I actually had quite some hopes for CHELSEA WALLS. It looked like Ethan Hawke took the basic concept of an ensemble-movie or mosaic-picture (a lot of different characters, each with their own story, that might cross each other at one point) but including one aspect that's somewhat different: Using only one location for the actors to roam about. It could have been all so interesting… Sadly, my hopes weren't met.It had nothing to do with whether the characters were likable or not. It was more about them, just like this movie, being so empty. Now, I've always found the concept of a "struggling & tormented artist" intriguing, and that's mainly what all the characters in CHELSEA WALLS are. There's a singer/songwriter, a painter, a writer (and more). It's just that, when I think of them, "intriguing" is the last word that comes to my mind. None of them actually had a story to tell. None of them showed wisdom or insight. None of them were exuberant or eccentric. None of them even had something remotely interesting to say. The poetry coming from Rosario Dawson was sweet and slightly depressing, I could dig that. Kris Kristofferson's character brought some weight to the movie, yes, but nothing more. At not one point even, the characters started to really interact with each other. The actions portrayed in this movie were merely uneventful situations in various rooms of the hotel. Oh yes, Kristofferson stumbles into Uma Thurman's apartment drunk, but do you think that scene leads to anything? No, of course not. And Miss Thurman and Vincent D'Onofrio can be seen together in a kitchen. Was there supposed to be some affection between the two of them? I just couldn't tell, because again: Nothing happened.Maybe director Ethan Hawke deliberately tried to make no point with this movie. Or maybe the point was within the walls of Chelsea Hotel all along (Faded Glory? Hopes & Dreams in Vain?). I just couldn't tell. CHELSEA WALLS was based on Nicole Burdette's play, who also turned it into the screenplay for this movie. Maybe she shouldn't have done it, because I felt it didn't work very well as a movie. But Ethan Hawke did manage to bring some favorable aspects into the movie. Most of the time, when the camera registers a fixed shot, the framing is well thought out, making the cinematographic qualities of CHELSEA WALLS slightly memorable. Another thing that was rather excellent was the music in this movie, whether it be played by the actors or used as a score. I liked it all. Near the end there even was this instrumental score (played by a guitar) that kept on playing through various scenes, very subtle, barely noticeable, but yet very present. It provided some sort of constant tension, like if it was for the viewer to notice that this was the final act, that the movie is about to come to a close (even without any form of climax showing on the screen). That worked very well for me. Also, the acting from the whole cast wasn't even bad, not at all. It's just that their performances felt a bit uninspired.It's sad that CHELSEA WALLS failed to live up to my expectations. Quite a lot of movies have used the setting of a hotel or apartment-complex very successfully. Whether it be comedy (FOUR ROOMS), drama (THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL), action (THE TESSERACT) or sci-fi/thriller (ONE POINT O). So why didn't this one work? Lack of content is my guess. CHELSEA WALLS is proof that throwing a bunch of respectable (and pretty famous) actors & actresses in a movie doesn't always mean you're going to end up with a good one. If you want to see it done right, you might as well see Wayne Wang's BLUE IN THE FACE (and that movie didn't even have a decent script). But still… Even if halfway through the movie I couldn't care much anymore for the characters or what they had to say, I strangely didn't mind having watched this movie in the end either. I can't really recommend seeing CHELSEA WALLS to anyone. Most people might even find it a waste of time. On the other hand, I suspect this movie might actually be interesting or enjoyable for people who have seen Burdette's original play. Unfortunately I haven't. But there might be one reason for watching it, though. That is, if you need to clear your head from everything for a while. Because it will leave you with nothing and for some unexplainable reason, I even felt kind of peaceful after finishing it.

I thought this movie was a tad on the pretentious side. It seemed like Ethan Hawke was trying WAAAAY too hard to make a like, super-cool, deep and arty indie film. On the plus side, I thought Uma and Vincent were both great. If only the whole movie had been just about their relationship! Not to mention that Vincent looked mad not with the nearly-shaved head and goatee. Tasty! Some of the outdoor shots of the Chelsea were really beautiful too, especially the ones at the end of the film in which it's snowing. The Chelsea Hotel has always been one of my favorite NYC landmarks, and I'm sure Ethan meant the film to be a loving homage to this artist's haven and its inhabitants, but I don't know... something got lost along the way.

Chelsea Walls is supposed to document the daily occurrences of several "artists" housed in the notorious Chelsea Walls hotel in New York, which is an entertainment landmark that has grossly mutated into a housing community to New York yuppies (though the movie doesn't show that). I waited a long time to see this, eager to see many of Frank Whaley's hard to find titles, even though he mostly shows up in a movie these days for about two minutes. Chelsea Walls is one of THE most boring movies I have ever seen, I'm surprised I managed to get through the remainder of it. There is absolutely nothing particularly interesting or wonderful about these characters that I could see the need for anyone to want to make a movie about it. Kris Kristopherson plays a mumbling, drunk writer. Uma Thurman floats around there, she's supposed to be a sculptor. There's some awkward scenes with Rosario Dawson, playing a poet, and her boyfriend who I don't know whether he's supposed to be a ska musician or a gangster. All I can say that Chelsea Walls is one of the most boring "artsy fartsy" pretentious movies that I have ever seen. This, in addition to some other films, have made me weary of Ethan Hawke-directed films.If you're looking for entertainment, it surely doesn't lie in Chelsea Walls.

Christopher Walken is credited as a character without a name (and his name appears on the VHS cassette). Can anyone tell my exactly what part he plays and/or when he appeared? I surely didn't see him - and I watched for him through the whole movie as I expected him to fit in quite well in this original movie. Or maybe I just went blind?