Aarrggh. I saw it this weekend, and it was such a beautifully shot movie and I so loved the setting, time period, and idea of it. But I was amazed how sloppy and random the plot felt. In a movie with such intricate scenery, how is it possible to have a story that feels so underdone and half-digested? And one that, I think, was a bit off-key: this was a movie that should have been silly and sophisticated. But instead of sophistication (Ralph Fiennes calling everyone “darling” doesn’t count) all we got was silly, slapsticky, gaggy stuff. In short what the movie needed but didn’t have was the Lubitsch touch.
There was, as one of the defenders said above, great emotional resonance in seeing how fascism and communism killed off that entire world. I just wish they had illustrated that same point more through the story and characters.
Saw it today on HBO on-demand and agree with the posters who said it was a beautiful film that had no emotional resonance at all. I didn’t care a bit about any of the characters, nor the plot, which meandered so many times that it felt more like a series of scenes rather than one coherent story.
I did think the use of different aspect ratios for the different time periods was clever, but why the one with the most screen time had to be the square felt way too “look at me” precious.
No idea how this got nominated for Best Picture, sure it’s pretty but there is nothing there.
Was George Clooney one of the ZZ officers that had a close up during the shootout? I didn’t see his name in the credits but it sure looked like him.
Good analysis. I kept waiting for the story to draw me in; there were scenes but not story. And no characters worth the name.
Part of my problem is that I see the aristocratic world to be as evil and needing killing as I do the worlds of fascism and communism. The movie endorses that view until the ending. The rich customers and the family with the painting are horrible creatures. They created nothing. Their money created things we happen to value today, more so than the things the money of the fascists and communists created, but they shouldn’t get credit for that. They didn’t deserve the painting. They deserved nothing. But the movie kept finding itself celebrating that world - an internal contradiction that it never overcame and eventually sank it.
But it wasn’t celebrating the aristocrats’ world - it was celebrating Gustav’s world. Gustav followed his code of behavior not to serve them, but because he truly believed in it and exemplified it.
Personally, the movie resonated hugely with me. It was, in my eyes, a Holocaust movie, with Gustav standing in for the Jews of Central Europe.
I loved it: absurdist humor over a beautiful collection of postcards - if there isn’t a Taschen book with the settings and decorations, there should be. The viewer isn’t expected to identify with the characters, but to look at them and go “OMG! :eek: :smack:”; the story looks shallow while actually touching on issues that a serious setting could easily make painful, boring or horrifying.
What a quirky, charming movie, and I usually don’t like Wes Anderson. I thought Steve Zissou, Royal Tenembaums was meh (mostly boring), and Mr. Fox was alright but overrated. But at the strong recommendation of a friend I gave it a chance and I thought the movie was delightful.
Little things touches could have felt gimmicky (as I thought in his other films) I thought worked in very well in the context of the film’s sort of children’s bookish world.
Watched the film again recently, and loved it all over again. A funny, quirky valentine to Ruritanian grand hotels and outsize personalities between the wars, and a lament for all that was lost to fascism and communism. An all-star cast, with everyone chewing the scenery with great abandon - lots of laughs - amazing cinematography. And, of course, the bond between M. Gustave and Zero is very appealing.
The sets were incredible, and the characters were zany and colorful, but many of the set ups were meh…with a little better writing it could have been hilarious, but it ended up being mildly amusing.
I usually don’t care for Wes Anderson films and… this was no different. It had more of an actual plot than some of his other work, but it was still every bit as much a Wes Anderson film as all the others. I just don’t get the appeal.
Tennenbaums was just boring. Mr Fox was not much better. Grand Budapest had the same lack of an emotional centre, but it was lovely and fun and unexpected. It felt like being in love.