know the film existed, maybe someone you know was aware of the film and helped spread the word. There was really nothing to spread or germinate for Hotel Artemis, so the box office trickled off and faded into the ether.

I actually think it has more to do with the fact that it's much too hard to get audiences interested in a property that has no history--no book its based on, or historical event, or previous films its related to

Neither did John Wick or Speed or Olympus Has Fallen. In fact, you can see that for films like John Wick there were these spikes in the daily box office, as if people were spreading the word and coming back for more:
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/John-Wick#tab=box-office

We usually see this for other cult classics that perform poorly at the box office but then uptick in streaming, VOD and Blu-rays, like the Desperado trilogy, which performed poorly in theaters but were huge on cable TV.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8615) 3 years ago

I'm sure you're onto something regarding the word of mouth. I actually DID go see it at the theater, but it's not a movie that I walked out of feeling like I needed to tell others that they HAVE to go see it. It was fairly interesting but definitely could've been much better with, as we have stated, more action.

Regarding original films, you're right that some films that are not based on any existing property make it to the end zone and become hits. Many good original films that deserved to do well though do fail, and I think there's a reason why studios are often reluctant to produce scripts that have no built-in audience.

Sadly it's no longer the 90s, a decade when I think studios were more willing to take these risks. And I'd say that precisely BECAUSE studios were more willing to do so, the 90s is potentially the greatest decade for movies of all time.