The Inn (2004) User Reviews (6)

Hitchcock-ish but Overkill.

[susangcentineo · 5/10 · 6 June 2006]

With any movie there are the good things and the bad things. Here's a list of both:

1. The scenes and the lighting and the shots from a technical perspective were obviously the director's focus. Hitchcock-ish. The puzzle pieces moving seen from UNDER the glass table was cool and spooky. This aspect of that and many scenes was AWESOME! Pepi Singh Khara has an eye for composition, for shooting from the unusual angle. A+

But... there was too much of it. It was the director's focus, which is what made it great, but also what killed the story. There was too much of it. Straight-up filming of the STORY, more of the story itself, was needed to BALANCE out the technical genius.

2. Slow-moving, yes. One kept waiting for something BIG to happen, and it jumped all over the place, the people were confused. Why? THE ACTORS LOOKED ALIKE! Three young women with long dark hair and the same bodies. Several young men with dark hair and the same bodies. They looked so alike that it seriously took half the film to figure out who was who. This I heard from someone else in the theater who could not discern who was who because there was no contrast. (Except the Indian guy.) Next time, the director needs to make the main characters look different from one another. Blondes. Short hair and long hair. Different personalities. They were all kind of the same in personality, too, kind of flat, quiet.

4. Dialogue was poor, I give it an D-. Not enough. Too simplistic. Too hokey and exaggerated (like the country people). When that gossipy lady with diarrhea of the mouth was telling her story, she said something like this:

"It was the depression."

Pause.

"People were starving."

Pause.

"They had to eat."

As one who has an acute ear for all things verbal, the dialogue needed lots of help. Fire the writer. Immediately. There needs to be a richness and authenticity of dialogue to keep people in the audience engaged. And when the actors did speak - they spoke SOOOO slowly.

5. The actress who was a cheerleader was good and had a nice body. Her nude scene was cool. She and Farrin's husband ESPECIALLY were the best actors I think. Of course the inn keeper was a HOOT, and she really held it together because she was the villain and she had that wild laugh and she was so mean! Good casting there, very good! So the old black dude was her "reluctant lover," eh? YEESH! The scene with her laying in the bed all white and doughy after having been "serviced" is permanently etched into my memory. Now, that was a good STORY scene, and it was pretty straight-up, too. Not every single scene has to be angled or Hitchcock-ish. Overkill.

Moral: The story has to be credible. Even a ghost story has to have supporting CREDIBLE details. History has to be accurate. You can't distract the audience with things they know to be implausible. They lose sight of the STORY.

On the way out of the movie someone said this: "It was full of non sequiters, unresolved scenes." What happened to the Indian guy? His jealous surveillance just trailed off into nothing. It had no relevance to the story. What was up with the nosebleeds? Several nosebleeds, no explanation. The old guy who had the dolls stolen died from his nosebleed - why? The junkie stabs the girl, the scene ends - why didn't he kill the other one too? What happened, did he just run away? The cops show up and ignore the husband cradling his dead wife. Only one body is wheeled away - the black guy. No attention to the husband, to the dead woman? This is either a story issue or an editing issue. The baby left in the basket - was this the black guy trying to save ONE of the children? Did motormouth raise her? How did she get from basket baby to grown up in Baltimore?

THAT is a key, key point, if nothing else the director should take that one to heart because it sums up a key problem in one sentence, and underscores my number 1 above, the MAIN problem: The director is so immersed in the creation of admittedly FANTASTIC scene layouts, lighting, angles, and the technical end of things that he left the story dangling, scene after scene after scene. Coupled with poor or nonexistent dialogue and actors who all look alike, the audience is beat.

I think an audience could actually take all that IF there are some small climaxes and one grand finale that takes their breath away. We knew what happened way too soon also, so there was no climax even.

GOOD details: The whispered, "Are you here to help us?" SPOOKY! Inn keeper in the bed, black daddy getting dressed with an air of disgust. HA! The puzzle pieces moving - YES! Even the Skeptic loved that one. Very smooth shooting of the moving car. One could feel the movement. Smooth. The ghostly figures of kids running around. Spookiness and pathos combined. Needed more of it. Farrin and her husband in bed - he was so genuine. No sense of contrivance. One wanted more of THAT.) Inn keeper's insane laughter and OPEN MOUTH as she was being led away in handcuffs - wild! So there ya have it!

The director's last film "Far from India" was far better. My 2 cents: "It was shot more simply and the creative scenes enhanced that one, this time they were just one after the other after the other. The director forgot about the story this time."

Director may have attempted to offset acting w/ visual

[stratowing · 5/10 · 19 December 2009]

I've noticed several comments sort of said the same thing: "the director tended to focus more on creating visual artistry and thus story-telling, dialog suffered" (or similar words)... to which I'd like to offer this: perhaps the director, being an indy filmmaker was of the mindset, "I only have amateur actors, thus dialog / acting will be sub-par. Therefore I'll try to offset that with cool visuals, etc. " ? just a thought.

I haven't seen this film, but would like to see some of Mr. Singh Khara's work in the near future. I'm now just writing sentences because IMDb has this bizarre rule which won't allow me to post until I have enough sentences, but you see, i'm finished talking, so I'll just amble on...

Awful Mess

[claudio_carvalho · 2/10 · 28 September 2007]

The snoopy reporter Jackie (Kelly Sue Roth) proposes the television producer Gilbert (Nitin Adsul) to investigate the small town of Buckeystown, Maryland, where in the last twenty years dozen of disappearances have occurred. Gilbert accepts and Jackie together with a cameraman drive to the local inn. Meanwhile, a young couple arrives in the inn since the husband will have a job interview in a video company of the town. Jackie interviews the reluctant locals and realizes that the common sense is that travelers and non-residents are abducted by UFOs in the haunted highway Route 180. However, she unravels a dark hidden secret from the elders of Buckeystown.

I am a fan of horror movies and also low-budget movies, but unfortunately "The Inn" is an awful mess. The concept of the dark story is not bad, with a small town that had serious difficulties in the past and the population to survive eats human flesh and becomes addicted insane cannibals, killing foreigners to satisfy their needs. However, the screenplay is completely dissociated between scenes and without a previous development (and even names) of the characters. The time-line is also confused, mixing day and night, i.e., in one scene it is day, and the next one it is night. The amateurish camera and lighting are terrible, using weird angles, and the edition is illogical. The unknown cast is reasonable, and the beautiful Kelly Sue Roth deserved a better make-up, since the DVD highlights the acne in her face. The movie seems to be dubbed in English, without the use of ambient sound. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "The Inn - Mistérios na Pousada" ("The Inn - Mysteries in the Inn")

A movie maker who is definitely going to "happen"

[yazzcudd-1 · 9/10 · 5 July 2006]

The world premiere screening of THE INN was a memorable event. Pepi Singh Khara is clearly a genius on the way to the very big time as a world class movie producer.

There was quite a large turnout of people (not just VIPs, friends, paparazzi, reporters and movie industry people) for his premiere at the Tivoli Theatre. THE INN (2004 Frederick Films) is Pepi's second movie, following FAR FROM India (2002 Frederick Films). Pepi's skill as a cinematographer who moves his camera like a ballet star helped THE INN's success, and so did his casting of Baltimore Raven's former football cheerleader Kelly Sue Roth, who does a steamy, full undress bedroom love scene in the movie which made the audience gasp with delight.

Pepi didn't light the faces of his actors well but neither do lots of other independent film producers (see recent reviews I've written of indie movies which opened recently). Maybe indie movie producers have some sort of unwritten agreement to AVOID the classic cinematographer's use of a "Key Light" and a "Fill Light" when actor close ups occur. I dunno. But I like lit faces. So minus 1 point of my rating for that! But what do I know, because...

The audience loved the movie, regardless of the lack of lit faces for the actors.

It's only Pepi's second movie, and coming ones he plans will get better and better. Maybe he'll even use Key Lights and Fill Lights for actor closeups. I hope so.

Meanwhile, look at the (incredible) job Pepi did and does in selling his movies and getting big movie-house audiences and placement of his movies on cable TV and in Film Festivals. Check out his movie preview and look at its polish and wonderful detail and no wonder people go see his films.

The result of Pepi's job selling his movie opening was that the lower level was filled (about 700 people). The audience sat happy and attentive through the entire screening, and walked out smiling.

Film buffs pay attention to Pepi Singh Khara! And get to know his work! He's a movie maker who is definitely going to "happen" (nationally and probably internationally).

Remember how Samuel Goldfish, the glove salesman who became Samuel Goldwyn, the movie mogul? Well, Pepi Singh Khara is headed in the same direction!

The plot is the only Mystery in "The Inn"

[gazettewriter · 6/10 · 27 October 2005]

While the film is a high-quality visually artistic expression from a relatively new director (Pepi Singh Khara) it never establishes a purpose and the viewer is often left wondering what is happening or where the action is even taking place. Too many attempts at a Hitchcockian style of shooting and too few establishing shots keep one guessing not "what's going to happen next?" but more often "what just happened?" An excellent score (provided by native Los Angelino and veteran composer Vincent Gillioz) helps compensate for the poor audio mixing and inconsistent dialogue volume. Performances from the relatively unknown cast range from passable-at-best to downright good and it's clear that there are a few rising stars among them. Although moving at a sluggish pace at times, the film finally comes to life when police are called to investigate a murder. The officers bring charisma and a much needed purpose to the film but sadly it is too little too late.

"The Inn" has enjoyable visuals.

[elizabethdee · 7/10 · 21 May 2006]

Well, I'd have to say this film was too 'artsy' for the average public audience. There were lots of nifty shots and use of industry this-n-thats that were well done, but the story line(s) were a bit hard to follow. The average audience isn't interested in how spectacular the artistic view is... they want a story to follow and get wrapped up in. That was a bit hard to do here.

I understand this was a learning project for the director. However, viewers might be happier knowing that prior to watching the film. Most watchers probably will have expectations of something similar to the director's first feature film "Far From India" where there was an easy-to-follow story line with good dialog.

I have to say, though, that being a huge fan of thrillers, I did enjoy the visuals. They did entertain me. Had I not been into such a genre, I might have felt differently. But, there were some nice shots that looked exceptionally professional.

"The Inn" will probably do well on the industry circuit, as those venues look more for artistic creation and development. After all: to what are we comparing this film? To other independent film makers who have only made 2 feature films on a nil budget OR to the big guys with the 20 million dollar budgets whose movies we've been watching our entire lives?