Bad Times at the El Royale: A Modern and Underrated Version of "Clue"

Ajouté : 2026-06-04

[00:00:00]Do you ever just completely forget about a movie that you've seen before and then years later you kind of come across it and you go, "Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time." Well, that was the case for me with Bad Times at the El Royale. I've been in the mood to watch some good mystery movies that I have never seen before and that list is pretty short, admittedly, and that's kind of come to an end. So, I had to go to the mystery genre on my shelf. Yes, that's how I separate my movies by genre. I don't want to hear anything about alphabetical order in the comments. And I dusted off my copy of the movie. It's been years since I've seen Bad Times at the El Royale. So long, in fact, that I kind of forgot the major plot points, the ending, and a lot of the reveals throughout the movie.

[00:00:49]But, I did remember the general premise, the absolute powerhouse list of actors involved, and that this movie was directed by Drew Goddard, the same person who directed The Cabin in the Woods. And it got me thinking, why did I forget about this movie? And why has it become so forgotten so quickly? If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend going to watch it before proceeding with the video. There's going to be spoilers from this point forward, but let's head on over to the El Royale and uncover its many secrets.

[00:01:35]So, for those who need a refresher or just ignoring the spoiler warning, Bad Times at the El Royale takes place at the El Royale Hotel in 1969. The hotel stands on the state line between Nevada and California. One side is in one state, the other side is in the other state. So, we have a cast of characters who arrive here, vacuum salesman Laramie Seymour Sullivan, played by Jon Hamm, Father Daniel Flynn, Jeff Bridges, Emily Summer Spring, Dakota Johnson, and Darlene Sweet, played by Cynthia Erivo.

[00:02:07]While some are open about why they're at the hotel, others are cagey and a bit off-putting. These are the only guests that check into the hotel. There's only one person working here, which is Miles, played by Lewis Pullman doing his best Tom Holland impression. And apparently, the reason for such few visitors is that the El Royale had its gambling license revoked a few years back. But it's not too soon afterwards that we see three-fourths of the people who are here are lying about what they're actually doing here. So, we have these four people who arrive at the hotel. There's one singular person in charge, and all of them, in some way, are hiding something. Does this sound similar to anything? If you said Clue, then yeah, you're exactly correct. This is essentially the same setup that Clue offers. While they weren't specifically invited to the hotel, they just happened to all arrive there at the same time, it is still very similar. Now, from here on out, we get some more insight and really the background of each four of these characters, starting with Laramie Seymour Sullivan, who seems to be really great at catching bugs for a vacuum salesman. And that's of course because he's not a vacuum salesman after all.

[00:03:18]He's actually an undercover FBI agent named Dwight Broadbeck, investigating the El Royale under direct orders from J. Edgar Hoover himself. What exactly is he investigating? I'll get to that in a bit. But through his point of view, he finds this secret hallway that gives us a look into the other guests who also clearly have secrets to hide themselves.

[00:03:39]Some of them innocent, others not so much. But we also know that these people, even before this scene, aren't who they say they are because, well, it is a mystery movie. But even just the arrival scene a little bit earlier.

[00:03:54]Sullivan does a majority of the talking, almost like he's trying to convince everybody that this is who he truly is.

[00:04:01]He puts on accents, he talks about his backstory, while everybody else is very shelled off. When Miles brings out the signature book for everybody to sign, we have Sullivan who signs an almost expertly crafted signature, the father who seems to have some difficulty with his, Emily who doesn't write her name at all, and Darlene who also seems to have a great signature. Probably because it's her actual name. While the father's signature could be deemed as just old age and his health problems, it's also a hint that it's a very shaky alibi. But most obviously, Emily doesn't actually leave her name because it's her who's on the run with a seemingly kidnapped younger girl. So of course we get some more information here that this kidnapped girl is actually her younger sister who's been indoctrinated into this cult led by none other than Chris Hemsworth. So she's more or less cleared of suspicion, but what about the father digging up the floorboards, which seems to connect back to the opening scene of the movie where Wait a minute. Nick Offerman digs up the floorboards to hide something underneath them. Hot take here, but I don't really think that this father is a real father after all. Oh, and that's true because he and Nick Offerman were bank robbers and Ron hid the money underneath the floorboards. See, I knew it. I'm like a master of mystery, I guess. So that's three people who are either hiding why they're here or are just flat out pretending to be somebody that they're not, leaving just one, and that's Darlene. During her backstory, we learn that she really is a singer, but it's cheaper to stay in hotels outside the city. So that's why she's here.

[00:05:36]Pretty rough time to choose to stay at the El Royale when all these people get there. So we have these four or technically five people staying here, all from different backgrounds and reasons, but during this rewatch, I kind of found myself wondering why? What's so important about the El Royale? Sure, it's a cool location, there's clearly something off about it, but it's just a seemingly random reason that it takes place here.

[00:06:02]Or is it?

[00:06:04]>> [music] >> So, what exactly is the El Royale Hotel?

[00:06:14]We get some good insight to this when Detective Broadbeck calls J. Edgar Hoover. He was sent there to get the remaining evidence that was left there, but when he sees a potential kidnapping in progress, Broadbeck wants to interfere and save this girl, though Hoover makes it clear not to interfere.

[00:06:31]But, that's exactly what he does. He underestimates his opponent, and he gets literally blasted for it. So, what is this evidence that Hoover is talking about? Our greatest inclination is this tape that Miles tells Father Flynn about. It's supposedly incriminating evidence against a popular official figure, but we aren't shown or told who this person is or what was explicitly on it. So, the next question becomes, what was on the tape? Now, I'll get to that one, too, but first, I got to go over some other stuff. I guess one of the things I was disappointed in on this rewatch was the whole state line gimmick because at the end of the day, it really is kind of just a gimmick. Sure, Miles talks about how California rooms cost a dollar more, and they can only serve liquor in California and not Nevada, but that's really the only distinction made between the two different sets of rooms in the two different states. And, I'm not totally sure what my complaint is here. I just feel like that whole thing was like probably like a log line of the movie or like a selling point. Like, "Oh, it's a hotel that takes place on two different states." I feel like they could have done more with that concept.

[00:07:37]Maybe the self-defense laws are different from California to Nevada, and some of the murders that happened are actually just self-defense, and some of them in the others are just plain out murder. Maybe the statute of limitations is different in one state or another, so the money that was buried in the room is technically nobody's money now. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a YouTuber. I don't know if any of those things are true or not. I guarantee you they're not, but I just feel like this is an aspect of the movie that could have and should have been expanded on.

[00:08:08]Sure, it's this metaphor for what's right and what's wrong and the gray area that all of these characters are kind of operating in and how nothing in this movie is right or wrong, but that metaphor just didn't really pack a punch or like deliver it all that well, at least it didn't for me. I also feel like some of the reveals in this movie just come across a bit flat, or at least like out of order. We see the father digging up the floorboards. This seems like a massive reveal that's just casually brought to our attention along with when he goes to drug Darlene's drink. And while her hitting him with the wine bottle is a great and unexpected moment, it does seem a bit extreme given her character's mostly innocent backstory.

[00:08:51]Emily shoots the detective and somebody's behind the wall. Well, we know who's behind the wall and the fact that there's a behind the wall in the first place. I feel like with a movie like this, pacing and the reveals along that pacing is the most important part of the film. And for a large part of that movie, I just feel like a lot of it is out of order. Let Jon Hamm's character be a creep and then reveal that he was this agent trying to do what's right after he breaks into the room. This movie is non-linear, and that is one of its strengths. Seeing the interlaced storylines and points of view is the highlight of the second act, but some of these things just aren't given enough emphasis, or I feel like they come across a bit flat. I almost think like there could be a re-edit of this movie, maybe saving some of the characters' backstories and reveals for afterwards. Like I feel like it's weird that we start off with Jon Hamm's backstory and learn that he's the FBI agent. I feel like that one should have been probably one of the last backstories that we learn. Introduce the tape to us and talk a little bit about what's on it and then eventually go into Jon Hamm's backstory, Laramie Seymour Sullivan, and introduce the idea that, "Oh, he's an FBI agent. That clearly must be what he's after." that tape.

[00:10:05]Then the reveal of there being something behind the mirror would also be that much more shocking if we didn't already know that there was something behind the mirror. I feel like a re-edit could have done a lot more for the story and the characters in the story. More specifically, the dynamic between the two sisters. I feel like this is supposed to be an emotional through-line of the film, the sisterhood doing everything you can for your loved ones.

[00:10:30]And while initially I think this comes across, the way the story ends feels like they just needed to kill off some more characters. Two-thirds of the way through the movie there's like two different groups forming. There's of course the sisters, but then there's also Father Flynn and Darlene, who the and their dynamic is the actual emotional core of the movie. Early on we see how affected the father is by Darlene singing, so much so that even though his mind isn't what it used to be, he invites her out to try and see if there's anything to eat or drink, just to get some more company. While he has ulterior motives for this invitation, trying to get her out of the room so that way he can dig up her floorboards, they do share a sincere moment. And I got to say, Jeff Bridges delivers a phenomenal performance. I mean, duh, he always does, but I'd even say that this is like a top 10 Jeff Bridges performance, and I know that that's saying something, but he is. He really is that good and he raises the quality of the movie single-handedly. But once these two sides are formed, we have the tape, we have something important there.

[00:11:32]We have the money.

[00:11:34]Here comes Billy Lee.

[00:11:41]So, I think the thing that I found the most strange on this rewatch was I used to like the first and second act of this movie and then the third act I felt like kind of got away from what I wanted it to be. Now, I think that acts two and three are great and I actually think that some of the reveals and some of the setup in the first act isn't all that well done. Funny how time can just change your perspective on these things.

[00:12:05]But anyways, to talk about Billy Lee, first we have to talk about something that was set up earlier in the film.

[00:12:11]Something that was said on this 1960s television and that's this.

[00:12:16]>> The murders of noted Malibu County pediatrician Bernard Webber and his wife Ethylene >> From what we see of Billy's cult, we see that they are very clearly willing to do some aggressive or violent things to get what they want. And this all comes into play in the third act. Throughout the film, we see flashes of Rose seemingly enacting an act of violence, which is presumably the murder of this couple on the TV, which reminds the audience of Charles Manson and what his cult did back in the 1960s. So, when Billy Lee arrives, the film quickly becomes a Tarantino movie third act. Lots of violence, reveals, and just overall shocking moments. Maybe this is why I didn't like the third act when I first watched it because I'm not a Tarantino fan. I think I held that as some like badge of honor as a film bro in college. Now, I just don't like him because his stuff just doesn't do anything for me. I don't know. I'm not a feet guy. Billy is able to see through the father's disguise and when he interrupts Darlene's singing saying that he's heard better, that's an insult too far for Father Flann. The hotel is set ablaze. There's gunfire and people falling left and right, but we also see Miles' backstory, how he was in Vietnam, and he's no stranger to violence himself. The film ends with the father, really Doc O'Kelly, going to listen to Darlene perform.

[00:13:41]What a nice ending.

[00:13:43]But, um what was on that tape?

[00:13:48]>> [music] >> Miles specifically tells the father he shouldn't be here, that bad things happen here. So, he tells Miles that's exactly where he should be. J. Edgar Hoover tells Broadbeck that he shouldn't engage with the kidnapping, and he should just focus on trying to get the evidence from the hotel. The father finds this evidence. It's eventually brought out, and everybody says it's a recognizable figure, but it's never stated who. And it's also stated that the man on it is now dead. To answer who's on the tape, you have to first realize that the El Royale Hotel is based on a real hotel from the '60s, the Cal Neva. Um real creative name for a hotel that is on the California-Nevada state line.

[00:14:31]But, many famous figures visited this hotel, including Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys. When the hotel reopened in 2001, several employees went on record talking about the rooms, who stayed in them, and the catacombs that were underneath the hotel. Given that Marilyn Monroe's picture is at the hotel, insinuating that she stayed there at one point, given that everybody knew who it was on the tape, it's heavily insinuated that the person on this tape was JFK.

[00:15:00]But, this also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Miles says that he never sent the tape forward to management because the person on the tapes was nice to him, and nobody was ever nice to him, so he kept it. This movie takes place in 1969, but Miles says that he saw this figure last year. So, that means it can't possibly be JFK because he died on 11/22/63, something I learned from the TV show 11/22/63.

[00:15:26]And also, you know, general history knowledge. Go watch that video. But, even the director Drew Goddard has talked about the film's connection with the real hotel and the rumors around JFK surrounding it. So, it seems awfully purposeful that he never names JFK and we never know who it is on the tapes because well, it doesn't matter who's on the tapes. The director of the FBI sent an agent to this hotel to collect this information, to disregard the kidnapping in progress because it wasn't important. Miles talks about how he's seen and done terrible things and sent the tapes up to management, an entity that we don't learn anything about throughout the entirety of the movie. The whole point of this tape and this plot line and what it's doing in the movie is it doesn't matter who's on the tape. It was somebody higher up. It was somebody who had connections. It was somebody important and they were never going to face the consequences of their actions.

[00:16:20]But, at the hotel, we have these guests, this woman who's trying to make it as a singer, an old man with dementia trying to get some money, a sister trying to save her sibling, and an FBI agent who goes against his orders to try and do what's right. Meanwhile, a cult interferes and doesn't let any of this get out. The whole point of this is that all of these smaller people, all of these smaller figures are too busy fighting with each other instead of trying to fight the bigger fight, the more important fight in that sense. And because of this, I think that this movie is actually more topical today than it was even just a couple years ago in 2018. I guess the moral of this video is to go and rewatch that movie you've been thinking about rewatching. Maybe it's a movie you recently relearned about or you thought about and you're like, "Oh, man, I haven't seen that in a while."

[00:17:13]Maybe you kind of liked it or maybe you wish you liked it more, but if you've been thinking about it, go watch it.

[00:17:19]You've been through things the past couple years, probably since you last watched it, that if you could tell your younger self about you would never have expected. Maybe you'll have a whole different perspective. Maybe you'll like it a whole lot more. Maybe you'll find like I did different parts of the movie that you like more than the first time you watched it or I don't know, maybe you just might hate it. But go watch that movie. It'll probably give you a whole new perspective on yourself that you didn't have before. And also watch this movie, too.

[00:17:45]>> Yeah.