The real test is not to survive in a hotel, but to watch this movie.
With great difficulty over two hours of this craft Bollywood. Impressed by positive reviews and reviews, the high rating of this film on the KP decided to give another chance to Indian cinema - as it turned out, in vain.
Maybe, of course, they live in some other world and for them the understanding of what is adequate and realistic looks different than for us, but everything that happens in the film for me is absolutely illogical and far-fetched.
Some kind of constant, unfounded running around a hotel where armed terrorists go. The terrorists themselves do not understand what they want and what they are doing here. Capture for grabs. The police, which can only be called a five-year-old, are so “prepared” for any emergency. Seriously, it seems that in one of the largest metropolises in the world - Mumbai - armed crimes have not been committed since the founding of the city. That even special forces had to drive from the other end of the country - after all, in a country that is one and a half billion in terms of population, it is only in one place.
All plot moves are complete surahs, the behavior of the characters is inadequate, the script itself is for nothing, that on real events they are drawn and sucked out of the finger. It was purely moral. I don’t know how anyone would like it in principle. If you want action and drama with hostage-taking, and even on real events, watch Captain Phillips. Compare. It's just heaven and earth.
2 out of 10
A peaceful life suddenly ends because of a terrorist attack. As you can see, we have a unique picture. Not only does she dryly retell the facts about the terrorist attack, but she also visually meticulously conveys the horrors, pain, suffering, death. There is even, as it seems, a real newsreel of those days that directors usually do not use in their creations according to ethical and other standards.
Some scenes are eerily reminiscent of a computer game, where you watch almost from the first or purely third person terror, which is committed by antagonists. The production of individual scenes is unique for such films. It is closer even to famous scenes from Narcos or similar projects, where there is a realistic display of scenes with automatic weapons in a civilian environment.
Very well conveyed how a very small group of people was able to sow panic in a huge state or metropolis. The coordinated attack paralyzed in a matter of hours the capabilities of the law enforcement forces, which were not ready for such events both at the start of events and during their development. As the picture shows, the damage from terrorists became possible due to their mobility and coherence of actions. At this time, the forces of the police and special forces, which were supposed to act quickly and harmoniously, on the contrary, were slow, could not immediately give a quick and decisive response, poorly coordinated with each other and even did not have the ability to adequately communicate with each other.
As they say, learn from mistakes. This attack is likely a good example for other intelligence agencies around the world in terms of learning from the mistakes of others. In fact, this has certainly been a lesson for many decades for local law enforcement. And, of course, intelligence agencies and others like them should have known about such an attack beforehand, so that the police could prevent it, rather than deal with the consequences.
The only drawback of the picture is that it could not adequately show the scale. It exists, but not as it was in reality. Otherwise, the movie would be much more expensive.
Watching the innocent suffer at the hands of the scum of society is always difficult, and it becomes doubly difficult from the fact that the film is not only based on real events, but, in fact, very reliably illustrates the problem of terrorism, which has plagued humanity for decades: since yesterday’s monkeys suddenly found in their hands instead of bananas guns and went to do terrible things.
That’s why Hotel Mumbai is a really scary movie that evokes many emotions: albeit the same (hatred, shock and pity), but strong. Anthony Maras, who, in fact, nothing but this film and not noted, shot an uncompromising and ruthless tape, in which there will be many brave people and brave deeds, but, alas, as in life - not a single John McClain who alone would crumble all the abomination that walked around the numbers of the majestic structure and destroyed its staff and guests.
Immersion in what is happening is facilitated by a powerful acting game (performers of both main rhode and secondary), and an excellent production, and the absence of excessive sentiment. Death catches up with some of the main characters. Moreover, death is not heroic, but the most meaningless and inevitable. The cold detachment with which we are shown the death of people, does a credit to the director, who refrained from savoring bloody details and pressing tears.
And, of course, it is worth talking about the sound. The gunshots, the explosions, the screams of frightened people all sound frighteningly naturalistic. I don’t even remember if there was music in the movie except in the credits. Because the sound of a dying hotel overshadowed everything.
This is not a movie I would recommend. He does not enjoy watching and leaves behind a heavy imprint. But the movie is definitely very high quality, almost perfectly demonstrating all the nightmare, all the senselessness that terrorism carries.
8 out of 10
All dozens deserved. One of the best thrillers/drama/films based on real events I’ve seen. Brutal. Scary. I am so sorry for the people who have had to go through this.
Surely each of us, learning about the terrorist attack in a particular city, thought: how will I behave if I find myself next to terrorists?
What if a motherfucker loaded to the teeth with weapons and explosives comes into the room and starts shooting at all peaceful people? What would I do if I didn’t have a second to think? Would you hide or try to run? Would you call in order to give the police information, or would you turn off all the phone signals so you wouldn’t find yourself? .. And will there be a place for brave heroism, like American action, when one person with suddenly discovered abilities saves the world from an impending threat?
Anthony Maras reveals a cruel reality.
In the film Hotel Mumbai, we are given the opportunity to imagine this situation very vividly every minute: and the enormity is that there is no right answer. You can run and be shot. You can hide and be discovered. You can jump out the window but not survive. No one knows the perfect and life-saving plan of action. The feeling of total insecurity is overwhelming. How to keep a cool mind and not panic? What if your family's around? How do you protect them?
The filmmakers showed how it is: here you are, here are the terrorists and here are the conditions that cannot be changed. You're here and you're here right now.
And then by chance or by God’s will, if you believe. By the way, the authors respected the right to choose religion and showed us that it is not religion that makes terrorists out of people, but some “respectable people” who brainwash young guys and use faith in Allah as a tool for their “higher goal.”
A strong scene where a terrorist holds a gun over a woman performing prayer and is unable to fire. He's shocked. I think at this point his bigotry of the purge idea is cracking, he feels stumped.
The moment the chef gathers the staff and lets them decide whether to run or stay, it makes you decide with them right now. And this phrase - "Go away, no one will shame you" - it is like a pre-issued forgiveness from the devouring feelings of guilt and shame if you decide to run.
This scene also took me back to the movie Titanic, when the staff of the sinking ship chose to serve their guests.
The movie turned out to be true. There's nothing superfluous about it. It touches all of us. The pain and fear of what is seen and experienced does not leave many days.
And finally.
Sometimes a ridiculous accident that makes you mad at first, in which you see the cause of your failures, can save your life, not allowing you to be where you will never return. Bloody feet and annoyance that you are not in your shoes, suddenly become your salvation when you see in the monitor your friend, prostrating in a pool of blood in the door of the room that you would serve if not for these shoes. . .
Hotel Mumbai: Confrontation is one of the toughest thrillers in modern cinema. Huge emotional and meaningful power gives the fact that it is based on real events.
The film shows what happens when a state, in this case India, is not prepared for such a phenomenon as terrorism.
From 26 to 29 November 2008, a series of terrorist attacks took place in Mumbai, one of which was committed at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.
The film shows how some people live in total poverty, while others literally across the street enjoy magical luxury. Deep social inequality, lack of education and opportunities are the basis for terrorist recruitment. It doesn't need much. Injustice breeds hatred, and if it is multiplied by religious fanaticism, it will lead to mass murder.
If the state is not ready to ensure the safety of citizens, if there is not even one special forces unit in a multimillion-dollar city, if the local media can report live on the progress of the assault, and terrorists can watch and listen to the broadcast - all this leads to mass casualties and a heartbreaking tragedy.
Director Anthony Maras managed to create an atmosphere of horror and genuine tension in the cinema. The combination of artistic production with documentary chronicles brings the viewer as close as possible to what is happening. During the viewing, you just squeeze into the back of the chair, sometimes covering your face with your hands from a sense of belonging.
Actor Dev Patel, if he wants, can now safely end his career. He has already made cinematic history thanks to Slumdog Millionaire and this film. He performed both roles brilliantly.
The Mumbai Hotel is a powerful warning to the world about the dangers of terrorism. The film in 2 hours manages to show not only the consequences of horror, but also the technology of its creation.
Watch, discuss and draw conclusions.
The Hotel Mumbai movie has somehow missed my list of movies to watch, although I pay attention to quality novelties. My brother advised me to see it, saying it was based on real events. I am always interested in such projects. And thanks to the annotation for the film, I suddenly realized that this movie will necessarily be heavy. Configured to watch, I devoted a couple of hours of my life to immersion in this terrible tragedy, which is so competently conveyed on the screen by director Anthony Maras.
The production immediately sets in a gloomy mood, when in the first frames we are shown approaching from the sea people with stone faces. The scene follows the stage, and the audience gets acquainted with the main characters of the picture. The dialogue and narrative are written so well that for me during the subsequent events there were no questions about who is who in the film. Although there are probably about two dozen active heroes here. But each of them is a personality that you perceive through their actions, which determine the motivation of the characters.
The history of terrorist attacks that are shown on the screen is mainly formed by the actions in the hotel of Mumbai. The world of luxury and wealthy guests, the staff of the institution suddenly crumbles to dust when an attack by armed men takes place inside the walls of the hotel. An unprecedented sense of panic falls not only on the heroes, but also on the viewer. You suddenly realize that before you die, everyone becomes equal, whether you are a successful American with family, a rich Russian businessman or an ordinary hotel employee from India. And this realization gives rise to a sense of insecurity, because terrorists are armed, they came here specifically to deprive people of life, and they absolutely do not care about your nationality, wealth, worldview. People are just a target to be hit.
The obvious decision to escape from this nightmare away from the hotel is not the right decision in the current situation, because the city is attacked by other terrorist groups. Staying in your room may be the right decision. But it's only possible until a certain time. Writers and directors lead us through their project, making it clear that any little thing, any event, any action of a particular person or group of people, in one way or another can affect the life and death of the characters themselves and other people. After all, each action of the characters in the frame generates a chain reaction, which leads to certain events. And you, as a viewer, are completely immersed in every little story that permeates this film. Unlike the usual projects with “good” and “bad” heroes, there are no those who are guaranteed to remain alive, who will be bypassed by tragedy. And the famous actors appear in the role of the most ordinary people that by chance were in the epicenter of this nightmare.
The cast is impressive. Each of the first persons coped with his role with dignity. Armie Hammer, Dev Patel, Jason Isaacs are well remembered, convincingly speaking in the roles assigned to them. But I was particularly impressed by the actresses of the first plan. Nazanin Boniadi and Tilda Cobham-Hervey with their game just ripped the soul, allowing you to really understand what a nightmare had to endure their heroines. Convincing were Anulam Kher, Angus McLaren, Natasha Liu Bordizzo and Carmen Duncan. Their heroes made up the very group of people who are remembered in this picture.
The film was very impressive. The two hours that the picture lasted, I was in quiet terror, watching what was happening. From the usual world you seem to snatch the tragedy that happened in 2008, but passed by (fortunately). However, thanks to this quality of paintings, people can imagine the horror that the participants of those events have to endure. And then you start to feel life differently. You never know what will happen to you or your family. The habitual way of life is quite capable of changing overnight, destroying everything you are used to. This film is a reminder of such an opportunity as a warning, as a tribute to all who fought death in those days. And this picture is a good reason to just look at your loved ones from a different angle and maybe tell them once again how dear they are to you, how much you love them. After all, this will not be superfluous, and this opportunity is a real gift of fate. Those who became victims of the terrible events in the hotel of Mumbai and other terrorist acts lost this opportunity.
10 out of 10
It is not true, although it is based on real events. Terrorists walk unhindered killing, police inaction, mountains of corpses, no reaction from the government. Full of morons, don't waste your time on a shitty movie.
'If you're scared, just jump. You can fall or you can fly. -
In 2004, several film studios, including 'Lionsgate' and 'United Artists' allocated a budget of $ 17.5 million for the production of drama ' Hotel Rwanda' based on real events that occurred a decade ago in the eponymous African country, a former Belgian colony. The large-scale genocide that occurred in those days is one of the saddest dates in the history of mankind. And the picture of Northern Irishman Terry George allows you to feel the horror that engulfed the country on the basis of tribal hatred. And you can not forget the brilliant performance of Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo, who played the main roles in ' Hotel Rwanda'. After some time, this film received a kind of continuation in the line of dramas on real events, from which the whole world shuddered.
In 2018, a group of independent film studios, including the most famous 'Icon Productions' founded by Mel Gibson, gave a budget practically corresponding to ' Hotel Rwanda' - 17.3 million dollars for the adaptation of another sad event that this time occurred in the Indian city of Mumbai from 26 to 29 November 2008, when several groups of terrorists attacked various objects of Mumbai infrastructure, including the attack of one of the most fashionable hotels of the city 'Tajal Palace'. Several dozen people were inside a hellish cauldron, where armed fanatics shot everyone indiscriminately, and the hotel staff tried their best to save the guests.
This is a sad and terrible story, where you literally begin to feel that attack of panic and claustrophobia, when behind every door, around every corner there is a man with a machine gun and a grenade in his hand with a drawn check. The whole body sweats when you begin to understand people who are practically locked in one room, which, in theory, should protect them from attacking murderers, but gradually the tension causes bouts of insanity, people want to go out there, want to feel safe there and even the fact that opening one door does not mean that there will be no one behind the second and you will not collapse on the floor, beveled by an automatic queue, is no longer uncompromising for the instinct of self-preservation. The desire to escape at the risk of life, that is what begins to move people who find themselves in ' Taj Mahal Palace' in those ill-fated days, when religious fanatics charted their horrific atrocities. . .
The main director was appointed compatriot of Gibson Anthony Maras, who did not yet have a full-length feature film in his track record, but had a short meter experience, including the film ' Palace' (2011), telling about another social upheaval that occurred in Cyprus in 1974. And Anthony Maras started in the big movie quite confidently. Of course, it would be at least unethical to remove a weak tape about the events in the hotel ' Taj Mahal Palace' but Maras really put a serious picture that sees through, horror and tears suffocate, there is a lump in the throat. But most of all, it is the senselessness of terrorist attacks, when young people are trapped by an eloquent mentor directing them to criminal cases.
And I would like to thank every actor and every actress who imbued with this story and gave a real, sincere performance. First of all, I will mention Jason Isaacs as a former Soviet soldier involved in the conflict in Afghanistan. Let him show the Russians not from the most favorable side, but at the same time he turned out to be a knight without fear and reproach, not afraid of enemies poking the barrel of a machine gun in the face. The dramatic female component was carried by Nazanin Boniadi. To be honest, I would never want to even realize that she (or rather, her heroine) had to endure. And Dev Patel deserves high praise. The ethnic Indian must have been the one who embraced those terrible events the most, so his game is truly delightful. You are permeated by the sorrow he had to endure, but how bravely he did everything. He thought of himself last, carrying his duty to the end and trying to save people caught between the fires of terrorists.
A very strong picture that causes live emotions. If you have watched ' Hotel Rwanda' (if not, then take it soon!), then the drama from our recent history ' Hotel Mumbai: Confrontation' should be included in the list of films that you want to see soon. It's scary, it's creepy, it's gloomy, I don't want to hear about it, but it happened. It happened in the Indian city of Mumbai from November 26 to November 29, 2008, and this picture tells about it, which will not leave anyone indifferent.
9 out of 10
First-class thriller that will make you open your mouth while watching
I put off watching this movie for a long time, even though I knew that he was fine with the audience’s assessments. For some reason, I didn’t want to watch a thriller about terrorists and a hijacked hotel. But I knew I wasn’t doing it because the Hotel Mumbai was praised by almost everyone who saw it. So what happened? As a result, I like the film, like many others, of course, but let’s take it in order.
Abstract:
In 2008, a terrorist attack took place in the Indian city of Mumbai - the luxurious Taj Mahal Palace hotel was seized by Islamic terrorists. Visitors to the hotel, initially considered it an impregnable fortress, were forced to spend three days in hell.
What’s so special about this movie?
Let's start with the pros. The first and most important positive quality of the thriller “Hotel Mumbai” is that it 100% fulfills its main genre task – not childishly captures the audience’s attention and keeps its audience in incredible tension. When watching it, you really worry about the characters and look at everything that happens without a hint of a desire to interrupt the movie for some reason.
It is clear that the main merit of this state of affairs belongs to skillful directing and first-class editing, so immediately after the film there is a huge need to find out who was sitting in the director's chair during its shooting. And when you satisfy this need, you are instantly surprised, because you learn that the debutant Anthony Maras, who has not previously shot a single feature film, staged and edited the Hotel Mumbai. I do not know about you, but this fact struck me to the core, because the quality of the picture was at a very decent level and corresponded to quite high standards.
The second fact that strongly affects the perception of the film is that it is based on real events that took place in Mumbai in 2008. Obviously, in the plot you will find a large number of fictions and embellishments, but the main events are shown on the whole correctly, which cannot but bring additional dramatic notes to the viewing.
Any cons? What if I do?
If I have to point out the downsides, I would, oddly enough, nod to characters who in this movie turned out to be quite stereotypical, unrealistic and far from 100% logical. It’s like they came from some other movie – a frivolous action movie like Transformers. They present each of them to us, too, with rather flat and stamped tricks that we have seen in Hollywood products a million times. Because of this, the tape, primarily in its beginning, looks at the same time academic, clichéd and a little silly.
Without the main character, but with a Russian character!
However, and quite surprisingly, the film is built in such a way that its characters manage to spoil almost nothing. In many ways, this is achieved due to the fact that the Hotel Mumbai is specially made so that there is no one main character in it. There are several main characters in the plot, none of which can be called central. The characters of Armie Hammer, Virgo Patel, Anupam Kher, Nazanin Boniadi, Jason Isaacs are not protagonists, since they all share screen time and contribution to the overall victory, albeit not equally, but without skewing in favor of one. The last of these actors, by the way, plays the Russian businessman Vasily Archevsky, who is a stereotypical image of a rich and boorish lover of prostitutes, in an extreme situation not even thinking about what it would be possible to chicken out or give someone the opportunity to break his spirit. Brash, brazen, persistent, unpleasant, but heroic - I would describe him in those words.
Another surprising feature of the film is that it does not leave behind an unpleasant sediment, like many other films about the brutality of some people over others. The ending of "Hotel" touches, allows you to shed a couple of tears, makes you think, but it is unlikely to cause the question in your head "Hell, why did I look at this tin?". Rather, after watching, you will know for sure that you did not waste your time.
Verdict:
As a result, we have a great thriller that is impressive and keeps in suspense. It is not without drawbacks, but in general it is of high quality. And yes, it's a great choice for evening viewing.
The global problem of international terrorism, as well as the themes of various wars, is often raised in the cinema, and even more often, all these topics are intertwined. Especially in Hollywood, where every native of the Middle East is perceived as a terrorist (a very tangible injection towards such paranoids is in this film). But most often, the viewer observes brave military or security forces, destroying malicious impersonal terrorists. When they have key figures, the tape most often tells about the capture of this figure. Not to say that this is bad (there are a number of examples of very successful projects), but the more original they look rather uncompromising dramatic thriller ' Hotel Mumbai' (Hotel Mumbai, 2018), filmed a decade after the events described in it.
There are many films about the fight against terrorists, but there are no films telling what the horror of terrorism is. ' Hotel Mumbai' in this regard, it looks like a cinematic artifact, because it gives the viewer the opportunity to almost plunge into the position of hostages, who are looking for all over the hotel young Pakistani boys with machine guns. They're looking to kill.
They kill everyone indiscriminately at the command of a mysterious voice from the phone, remotely controlling them. They kill women, old people, even children. Killed with jokes, bullying, and sometimes in cold blood, with 1-2 shots, like cattle. All this is shown realistically, without beauty, but is not silenced. The cruelty here is openly and uncompromisingly demonstrated, but the local violence is not relished by the authors. What young militants do here, on the contrary, makes you feel even more anxious and sympathetic to the well-played characters. And incredibly heats up the action of the tape, creating a suspense literally out of the blue, but harder than in any horror. That's right. After all, fanatics with grenades are no less dangerous than serial killers.
But in this project, they are not just impersonal jihadists. These are individuals who have their own histories of radicalization, families they love. The most dramatic scene in which Nazanin Boniadi participates is connected with a young murderer! But, no matter how the mouths of individual heroes the director did not spare the militants repeating ' they are still children' no matter how he tried to sculpt from a formless antagonistic monster animate characters, the justification of terrorism here, fortunately, does not smell. The creators of the film do not let the viewer forget for a second that before him ruthless killers, terrible, dangerous, unpredictable and cold-blooded fanatics. And even the aforementioned episode with one of the militants closer to the final does not change the unequivocally correct position.
A special plus tape is casting. Dev Patel played his best role as a Sikh hero since Slumdog Millionaire 39. Armie Hammer did not change much compared to his previous roles, but looked very decent on the screen, including paired with the Iranian beauty Nazanin Boniadi, familiar from the TV series ' Homeland' and ' Double', tapes ' Ben Gur', ' Iron Man',' Three days to escape & #39; Nazanin is most interesting to watch, her heroine is the most fragile, but selfless, and causes sincere sympathy at the first appearance in the frame, and not only due to the exquisite oriental appearance of the actress. And finally, Jason Isaacs came out of the dull image of Malfoy Sr., turning into the most striking character of the picture - a veteran of the Afghan war and a Russian businessman concurrently, at first seemed rude and uncouth mutt, but at the same time having a hard sense of humor and most accurately recently showing the Slavic soul, albeit with an adjustment from the West. Well, summarizing the work of most of the stars of this multi-figure story, it is worth noting that they were all incredibly emotional.
In general, this is a rather heavy movie about terrorism, terrorists and their victims. There will be superheroes who will save everyone, because this is reality. There are only people in the wrong place and at the wrong time. And evil, meaningless, merciless and inevitable. Human evil, and what is most terrible, young evil.
8 out of 10
This film is one of the most unusual of all films about terrorists. We are used to the fact that in such films, you do not understand where terrorists take people and scare people for a long time, some even kill, and then everyone is saved by Chuck Norris or Sylvester Stallone, who is able to jump with a turn of two guns to get into three heads.
Here everything is somewhat different, and the non-standard begins with the production. Instead of the classic plot of the plot of the scheme, the climax, we are shown a confrontation in the so-called “real time” mode, and this makes the film incredibly cool! We see a very successful combination of artistic production with realistic shooting.
The next moment of realism lies, of course, in the plot. Go back to the first paragraph, which describes the clichéd films, and remember the last scene. It could be staged according to the classics: the American is smart and one action eliminates all terrorists, but this did not happen and he was killed. It was probably the biggest surprise I could see in a movie. The authors abandoned all sorts of clichés, and it turned out quite an interesting project.
The actors played well, and that was all. Each type of behavior in an emergency situation is reflected well: some are afraid, others panic, others calmly help. And the terrorists did not avoid diversity, for in one there was mercy for at least a Muslim woman. We have seen this in clichéd films, but in this film, such an insert also matters.
I can’t help but appreciate the image of our countryman. It is quite unusual instead of a clichéd Bolshevik in a coat and hat to see the most authentically depicted person from the 90s: he was a special forces officer, then took part in privatization, went into business and rests in India for earned money. We are not told this, but a person who knows the history of our country well should guess.
The film turned out to be incredibly realistic, tense and unpredictable. There were no superheroes or supervillains. But there was a real situation and real people with real behavior in its different manifestations. He also showed us the despicable nature of the organizers of terrorism, who attract the windy and poor with ideas and money, but in fact pursue only personal goals, using those like cannon fodder. And of course, the film makes you wonder: how would I behave in this situation? May God grant that the answer to this question remain only in thought, and no one ever had to ask it in practice. . .
I, as a person who is quite picky about the movie, honestly, it was rather unpleasant to watch this film in some moments, sometimes it is stupid, annoying and very illogical (for example, the hostages waited for special forces for almost 12 hours, which is absolute nonsense, they could fly by plane literally in a couple or three hours). This may have been the case in real history, but this is a question of India’s infrastructure. In some places, the movie annoys some of the dumbest characters who act so that you immediately imagine a tired and tortured screenwriter who did not come up with anything better so that the actions necessary for the plot occurred more naturally. About some of the individuals flashing in the film, I thought to myself ' Soon they would have finally been killed...'
Also in this movie, some characters come to nothing. They’re doing something all over the movie, as if leading to something that in the end would happen. But no, they're just taken and drained. Everything they did throughout the film turns out to be absolutely useless, the ones you really care about and worry about are just taken and flushed down the toilet, which made me very sad.
However, there is a very strong atmosphere of claustrophobia and tension in the film, which certainly cannot be taken away from him, in moments when you simply do not want to feel tension out of principle, just because something happens that you do not like, you still feel it, whatever you do not want there. The action is very interesting to watch and in general the film looks in one breath. Very pleased with the acting of most of the composition and action. Some characters cause nothing but respect to their address and ' sickness ' for them. Sometimes you are amazed by their perseverance and ordinary kindness.
The ending was also happy, several times during the ending I had goosebumps, which I consider an indicator.
Bottom line: I almost do not regret watching this film, a firm and confident seven.
7 out of 10
Based on real events. ' Hotel Mumbai' is not a polished Hollywood film that will leave after the ease of viewing and peace of mind, it is far from true.
Shooting is conducted almost in the first person, with the screen shaking in all directions every time guns are fired. It makes you feel like you’re there, right next to the shooters and helpless victims as the scenes unfold.
On November 26, 2008, a group of young men armed with explosives and AK-47 assault rifles broke into the hotel ' Taj Mahal Palace', the result of a terrorist attack that engulfed key areas of Mumbai. With instructions handed to them through headphones, amateur terrorists succeeded in besieging the hotel, spreading a trail of chaos and destruction on every floor, in a tragedy that remains scorched in the minds of all those who survived.
Films devoted to terrorism are often nothing more than propaganda works designed to inflame passions. In many films released after September 11, Muslims are treated at best as boogeymen, sometimes with obscure motives. This film does everything it can during the attack period to avoid it. You spend a lot of time with the same group of attackers. It is shown that each of them has its own motivation. Critically, some are more interested in the economic causes of the attacks, some are more devout, some attackers are there because of their family. This goes all the way to the ring leader, who cynically uses Islam to achieve his goals. The resulting picture of the group is a collection of human beings who have done a terrible thing. They are not monsters, but just terrible human beings.
Director Anthony Maras effectively shares the film's focus between hotel staff and guests in their fight for survival and the role of criminals in coordinating attacks. With Mumbai’s police forces utterly unprepared for an attack of this magnitude, the reign of terror lasted three days, and the film mercilessly showcases gratuitous violence. At the very beginning, bullets scatter across the crowded lobby, bodies fall like flies, and attackers continue their march to the upper floors, where, room by room, they shoot at unsuspecting guests. Thirty-one people died in the chaos, and while not shying away from the ugliness of the act, Maras paints a chilling picture of the callous disregard the terrorist showed to his victims.
The film uses a fair amount of drama to keep events exciting, and sometimes it seems to paint the real event in very broad strokes.
Indeed, what stands out is the power of character portraits that emerge amid violence. Dev Patel and Anupam Kher play hotel employees who support their colleagues and guests at all costs, while Armi Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi play a married couple who risk everything to protect their child. While the characters may be fictional, it’s not hard to imagine that numerous stories like them took place in real life. Moreover, interspersing their stories with first-hand news footage of the siege, Maras brings an additional element of realism that convincingly ties the film together.
At its core ' Hotel Mumbai' is a celebration of human resilience and courage in the face of insurmountable evil. Focusing on humanity amidst the bloodbath, Hotel 'Mumbai' honors all those who risked and lost their lives in the attack.
9 out of 10
“If you are afraid, just jump. You can fall or you can fly.
This isolation gave me another miracle in the form of this film. Honestly, I am still amazed how such films passed by me, and I did not even intend to watch them, since I did not know about their existence. I finally got to know this beautiful movie, Hotel Mumbai: Confrontation, the other day and watched it right away about a week ago. Now I want to share with the audience my opinion on this product of the film industry.
I will evaluate the film work by such criteria as the plot, acting and soundtrack.
Plot: In principle, knowledgeable people are aware of the incident in the Indian city of Mumbai in the form of a series of terrorist attacks from 26 to 29 November 2008. Hotel Mumbai: Confrontation refreshes our memory and tells about those terrible events. Honestly, if the film is based on real events, then very little depends on the plot in principle, if a person is interested in those events, then such a person will like the plot. If you're just a layman who doesn't know anything about those incidents, it's 50-50. In principle, for the product of the film industry, the plot is built very qualitatively and interestingly, without any gaps. Because of this, there are no questions left after viewing. Here is a mix of real shots of those incidents, which are fueled by a more in-depth immersion into the storyline itself from the story of the perpetrator involved in all this. The film really has a coherent structure and connection between the scenes. Because of what this is not a documentary, but a real drama with elements of a thriller. There are no sharp plot twists here, except in principle one that introduces clarity in the head and explains to us why it was all conceived and done in general. There is nothing to say about the ending.
Acting: This criterion is really advanced, which fully reveals the genre of drama. Here I usually evaluate the work of the writers on the creation of the image and its disclosure, but also do not forget about the performance of the actors personally, because having an idea is good, but its execution is equally important. Here it is quite difficult for me to talk about all this, since again everything is based on real events, but I can say a few words. The actors played their roles wonderfully and I enjoyed them. They managed to show great coolness, because when I looked at the eyes of criminals, I saw in them a real emptiness that frightened. Emotions of pain, fear, regret, surprise and other human states were also chicly played. The actors who played the criminals themselves have nothing to say about them, since their names will not tell you anything, perhaps even they are not professional actors, but this does not prevent them from surprising the viewer with their unquestioning play. If you go through the names, then really who you can recognize is Dev Patel, who played one of the main roles, namely the waiter of the hotel itself, who put a lot of work into that difficult time for general success. He may be known to many in the movie Slumdog Millionaire. Also, perhaps some people know such names as Armie Hammer, who played the role of David. Jason Isaacs, who played the role of Vasily. Nazanin Boniadi, who played the role of Zahra (some fans may know her from the filming of Iron Man in 2008). Maybe even you know about Natasha Liu Bordizzo, who played Bree. Apart from these actors, there is no one else. It's just worth writing that despite not being the most popular in popular culture, all the roles were performed perfectly. I don’t have to worry about it.
Soundtrack: The musical accompaniment of the film is also very decent. I really liked it. This is the kind of music that emphasizes the thriller genre in the description and creates such an oppressive atmosphere, namely the expectation of something bad or scary. Therefore, this criterion is also well done, but I will not dwell on it especially, since there is nothing more to say about it.
Thus, Hotel Mumbai: Confrontation is a very high-quality drama with thriller elements based on real events. Here everything from the real story is done to the ideal that watching the film is really nice. In this regard, you will not have the feeling that you are watching some documentary story, but on the contrary, you will get a full-fledged film with an interesting story and its adaptation for the movie; with a chic acting and not a bad musical accompaniment. This film can be reviewed several times, and you will not regret watching it. I think from all the above it is clear that the movie is recommended for viewing, it will not be superfluous. I really enjoyed it and I really enjoyed watching it. I hope this review was helpful to someone!
Films based on real tragic events should, in my opinion, be singled out as a separate genre of modern cinema. Especially when it comes to something that happened not so long ago, because among the audience there may be people who remember the story well, remember their feelings and emotions when the news was told in detail about what was happening, or even people who were in the very center of that very tragedy.
Of course, for most of us, the worst terrorist attacks of the 21st century are the terrorist attack of September 11 in the United States, which changed the world, and Beslan, whose grief united Russia and other countries. But over the past twenty years, the world has been shaken by other terrorist attacks in various countries, one of which is dedicated to the painting Hotel Mumbai. Confrontation”. Here, terrorists are groups of young men recruited to carry out a series of bombings and attacks on people in India's largest city. The criminals blindly believe they are committing these atrocities in the name of faith, religion and their family, who should be paid for their sons’ work. In the film, many episodes reveal the images of terrorists and the difference of worlds: the world of poverty in which they live, and the world of luxury, which seems alien to them and to which their victims, hotel guests belong. The scene of a phone conversation between a wounded terrorist and his father very clearly shows the feelings of the criminal and causes ambiguous emotions in the viewer.
At the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, where the main events of the film unfold, there is an unwritten rule “Our guest is God.” Hotel employees do everything possible to save the lives of their guests: without paying attention to their own fear, they are ready to give their lives, doing their duty. One of these loyal employees is Arjun, played by the magnificent Virgo Patel, he is ready to endure all inconveniences and put his life in danger for the sake of guests, knowing that his family is waiting for him at home. Arjun is incredible: selfless, strong in spirit, delicate, kind, brave. Each episode reveals the hero from the best sides, the scene with shoes and the scene with a turban do not leave the viewer indifferent to the fate of the hero.
In fact, all the characters in the film are written as positive as the beautiful Arjun. This, on the one hand, delights, and, on the other hand, inspires a drop of distrust: not all people are ready to behave so selflessly in an extreme situation. And this is not just an extreme situation – this is a war, a long time, in which ordinary people were alone with terrorists, in a fight that the military and special forces were able to enter only after half a day.
If you can watch movies about terrorist attacks, this movie is for you. If you love Virgo Patel, his work will not disappoint you. If you don’t know anything about the 2008 Mumbai attacks, watch this movie.
9 and 10
“Mumbai Hotel: Confrontation” has captured my attention since seeing a trailer in the theater that gave me goosebumps. Only a couple of minutes of skillful editing were able to convey the tense situation that awaits us in the film.
And now many months later, the "Hotel" is finally viewed, and the opinion is compiled.
Personally, I was not familiar with the series of horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, which took place on November 26-29, 2008. Therefore, the creators from the very beginning point out that the film is based on real events, and it is worth giving them credit that we are not flooded with tons of facts and footnotes, and with the help of visual narrative tell about the events that shook all of India in those days.
For two hours, you will find a skillful story about the survival of people trapped among the luxurious surroundings of the Taj Mahal hotel under the onslaught of radical religious fanatics.
The plot is not replete with some tricky twists and details, it is a straightforward story that hits your nerve endings from the first to the last shot of the terrorists.
Characters that first, that second plan have their own goals, and therefore it is interesting to watch what is happening, and to empathize with them. And this applies to both hostages and invaders, which goes to the film as a credit.
At first, all sympathy is riveted only to “heroes” trying to escape, reunite with family, or save the lives of guests, as the hotel staff courageously do. The chef guides the survivors, trying to keep them calm. The waiter walks them through the corridors to salvation, offering the best way, like the best kind of wine. And the concierge on pain of death still calls the guests, warning about the danger.
But then the authors punch us in the face with the simple truth that "life is not black and white - only gray." Many of these terrorists went to work because of their family’s poor condition, succumbing to the agitation of groups that select ordinary people and wash their heads to carry out their insane acts of violence. One of the invaders kills dozens of “infidels”, but can not even touch a woman who suddenly begins to recite prayers familiar to him in the face of death. For a long time in my head will be the conversation of this guy with his father exactly at the end of the film, because it is at this moment that it is possible to pick up the truth that the authors are trying to convey to us.
The themes of social inequality, racism based on the same nationality of the personnel and the invaders flash here. But what matters most is the subject of choice and its consequences. Whether it’s the wrong restaurant, the decision to help poor people off the street, or even forgotten shoes that will save your life.
The story ends, the film evokes emotions. It’s like you’ve walked the same path with heroes. You go outside and breathe freely. Life goes on.
On a November night in 2008, machine-gun queues are heard on the streets of Mumbai and the cries of the victims who understand nothing. A crowd of frightened people are looking for shelter in the building of the five-star Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, one of the most beautiful and famous hotels in India. Together with them, the perpetrators of panic break into the hotel - armed terrorists who begin indiscriminate shooting at guests. Selfless staff and guests from different countries are looking for a way out of the trap as police prepare for a rescue operation. The losses are growing, but they could have been even greater had it not been for the actions of a few brave men.
I don’t recommend this film to all the faint-hearted and sensitive people, because the film is full of violent scenes. The true story of a terrorist attack on one of the most luxurious hotels in Mumbai, the Taj Mahal, in 2008. Hundreds of hostages have been fighting for survival in the besieged building for three days. For a decade of tragic events, Australian director-debutant, screenwriter and producer Anthony Maras has unveiled this shocking dramatic thriller. His “Hotel Mumbai” is cruel and incredibly unprincipled: at its best it resembles the opening scene of Spielberg’s “Munich”, except that stretched over the entire film.
From this story, the blood freezes in the veins, how many victims and how people survived hiding in rooms and different closets, in dungeons. The movie is very interesting. Dynamic, tense, scary. For two hours you seem to plunge into another world, completely forgetting about the reality around you, although lately modern cinema rarely pleases us with such pictures that really make you forget about everything for a few hours. And in any case, do not accuse the director of unethicalness and that he turns the grief of people into a survival attraction. This is not so, the picture does not savor violence and does not promote anything, it shows everything as it was and emphasizes the survival and panic of people. This is insanely shocking and completely immerses in suspense and all the unusual plasticity of events.
Special thanks to the entire cast, just incredible roles, revealing the characters of all the characters and of course incredible destinies. Armie Hammer, Jason Isaacs, Nazanin Boniadi, Dev Patel - play for the breakup. The musical accompaniment of the changing ringing silence makes the film more tense and incredibly sentimental. Not everyone will enjoy this movie, I am impressed.
In November 2008, a series of terrorist attacks took place in the Indian city of Mumbai. In the epicenter was the hotel "Taj Mahal". Ten years later, at the festival in Toronto, Anthony Maras’ debut film “Hotel Mumbai” is released, telling about this terrible event.
Enough years have passed for time to settle, and we have safely forgotten about this tragedy. Like many other similar incidents. Do you remember many terrorist attacks that did not occur in Europe or America? They are forgotten in a special way.
The informational noise surrounding people has made us thick-skinned rhinos, who rush through their news feed so fast that they notice nothing. Our brains have learned to ignore bad news. We can read with bloodthirsty calm that somewhere another madman broke into the school with a gun in his hands and started a hunt for children. At most, we'll experience shock, and we'll flip the tape further. Terrorists raised us. We evolved; we adapted. We are used to horror.
Of course, being in the conditional Mukhosransk, we are not offended by the news that somewhere a group of unknown people opened fire in the center of a densely populated city. It's far away. I'm safe. On the edge of the world where I live, that won't happen. In addition, the news will say that killed 13 people – thirteen impersonal people. In this news bulletin, they have no names, so my brain will safely ignore the text read by the announcer, so as not to once again cause negative emotions in its owner.
Anthony Maras wants us to experience every spectrum of feeling that could have been born at the Taj Mahal. Every plot move and every editing glue is made to pull us out of our comfort zone. The director wants the fear to reach each of us, and to scratch the story in our memory. To do this, he not only achieves chilling horror, but also humanizes this event. Screenwriters John Colley and Anthony Maras give this tragedy a human face, equally represented by an American (Armie Hammer), an Indian (Dev Patel), a Russian (Jason Isaacs), and an Indian-born woman, ironically Muslim (Nazanin Boniadi). This diversity of characters not only works on the idea that “everyone is equal in the face of terrorism,” but also helps to emotionally embrace each viewer.
After watching the film, you will be able to feel the nervousness and fear into which the world went after September 11, 2001. The feeling of insecurity will take you by surprise, even if you live in a small peripheral city. But the main advantage of this film (or equal to the above) is that the filmmaker created an indestructible monument to the sad event that once occurred in Mumbai; which before the release of Hotel Mumbai was one of dozens of such. Anthony Maras gave humanity the opportunity to remember. Aren't these the wonders of cinema?
Sometimes I want to see a good new movie. Considering that movies about spiders and robots for teenagers are shown in cinemas, you turn to the all-powerful Internet and, in particular, the opinions of Kinopoisk. This movie's rating is 7.7. The description is evasive, and reviews promised intense action for 2 hours. I knew the story from the documentary chronicles. I thought about it and decided to look at it.
After 2 hours of viewing, I wanted to go and write an angry review of a completely empty movie. But I took a week-long pause with the thought that it was not worth it to get hot. It has been a week. I wrote a review and realized there was nothing to write about. The movie is empty as a drum. You understand that in 2 hours you can not cling to any character. The “workshop” work of the director and screenwriter has built the picture so that there is not a single positive or negative character. Of course, attempts were made to pity the audience for a mixed American-Indian family, tourists from the United States or a pretty Sith. But very weak. I tried to draw parallels with Die Hard 1 (they are really there), but it is useless. Of course, that movie was much more intense for its time. Immediately, the attempt to make a documentary picture completely depersonalized all the characters. I never understood the authors’ motive. This is one of the most documented terrorist attacks. A detailed film from National Geographic. Why?
And yes, the film was not without the clichés required for Hollywood. The presence of an American hero who is ready to give his life for his family and a rude Russian hebista - well, how about without this.
My opinion. The film was made for an audience that is not aware of the incident. The script is very simplistic. Just not the best adapted course of real events. The images and motives of terrorists are poorly disclosed, although this aspect is very interesting and focusing on this side of the problem could multiply the picture. As a result, everything went down the simplification with a bias on the number of bullets fired, corpses and fear of the inhabitants attacked. Instead of a thriller, a cheap suspense for young people was shot. Take a look at a National Geographic documentary about the events in Mumbai. It's much more interesting.
3 out of 10
And more. I realized that I would no longer trust the assessments in Kinopoisk.
The theme of terrorism is gradually returning to the big and small screens in parallel with a new increase in terrorist attacks. However, times are changing and the face of modern terrorism has also changed from a bullied European worker to a bearded Eastern one. How have the goals that have brought religious strife back into trend?
On the wave of popularity of paintings based on real events, there was a film about one of the largest and most resonant terrorist attacks in Mumbai (formerly Bombay). At the helm of the project stood the screenwriter “Master of the seven seas” and “the Man who sued God” John Coley and debutant a big movie Anthony Maras.
The film takes the viewer to Mumbai in 2008. A group of Pakistani militants, dispersed in different parts of the city, begins shooting the population, gradually moving to the elite hotel “Taj Mahal Palace”, a place where even rich people could not escape the fatal fate.
From the very first shots, Hotel Mumbai destroys the already established stereotype of semi-documentary paintings associated with inevitable boredom. The creative team of the project literally throws the viewer into the epicenter of events and the horror that is happening around, forcing them to practically feel with their skin what the victims of this inhuman crime had to endure. Although, of course, no cinematic instruments are able to convey the atmosphere of real events of this scale, but there is always an opportunity to try to do it as approximate as possible. With this task, the Hotel Mumbai copes perfectly: suspense is the main plus of the picture and the tension will not leave the viewer throughout the entire timekeeping. And everything would be fine if this thriller remained as impersonal as possible, but in places the characters’ characters, their motivation, mixed with refined-pathetic monologues and the characterization of the antagonists as “evil, representing evil because it is evil” endow the film with rather strange ideas. In a country with an existing caste system and an abyss between rich and poor, it is the latter who are ready to selflessly save the rich from other countries. After all, one of them must certainly “treat with understanding” and a little patience, humbly agreeing with dubious statements in the spirit of “Our guest is God.” Among other things, and without a pinch of stereotypical cranberries did not do: Vasily Archevsky performed by Jason Isaacs is a classic collective template from a mix of oligarchs who choose girls for the evening on the call and a thief in law with tattoos and violent temper. Everything is like in the series about Chernobyl: people are heroes, but cause rejection, as they are shown by a short-sighted, scratchy cattle. And, despite the magnificently done artwork and suspense, the picture fails to somehow analyze the tragedy that occurred.
Pros: Production, plot, suspense.
Cons: a superficial scenario full of contradictory stereotypes and pathetic remarks.
It's a good movie. A well-thought-out, in some categories, certainly masterfully worked product. With the right emotional background in the moral context. There is no social commentary rich in controversial extremes. Terrorism is very, very bad. That's the fable. To condemn the scenario for not tragically written fate of the sheep with automatic weapons aimed at unarmed guests and revelers, does not allow civic consciousness.
But it, this consciousness, requires to note exceptionally inspiring sketches of civic heroism. Those that can strengthen faith in the legal ideals of society. Which is probably enough. The obvious embellishment of real events in order blur the eye, generate in the head some not relevant to the compassionate plan of the nitpicking level of “monetization of someone else’s tragedy”. But here is a stone in my garden that has forgotten how to soak up commercial Hollywood products outside of political agendas.
And off the subpoenas, it's an adrenaline action thriller. Carrying parallel non-genre chanting of collective responsibility, mutual respect, but without a boring mentor tone. The dosage but painstakingly realistic scenes of violence are indeed horrifying in the context of trampling on humanism, rather than feeding the sadistic starving. The flaw is not the most diligent adherence to the logic of the narrative. However, many roughness smooth the performing zeal actors, Dev Patel in particular. The Sikh came out of it very stereotypical, but still soulful.
7 out of 10
About the incident before the release of the film I had not heard, because before watching a few articles about this incident and it was hard to believe that something absurd and true could happen in a large, modern city.
Then, after watching the film, that sense of restless misunderstanding increased even more. Watching the movie was hard and scary. Although I have to admit, I'm not a shy or squeamish person. I watched both typical horror films and military dramas, where cruelty and death were several dozen per minute of screen time, but I had not experienced such a feeling of anxiety for a long time.
The film perfectly conveys the atmosphere of how people are trapped and trying to survive by all means. No heroism, no theatrical pathos, but just hiding, helping people like you as much as possible and hoping that you will not be found. It was hard to see obvious, violent things develop in a logical way. Next, it will be difficult to add anything, without revealing the details of the plot - the film needs to watch and feel the very situation in which all these people found themselves.
Everyone who was involved in the film, in my opinion, played well. Dialogues, emotions - it was believed that yes, a person is capable of such behavior, actions and emotions in such a situation. Separately, I would like to say about Jason Isaacs, who played a retired Russian officer - he again pleased. Previously, I liked the role of Zhukov in “Death of Stalin” and here also pleased with his charisma and audacity, although sometimes it looked a little comical, but in moderation.
I really liked the film and left a double feeling. On the one hand, the film is very high quality, diligently and you can see it in all the details, but it is precisely because of the incident that the film covers, as well as other issues that the film touches - mainly religious motives of terrorists, that make you think about how crazy the world and the people who live in it can be, which is very frightening.
I highly recommend the film, who is interested in the incident.
I can't help but quote the gorgeous Jason Isaacs:
“Fuck you with your prayers. Because of them, it all started.