User Reviews

Can a film be absurd, funny, exciting, violent and colourful at the same time? Yes. 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' combines all those elements. And I didn't even mention the most important characteristic: it is visually wonderful.

In this film, director Wes Anderson creates his own universe, full of colourful characters, old-world charm and witty one-liners. The nice thing about creating your own universe is that you can make it look perfect. Every shot, every little detail and every set is flawless. From lead character Gustave H.'s purple jacket to the title of the newspaper announcing the war (The Trans-Alpine Yodel) - Anderson has given thought and attention to everything.

The story is not very important, because it is merely a vehicle for the stunning visuals, the dark humour and the rapid-fire dialogue. It's all about a hotel concierge, Gustave H., who is being chased by various villains for stealing a painting. All this is set against the backdrop of the Nazis invading Central Europe (although in Anderson's fantasy world they are not called Nazis of course). Some of the scenes are very funny, but there is always a darker tone because of the looming war. Anderson doesn't shy away from extreme violence, but he shows it in an offbeat and almost comical manner.

My favourite scene, in which it all comes together, shows concierges in hotels all over Europe, calling each other to help Gustave H. Each of them is shown in his hotel (with a wonderful fantasy name of course), busy doing some important job like tasting the soup or giving first aid to an unconscious hotel guest, when he is being called away to the telephone. Each hands the job over to his assistant, and answers the phone. This fast succession of little scenes is done so perfectly, it's a great joy to watch.

Ralph Fiennes steals the show as the sophisticated Gustave H., who never despairs, even in the most unfavourable circumstances. He is supported by a large number of star actors, who are sometimes almost unrecognizable. Because of the amount of support actors, some of them are a bit underused. Tilda Swinton gets rather little screen time, as does Harvey Keitel.

The film moves forward at a breakneck speed. You have to be very alert in order not to miss something. The plot is not always very easy to follow, and the dialogue is fast. And there are the great camera angles and the wonderful detailed sets to pay attention to. I think by seeing the film a second time you can discover lots of things you didn't notice the first time.

A former lobby boy, Zero Moustafaw tells a story to a writer, who tells this tale of a hotel, it's guests and the outstanding concierge Monsieur Gustav H to us. It's about (blind) loyalty, duty beyond the required, greed, stupidity, love for women in any age ... and the power of influence when treating persons with the grace of that person's beauty.

It's (black) comedy at its best. The ridiculous becomes brilliant through cleverly constructed dialog, impeccable executed timing and timbre change. Many camera shots are little art pieces like in Moonrise Kingdom, beautifully constructed with cuts that ad to the timing, visually. The production design takes you from the shabby to over-the-top kitsch to breath taking wooden interiors and mountains. The CGI reminds me of Monty Python, deliberately unrealistic which is part of the humor yet makes it at the same time oddly believable.

Never thought of Ralph Fiennes as a comedic actor. He convinced me here. Tony Revolori as young Zero Saoirse Ronan as Agatha are remarkable. And then there were: F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Léa Seydoux, Harvey Keitel, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, (I think I saw George Cloony for 2 sec)... Just to be able to get all these heavy weights to sign up for minor roles, demands respect. To get them all set their mark in a few minutes, is awesome.

"He retained the illusion with remarkable grace." is one of the last lines in the movie. It describes both the main character and also the heart of the movie. This is a real 9 - beauty combined with dirt, great cinematography with dry jokes and art with silliness. If you like to be amazed, see something out of the ordinary, are able to go with a flow, you will LOVE this movie.

Interesting sets, beautifully locations, wooden characters. Too much of the story takes places in trains, a prison and the countryside. I really wish more of the plot had taken place in the hotel. Following a confusing beginning (there is a double flashback), the story took off without any real direction or reason. When the movie ended, many people in the audience applauded. My feeling was "that's it?" All the ingredients were there but the cake didn't rise.

Still, I'm not sorry I saw the movie. It was different and that's always refreshing in a time of cookie-cutter plots.

At one point I noticed that the movie was no longer being shown in widescreen but more of a television aspect ratio. Once the movie returned to 1985 or the present, it was widescreen. Weird.

Wes Anderson is back at it again with another one of his quirkfests, this time entirely convincing most critics that he's crafted a masterpiece. Most are mesmerized by the production design, which truly deserves an Academy Award. Anderson opted to use miniatures for wide shots of the hotel and did extensive research for the interiors. The Görlitzer Warenhaus, a defunct German department store which survived World War II, was a stand-in for the Grand Budapest's lobby. Anderson's cinematography, which features all kinds of shots from unusual angles was probably another reason the critics were so impressed with the film (take note of the prison escape scene in particular). But I believe critic Stephanie Zacharek of The Village Voice gets it right when she concludes that Anderson's narrative, is wholly one-note in nature: "This meticulously appointed doll house of a movie just went on and on, making me want to smash many miniature plates of plaster food in frustration."

The narrative begins when a famous author in 1985 recounts a visit he made to the then decaying Grand Budapest Hotel in 1968; he then met the owner, Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), who recounts his days as a lobby boy at the hotel in 1932. The hotel is located in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a remnant of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. One is reminded of the Marx Brother's take on their own fictional Balkan Republic, "Freedonia," but alas in Anderson's "homage," there are no laughs!

Ralph Fiennes plays M. Gustave, the concierge at the hotel, who takes Zero, the young lobby boy (who is the narrator of the story in his old age), under his wing. Gustave, an admitted bisexual, has been having a very brief affair with the elderly owner of the hotel, "Madame D," who soon dies under mysterious circumstances. She bequeaths a rare painting, "Boy with Apple," which enrages the Madame's son, Dmitri (Adrian Brody), who insists Gustave is not entitled to it. Despite Dmitri's opposition, Gustave steals the painting anyway (aided by Zero), and returns it to the Grand Budapest Hotel, where he places it in the hotel safe. Gustave makes Zero his heir, in return for his help.

The Madame's secretary, Serge X, is forced into accusing Gustave of murdering the old lady and Gustave ends up in prison. Gustave remarks that he earned the respect of hardened criminals by "beating the sh-t out of one of them for challenging his "virility." To make a long story short, Gustave digs his way out of prison using tools hidden in cakes baked by Zero's fiancée, Agatha. He and Zero are pursued by an assassin hired by Dmitri, Jopling (William Dafoe) who ends up murdering Serge. Jopling gets his comeuppance at the hands of Zero, who pushes him off a cliff. If this isn't enough, there's also a gunfight with Dmitri and the discovery of a second will inside the painting, proving Gustave's innocence.

The reason, most of this hokum isn't funny, is because Anderson's antagonists are unlikeable. Take for example Dmitri—when he first encounters Gustave he calls him a "fagg-t" and slaps him in the face. While Anderson attempts to lighten the scene up when other characters start hitting each other in the face, the damage cannot be undone: Dmitri remains an unpleasant villain throughout. In real farce, we experience the outrage without the consequences. But there are consequences aplenty when Serge is murdered up at the rectory. Even Gustave's death during the epilogue, at the hands of those fascist-like soldiers on the train, sounds the wrong note for a film that should be light-hearted (just like "Duck Soup"). And why all those anachronistic expletives throughout the movie? Why must the elegant Gustave say things that he beat the "sh-t" out of that prisoner? Anderson relies on these out-of-character remarks, to obtain a few cheap laughs.

Dana Stevens wonders in Slate Magazine, what Anderson is really trying to say here: "As played with a melancholy rakishness by the handsomer-than-ever Fiennes, M. Gustave is one of Anderson's more memorable creations—but he's stranded in a movie that, for all its gorgeous frills and furbelows (including a lush musical score by Alexandre Desplat and a surfeit of charming cameos from Anderson regulars like Jason Schwartzman, Ed Norton, and Bill Murray), never seemed to me to be quite sure what it was about. Youth, age, rivalry, and mentorship? Nostalgia for a lost way of life? The ineluctable slaughterhouse of 20th-century European history? These are big, dark themes, ideas that the director (who also wrote the screenplay, with a story assist from his friend Hugo Guinness) seems both obsessed by and game to explore. But somehow Anderson never quite lets himself (or his characters, or by extension, us) get to the deepest, darkest places those paths might lead." Stevens gets it right when she concludes that with Anderson "everything remains in that familiar register of chilly, stylish remove."

Ultimately, one can never care for any of Anderson's characters. They are written intentionally not to be taken seriously. Take Agatha and her death from "the Prussian Grippe." Not only does Agatha die but so does her infant son. Agatha is supposed to be one of the sympathetic characters, but here Anderson bumps her off too with a cheap aside.

Why do so many people find Anderson's vision so enchanting? Perhaps it's the pleasure they feel when his quirky misfits triumph over a coterie of reactionaries (as the evil Dmitri fails to deprive Gustave of his inheritance). Underneath all the slapstick, is standard melodrama (the bad guys getting their comeuppance), mixed with a touch of black humor. In the Anderson oeuvre, there's a lot to see, but he has hardly anything to say.

An extraordinary cinematic confection and probably Wes Anderson's greatest film. Ralph Fiennes plays the concierge at the Grand Budapest Hotel in the 1930s, which exists in a fictional European country in the Alpine range. He has a habit of keeping some of the old women who stay at the hotel company. When one (Tilda Swinton) leaves him the valuable painting Boy with Apple, Swinton's evil son (Adrien Brody) frames Fiennes for the murder. Fiennes' closest companion, the hotel lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori), and his girlfriend (Saorsie Ronan) conspire to free Fiennes from prison and sell the painting for loads of money, hopefully enabling them to leave the country, which is being overtaken by fascists. The story isn't much more than fluff (though there is a nice tinge of poignancy), but it's enormously amusing fluff. The highly amusing trailer did give away many of the film's best gags, but this is a laugh a minute movie. The visuals are absolutely delightful. Sure, it's all nothing you haven't seen before from Anderson, but I found it his most perfect accomplishment. The film is loaded with great cameos and little roles (the woman behind me almost had an orgasm when Bill Murray appeared), but my favorite was Willem Dafoe as a toothless heavy.

Wes Anderson (The royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom) is a name that's known to most people because the world he creates in his films are so eccentric and unique to him that no one else can do it.

The Grand Budapest hotel is a Wes Anderson film down to his very core. It has all his classic techniques such as push in, whip pans, camera moves with dialogs, title cards etc. The films draws on the writing of Viennese intellectual Stefan zweig.

In the Grand Budapest hotel we are transported back to 1932 by Mr. Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham) the owner of the Grand Budapest hotel. He tells writer (Jude law) how he came into possession of the hotel.

Wes Anderson has not only mastered the art of auteur directing he has also made a name for himself as a story teller this is why there is a big line up of Hollywood stars begging to be in his film. He definitely uses this to his advantage as we can see The grand Budapest hotel has one of the most colorful cast list of the year.

Wes Anderson has provided Ralph Fiennes with one of his most distinguished roles playing Gustav H the powerful concierge at the head of the establishment. He is a well knowledged, well dressed well-spoken and well-mannered man. He also has a dirty habit of bedding old rich ladies most notably Madame D (Tilda Swinton). She passes away and wills her priceless painting Boy with Apple to Gustav H leading to fighting frenzy with her son Dimitir (Adrien Brody) and Jopling (William Defoe).

During this fight he is helped by Zero (Tony Revolori). Newcomer Tony Revolori has definitely made a name for him self as actor to watch out for. His on screen charm with Ralph Fiennes as they travel the countryside with various forces on their tail is mesmerizing. During this journey is where we see why The Grand Budapest hotel is the ultimate Wes Anderson film. The traveling with forces on their tails is similar to that of The Darjeeling limited as it mostly takes place on trains, the goofy romance that zero has with Agatha (Saoirse Ronan) is very similar to Moonrise Kingdom. All Wes Anderson fans will bow to the wonders of this film and non fans will be automatically converted.

It's gorgeous to look at, often witty, and has a few brilliant casting choices. But two thirds of the way through, the charm wore off.

It's not certain now exactly where it started to feel wrong. Maybe it was the nested story within a story within a story; maybe it was the way that the older Zero M. didn't match the appearance of the younger one (the eyes?) Maybe it was the unfortunate things that kept happening to M. Gustav, which were unexpected after seeing the trailers and poster. Maybe it was the shifting accents of the Americans in the cast; Jeff Goldblum started talking about "Mah-dem", then switched to "Mah-dahm". Maybe it was the that M. Gustave, who is usually quite aware of his surroundings and predicament, was sometimes clueless. When Bill Murray finally made his appearance, nothing special happened. Whatever it was or whenever it happened, it was disappointing.

Film is often compared to dreams, after all Hollywood us called the "dream factory", leading us into strange lands that often only exist as long as the lights are low and the projector is running. So it is only fitting that the world's largest film festival would open with an elaborate and visually overwhelming dream. Such is Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel, telling the story of Zero, a lobby boy at a luxury hotel in a pre-war fantasy state who is mentored by the legendary concierge Monsieur Gustave and plunges into an epic adventure with him. The film is a brightly colored tour de force, hilariously funny, a crazy comic book world full of strange and enchanting creatures. A passing, temporary world in which one can, for a short time, live or at least imagine a dream life. Like a hotel. The visuals are astounding, the story-telling, fast-paced, inventive, always surprising, the characters quirky, grotesque, lovable. The Grand Budapest Hotel is a gigantic and excessively sweet candy floss kind of a movie full of a stellar cast on the edge of quirkiness, a wildly entertaining ride that fully exploits film's ability to create fantasy worlds that still manage to lay bare hints of the world we know. For despite all the colorfulness, the film also tells the story of a world threatened by war and violence, a dream long turned into nightmare. The Grand Budapest Hotel has its redundancies (such as the present day framing story) but it is a beautiful homage to the past we have lost but are encouraged to re- create and create anew with the greatest gift we have: imagination. And ultimately, it is a tribute to that wonderful dream machine we call cinema filled with hints and associations for those who want to find them (down to such a detail as the aspect ratio) – albeit one that doesn't take itself too seriously. Which might be its most charming and enchanting quality.

http://stagescreen.wordpress.com/

After seeing the previews several times, I thought I would enjoy a delightful almost-fantasy-like film. But, at age 64, after going to the movies literally hundreds of times in my lifetime, I did something today that I've only ever done 3 times previously -- I walked out of a movie halfway through the picture. I didn't blame Wes Anderson, because clearly his films have a following...but I thought it must be an acquired taste...that I had not acquired. I admitted that it was a uniquely visually pleasing film, but I wondered why so many fine actors agreed to what were rather small parts. At the time I said that this film bored me even more than "Moonrise Kingdom".

The the other night it was on cable. I thought I would give it another try, but I fully expected to turn it off at home, also. Perhaps it helped that rather than watch it all in one setting, I broke it into roughly 30 minute segments with breaks in between. Guess what. This time I liked it. I'm not saying I loved it. But I did like it. What did I see this time that I didn't see before. Well, perhaps the tongue-in-cheek attitude of the film. The chance to see Ralph Finnes be downright silly instead of his typical dramatic role. The wonderful photography and special effects. The skill of young actor Tony Revolori. The pleasure of seeing F. Murray Abraham again. And, this time enjoying the many "cameo" shots.

I still think it dragged on a bit too long (at 100 minutes there are still a few small bits that could have been edited more tightly or even eliminated). And, I'm still not a raving fan of it. But, this time around I did "like" it. But it won't end up on my DVD shelf, and I doubt I'll watch it again. But, bravo...good (not great) job!