RainDogJr I saw The Darjeeling Limited on the big screen (during the 49 Muestra International de Cine back in 2007) and certainly I saw this short film, now that I added to my collection the DVD of the film I saw Hotel Chevalier for the second time. In The Darjeeling Limited the great Bill Murray has a very little appearance, is a great very first scene of the film with Murray but there's nothing that will connect Murray's character with our three main characters that are played by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman (just that he tried to take the train that our main characters took). Natalie Portman appears less than Murray in Wes Anderson's latest film to date (his next project, Fantastic Mr. Fox, is going to be released on 6 November 2009 in the US), actually she only appears in one sequence for some seconds, she has no dialog, during the whole film, during the time in India she is not present, but only physically. Here there's nothing very clear, well the reasons are certainly not clear but of cure the actions upon those things that happened are more than clear. Jason Schwartzman is great as Jack Whitman but well I guess those complements would be better in my comment for the feature film. Here is all quite strange once Portman's character arrives to the hotel Chevalier, "what the f*** is going on?" she asks, and the song "Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)" (completely unknown by me until I saw this short film, now I carry the soundtrack of The Darjeeling Limited in my iPod) stops just before the first kiss after at least more than a month happens. 10 out of 10

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).

Gordon-11 This film is about the relationship between two characters in a hotel room.As a standalone film, I am not sure "Hotel Chevalier" works. Is the plot the only excuse to get Natalie Portman completely naked? And is there really a plot? It seems to be trying to say something between the two characters, but I don't know what. Maybe ambivalence? Or Natalie Portman's character is trying to shut Jason Schwartzman off? I am not so sure. After watching the short film I am very confused about everything.The hotel room is very nice, the sets are well decorated, and the scenes are thoughtfully composed. However, these are not enough to make a film watchable.I am sure it will make more sense after watching The Darjeeling Limited. So why make this as a standalone film, and not integrate it into the main film?

richard_sleboe Designed as a semi-independent prelude to "The Darjeeling Limited", "Hotel Chevalier" proves that ten minutes of Wes Anderson's wizardry are worth more than many another big-budget director's feature-length film. It's a study in the pain and the lust only love can bring, as well as a variation of Anderson's trademark motif, control. Where "The Darjeeling Limited" bubbles over with substance abuse, poisonous snakes, restroom romps, brotherly affection and fatal accidents, "Hotel Chevalier" is a quiet and slightly eerie two-character mini drama set in a lavish Merchant-Ivory style suite. The suite's sole resident is a reclusive control-freak writer in a long-distance relationship (Jason Schwartzman). We watch as he half enjoys, half endures a surprise visit by his control-freak girlfriend (Natalie Portman). Is she a woman of flesh and blood, or is she just an imaginary incarnation of the jet-setting girl from "Where do you go to my lovely", the song Peter keeps playing on his portable stereo? There's no knowing what's real and what isn't in Anderson's paper moon world. But the importance of fact and fiction fades as she reclines on the bed and has Peter take off her spike-heeled boots. It's the most emotionally and sexually loaded scene I have seen in a long time, like a 20-second tango. It seems some of Natalie Portman's best work is done in shorts set in Paris. Remember Tom Tykwer's "True"?