Fox Searchlight Pictures | Release Date: March 7, 2014
8.4
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1083 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
970
Mixed:
62
Negative:
51
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
mepittsApr 4, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. OK, bottom line--would I recommend people go see this? Sure, with some reservations. It was silly and fun with great pacing, lots of enjoyable cameos and fascinating production values, location and interior shots (real or CGI). And the relationship between the lobby boy and his girlfriend (and to a lesser extent between the lobby boy and the Ralph Fiennes character) demonstrated some depth of feeling, but that said, and since two of those three characters were dead at the telling, I found the movie essentially "soul-less"--very clever and sophisticated but fairly empty and dark at its core. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
6
Apotheosis34Apr 21, 2014
Wes Anderson's film is decently paced, written moderately well, and contains a bevy of talented actors who all conspire to do their part, but falls just short of consistently capturing attention and drawing laughs with its comedic intention.Wes Anderson's film is decently paced, written moderately well, and contains a bevy of talented actors who all conspire to do their part, but falls just short of consistently capturing attention and drawing laughs with its comedic intention. It's just too eccentric for its own good. Far too many times were the laughs forced, as if the few members of the audience were laughing out of a desire to show themselves they "got the joke".

By no means was it a bad film, however. The filming style was fairly straightforward but well done. Shots were pleasingly spaced and different ratios chosen for different time periods, effectively separating the periods without any intrusion or confusion for the audience. The set design and chosen locations fit the tone and general "feel" of the plot. The actors played each character off of one another to create some creatively comedic moments as well as others filled with tension. With a few exceptions - Edward Norton's peculiar character - the dialogue was performed well; Ralph Fiennes in particular did a wonderful job.

Despite these positives, the unneccsariy eccentricity of the film combined with its wholly uninteresting plot made the film rather tedious to sit through. Although it was, perhaps, not technically a comedy, The Grand Budapest Hotel certainly tried to appear like one but did little to capitalize on the actors it was given. The comedy fell short of being funny in nearly all cases, save for a few here and there. The moments were obvious and some juvenile in their humor.

The film did have a novel or bookish feel to it - its plot seemed better suited to a written medium, but it was effectively conveyed on film.

Though it did succeed in some areas, The Grand Budapest Hotel failed to consistently produce an interesting narrative and tried to hard to be a comedy combined with an odd plot. It was an above average film, but only just so, and with a veteran director in Wes Anderson with a talented cast in did not rise to the occasion and meet expectations.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
Honest-reviewsJun 8, 2014
I was disappointed with this movie. There was raving reviews which the movie could never live up to, but even without considering these reviews the movie is average and watchable. There are a few moments where you'll **** but the majority isI was disappointed with this movie. There was raving reviews which the movie could never live up to, but even without considering these reviews the movie is average and watchable. There are a few moments where you'll **** but the majority is very unfunny and overacted. It is more a light-hearted movie than an out-and-out comedy.

It is watchable, but slow at times and does not at all deserve the critical acclaim. I believe there is an element of snobbery behind the reviews that rave about this movie. Had it been an unknown foreign movie without the big name actors, it would be rightly called average.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
NightReviewsMar 23, 2014
“You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughter house that was once known as humanity”. If there was ever a quote to sum up the films of Wes Anderson, this would be high on the list. Highly inventive,“You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughter house that was once known as humanity”. If there was ever a quote to sum up the films of Wes Anderson, this would be high on the list. Highly inventive, absurd, and at times, narratively incoherent, Anderson’s eighth feature film is a grand, accommodating feature whose self is probably not as grand as the cast it has rounded out.

From Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Kietel, Bob Balaban, Saoirse Ronan, Lea Seydoux, to regulars Tilda Swinton, Adrien Brody, Jason Schwartzman and of course Bill Muarry, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a formidably full house of A-list actors who happily lend their skills to the highly inventive and immensely visual Anderson. Aside from the wholly impressive cast, is the quirky and unmistakably unique vision of Anderson himself.

If you haven’t been fortunate enough to experience a Wes Anderson film yet, you are surely missing out on one of the most elaborate, detailed, and symmetrical styles of film-making ever known. Anderson’s style, renown and admired by many, may very well be the American indie art-house King and The Grand Budapest Hotel may very well be his grandest and most admirable spectacle yet–although it may not be his most engaging or beloved.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is an empirical picture, in every sense of the word. Throughout his career as a writer/director, Anderson has defined and refined his vision to the point that every heist; every adventure; or every group of individuals, can easily be distinguishable, as if their existence could only be understood within an Anderson film. The essence of the characters within The Grand Budapest, as well as his overall vision, is creatively maintained thanks to the purity of the scenarios and wackiness of the characters Anderson houses, in whatever setting it may be. For decades now, Anderson has bequeathed to film-lovers everywhere and audiences’ alike, a signature style unlike any other.

There are countless films where the characters have come secondary only to the immense and elaborate setting they are placed in. For example, in many films urban settings; New York City has played a pivotal role (see: Shame and Annie Hall), The Wild West (see: The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Unforgiven), and exotic locales within Europe set the landscape for timeless stories of intrigue, lust, love and tragedy (see: Vicky Cristina Barcelona and The Bicycle Thief.). In Anderson’s world, although many of his settings are within the very real world we live in today, sublets of his world are envisioned within our world, and in essence, these locales become the greatest character of them all, housing very small, intricate tales of the people whose stories are shared in its presence. The setting this time, is none other than the Grand Budapest. A hotel, that houses the highly empathetic new lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) and his journey to becoming the irreplaceable sidekick to the one and only infamous concierge M. Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes). Among the many other patrons of the hotel and each of their individual secrets, tall tales, and life memories, Anderson centres the film around a priceless painting, now put in the hands of Gustave thanks to death of M. Gustave’s latest deceased romance, the mysteriously elder Madame D (an unrecognizable Tilda Swinton). What transpires, is an array of fantastical plot schemes and recanted storytelling that may only make sense when mentioning the name of Wes Anderson.

Like any other Anderson film, the stories are only secondary to their execution. Anderson’s films are the closet things to mathematical proofs, where the process of plot-making comes first before the final, usually predictable and happy outcome. Anderson may have come off one of his most cherished screenplays with his last film Moonrise Kingdom, and The Grand Budapest Hotel may in no way trump it, but thankfully, it never tries. Instead, after exploring the unfathomable bond between young lovers, Anderson penetrates deep and long the affections of friendship and the importance of patronage within the industry of service and hospitality. Surprisingly this is a theme that he has yet to encounter, especially after his beloved muse and frequent collaborator Kumar Pallana passed and served as nothing less than a staple to the Anderson cannon. Think of The Grand Budapest Hotel as a large and completely dysfunctional family taking care of you, much like Anderson’s earlier work The Royal Tenenbaums, only this time, imagine them slotted at the other end of a hotel reception desk.
Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
5
patrickpotterMar 21, 2014
There is a difference between having a style, and copying the style of The Royal Tenenbaums. Unfortunately this film is more of a copy, filled with cameos and fake characters. I almost wouldn't have been surprised to see a muppet to pop up atThere is a difference between having a style, and copying the style of The Royal Tenenbaums. Unfortunately this film is more of a copy, filled with cameos and fake characters. I almost wouldn't have been surprised to see a muppet to pop up at one point. The best Anderson films are the creative, inspired ones with characters you care about, which is basically all of them up until The Grand Budapest Hotel. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
charlieburyMar 20, 2014
You can either love or hate Wes Anderson, or you can love and hate him at the same time. Unfortunately, The Grand Budapest Hotel has torn me apart. It is undeniably perfect Anderson: obsessive and strict design, colour palettes, composition,You can either love or hate Wes Anderson, or you can love and hate him at the same time. Unfortunately, The Grand Budapest Hotel has torn me apart. It is undeniably perfect Anderson: obsessive and strict design, colour palettes, composition, framing and blocking. However, it is essentially missing something; my emotions traversed from sheer boredom to stifled laughter to disorderly admiration. My conclusion is that Anderson has become too overworked; I dislike him for this, yet at the same time a part of me admires the man for his precise ingenious.

The film starts and immediately you taste Anderson’s stop-motion style with precise camera panning and boxed framing. The film then jumps through three prologues of time, with the familiar Anderson narration and expose of shots, until we land ourselves at The Grand Budapest Hotel between the wars in a fictional state of Europe. What follows is a story of chapters with crimes, chases, mischief, rivalry, envy and even slapstick comedy. It is all tightly wound and then released like a chasm, the chapters seem somewhat disjointed, the acts become emotionally sterile and ultimately there isn’t a chance for the story to coerce.

We are presented with the same Anderson, but also a new Anderson. He presses on his comedic roots and concentrates on the physicality of funny. M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) is the prime consent for this, and Fiennes is brilliantly on key creating a few treasurable notes of laughter. On occasion, this isn’t just through material act, but also sharp, witty and almost obscene dialogue. In one scene, he utters to the new lobby boy (whose elder self is predominantly narrating the story – F. Murray Abraham). “When you’re young it’s all fillet steak, but as you get older, you have to move onto the cheaper cuts.” If you like Anderson for his melancholic charm and grounded representations of struggling individuals in a fantastical yet realistic world (think Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums), then don’t have high expectations for this, you won’t get what you came for.

This film is being highly applauded (a reason for my great expectations), yet for all the same reasons, the obvious stylistic reasons. I haven’t seen a single review commenting on how they related to the story on a personal or cultivating note. Are we focusing on a cinematic story here, or what appears to be a theatrical and all-too whimsically clever telling of one?

Lastly, I will mention what is palpable and largely unsettling: the ensemble cast of great name actors all battling for a screen spot. A great cast list can give a film much admirable credit, however Anderson has gone a bit overboard here, with Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray and Owen Wilson popping up for five or so minutes, the story becomes even more fictitious and preposterous. I won’t list the rest of the cast, simply search it on IMDB or watch the film, but it is certainly remarkable yet somewhat heedless.

It was a muddled evening, and to be honest I am still rather mystified amidst my contemplations on the film. Frankly, I was disappointed and the film is no more than what Anderson’s lavish style makes it. One might say you are better off trying to watch it inside out.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
charles19Apr 6, 2014
Wow. What a waste of money and time. This is a very highly stylized movie. I really didn't like it because: (a) it is not believable on any level, (b) I couldn't empathize with the characters at all, and (c) it lacks drama... half-way throughWow. What a waste of money and time. This is a very highly stylized movie. I really didn't like it because: (a) it is not believable on any level, (b) I couldn't empathize with the characters at all, and (c) it lacks drama... half-way through the movie I was still waiting for something significant to happen. Throw in significant over-acting and you have a movie that I don't think I would even watch on my TV at home. Yes, it is visually stunning. That's about the only positive aspect it has. Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
5
donnelbrApr 2, 2014
Meh, the film is interesting, and it's fun to see so many stars in one film. But it falls short in the laughs department. It's silly, and cute, and oh so clever, but left me a bit bored. I have a feeling some of the high reviews are fromMeh, the film is interesting, and it's fun to see so many stars in one film. But it falls short in the laughs department. It's silly, and cute, and oh so clever, but left me a bit bored. I have a feeling some of the high reviews are from folks who are pleased with hollywood taking them a little more seriously. However, for me it was a bit dull. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
5
TheMadNagApr 29, 2014
Found this movie to be boring, and really not all that great. I didn't laugh really for this to be a comedy, and was actually confused on how it could get such great reviews. Perhaps my taste in movies is terrible but this just wasn't there.
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
5
JonDocApr 2, 2014
Okay so the trailer for this movie was great - it zinged along and promised a fast-paced film but the reality is that the feature itself is surprisingly slow by comparison. The marketing men lied to us! I was expecting a rollicking farce butOkay so the trailer for this movie was great - it zinged along and promised a fast-paced film but the reality is that the feature itself is surprisingly slow by comparison. The marketing men lied to us! I was expecting a rollicking farce but this was more drawn out. It wasn't bad per se, just not very good. Nothing new. Seen it all before. I much preferred Life Aquatic and Moonrise Kingdom in terms of originality. And like that last film, Bill Murray is again wasted in this. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
5
analogkid280Apr 1, 2014
A very visually appealing movie that has many subtle elements. Such as the deserts they eat at the end in the future not having the pristine appeal that the ones in the past where made. Plot wise well, uh ok. I did like looking around theA very visually appealing movie that has many subtle elements. Such as the deserts they eat at the end in the future not having the pristine appeal that the ones in the past where made. Plot wise well, uh ok. I did like looking around the hotel at the different times and comparing them in my mind. The story just was a little weak. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
6
TheQuietGamerOct 30, 2014
It's a very unique film. At times coming off as quite odd. There are quite a few funny moments throughout, however it does still feel light on humor in the end. Perhaps it relies to much on whimsy to get it through. Regardless there's anIt's a very unique film. At times coming off as quite odd. There are quite a few funny moments throughout, however it does still feel light on humor in the end. Perhaps it relies to much on whimsy to get it through. Regardless there's an interesting plot filled with oddball characters to keep things entertaining when the laughs are sparse. Still as a whole I do feel it's missing something. It's just not funny enough to get by, and a unique theme can only carry you so far. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
Lambo442Dec 9, 2014
Although the camerawork is flawless, as is the acting, the film is just too ridiculous for me. Completely fantastical and detached from reality. How anyone can call it 'heartfelt' is beyond me. How can anyone relate to any of theseAlthough the camerawork is flawless, as is the acting, the film is just too ridiculous for me. Completely fantastical and detached from reality. How anyone can call it 'heartfelt' is beyond me. How can anyone relate to any of these characters? I gave it a 5 because Ralph Fiennes has some brilliant lines which made me laugh out loud on occasions, but Wes Anderson hasn't made anything as great as Rushmore or the Royal Tenenbaums for me in terms of character development and anything that's 'heartfelt.' Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
csw12Jul 27, 2014
For Wes Anderson "The Grand Budapest Hotel" is a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean it was all that great. What made it better than his other films was its fast paced, incorporated humor and had some better acting. In the end though it was amFor Wes Anderson "The Grand Budapest Hotel" is a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean it was all that great. What made it better than his other films was its fast paced, incorporated humor and had some better acting. In the end though it was am average film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
dollarsignNov 28, 2015
**************An unapologetically plot-driven movie that asks the viewer to not re-watch it, for then the movie loses its poignancy (or lack thereof).
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
aztecinkcJul 28, 2014
For those who view "Bottle Rocket" as Anderson's best (read: unpretentious, original, and unburdened by the ornamentation he would eventually become transfixed by), it's not surprising that GBH is a disappointment. When once obscure wasFor those who view "Bottle Rocket" as Anderson's best (read: unpretentious, original, and unburdened by the ornamentation he would eventually become transfixed by), it's not surprising that GBH is a disappointment. When once obscure was entertaining, it now becomes distracting. When once bizarre was endearing, it now becomes, well, just so bizarre it leads nowhere. The film goes many directions, and none of them capture you or make you care about how they end. You just want it to end. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
DarkShamanSep 12, 2014
Sometimes boring, sometimes worth a smile. A classic educational movie with many symbolic elements, very fit for a high school audience to teach them about morals.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
Raven25Sep 20, 2014
I enjoy comedy. This is not a particularly funny film. At best, you might get a short chuckle. It is AVERAGE. There is nothing terribly wrong with it and nothing amazing right with it either. The plot is lazy and slow, the acting andI enjoy comedy. This is not a particularly funny film. At best, you might get a short chuckle. It is AVERAGE. There is nothing terribly wrong with it and nothing amazing right with it either. The plot is lazy and slow, the acting and characters are contrived and transparent, the scenery is apt but nothing more. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
Deni1985Dec 23, 2014
I liked Rushmore, and have watched every single Wes Anderson movie since Rushmore. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me, is how the saying goes? I'm a quadruple fool then.

What gets to me is that I watch these boring drawn
I liked Rushmore, and have watched every single Wes Anderson movie since Rushmore. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me, is how the saying goes? I'm a quadruple fool then.

What gets to me is that I watch these boring drawn out movies (I admit the visuals are good) and everyone gives these movies good ratings, and I watch them. Looking back at the Royal Tenenbaums, or Life Aquatic, or even Moonrise Kingdom, I really don't remember a point to the movie, I don't really remember what the whole outcome was. I remember seeing some of my favorite actors in them, I remember seeing good cinematography, but I also remember looking at my watch every five minutes, hoping that the movie will finish up already! And here is my gripe with Wes Anderson movies: boring, drawn out, gimmicky.

A good movie is when I'm mad the movie ended so soon (even if it was a 3 hour movie). I can't say this about any of Anderson's movies. Every time the credits roll, I'm happy that the movie finally ended, and I endured another Anderson film. I shouldn't be relived to see the credits after 90 minutes, but with Wes Anderson I too often am.

No more Wes Anderson for me. I won't be ashamed of saying the same thing to my friends who love his movies (or so they say).
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
pesho_oneOct 28, 2014
It is beautifully shot, there are many famous actors appearing, but it is an utter nonsense nevertheless. It gets old and boring really quick. It is way too pretentious and taking itself too seriously while loosing grip and focus of its ownIt is beautifully shot, there are many famous actors appearing, but it is an utter nonsense nevertheless. It gets old and boring really quick. It is way too pretentious and taking itself too seriously while loosing grip and focus of its own twists and perks. It tries to be funny and it even succeeds at times, but the uncertain attempts are far too many. It just tries too hard.
As a whole, it will be perceived rather as a piece of art, which you can respect, but never really like. Avoid if you seek engaging movie, but watch if you are into the actors/director (still the performances are way too theatrical to really shine). And I am afraid, at the end, it did lean toward a waste of time for me.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Movi3R3vi3werNov 27, 2014
Even though it's highly overrated, Wes Anderson managed to create one of the weirdest, odd, quirky, and original movies I have seen in years. With a stellar cast this is a mostly enjoyable movie.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
GJBariJan 19, 2015
The Grand Budapest Hotel is funny and charming, and very much what you'd expect from Wes Anderson. In fact, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that there's really nothing new here. Wes Anderson makes all of his movies to appealThe Grand Budapest Hotel is funny and charming, and very much what you'd expect from Wes Anderson. In fact, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that there's really nothing new here. Wes Anderson makes all of his movies to appeal to the audience that he already has in the palm of his hand. In some ways that's a good thing, because Anderson certainly has a very unique style that appeals to a lot of people, and in other ways it's a bad thing, because there's never any attempt to expand his audience; it's just another Wes Anderson flick. I'm low-balling this review on purpose as a warning: I actually happened to really like this movie, but then again I am a Wes Anderson fan, and if you're a Wes Anderson fan, you'll probably like this movie also. However, if you're not a Wes Anderson fan, don't even bother with this one. Definitely a good flick, but by no means Anderson's best. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
MikefromAngusJul 6, 2014
Overall I like Wes Anderson movies, but with this one. It reminded me, of all recycled things I already seen in his other movies. Worse of all, the story or the atmosphere didn't catch my attention. Overall it was a 5 out of 10 for me
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ClariseSamuelsJul 29, 2014
The Grand Budapest Hotel is more remarkable for its similarity to previous work by Wes Anderson than it is for its basis in the works of Stefan Zweig. Anderson makes much of this literary inspiration but the movie is not based on anyThe Grand Budapest Hotel is more remarkable for its similarity to previous work by Wes Anderson than it is for its basis in the works of Stefan Zweig. Anderson makes much of this literary inspiration but the movie is not based on any particular Zweigian tome—Anderson claims it is a conglomeration of two works by Stefan Zweig. First, Ungeduld des Herzens, literally The Impatience of the Heart. However, as a someone who holds a PhD in German literature, I would translate it as “The Restless Heart” (sorry, there are no italics in the Metacritic text box!), whereas the English edition is in fact called Beware of Pity. The second work cited by Anderson is Rausch der Verwandlung, literally translated as The Intoxication of Transformation, but again, I would translate it as “The Ecstasy of Change”—the English title is actually The Post Office Girl. In addition to merging influences from these two works, Anderson has put Zweig himself in the movie, thus incorporating biographical elements as well. It is such a mishmash that it appears the most Zweigian element in the movie is Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of the aged author. Wilkinson bears a strong resemblance to Zweig.

I was more struck by the resemblance of the film to Moonrise Kingdom. The cinematography has the same eerie lighting that gives it a fairy-tale aspect, and the subject matter is treated in the same Andersonian style—a lot of eccentric characters merging together in unconventional ways. And the script has a very Andersonian bearing with no relationship whatsoever to the style of Stefan Zweig. Like Moonrise Kingdom, sentences are short and declarative. Characters express themselves rather tersely and bluntly, but in a heartfelt way, which is charming and extremely American, even perhaps Californian. Only Ralph Fiennes as Gustave has a European flavor to his personality, but despite his British accent, he is too exaggerated (as are many of the characters) and has no real connection to a Zweigian mode of expression.

Another noteworthy resemblance to Moonrise Kingdom is the cast—we see Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray, and Harvey Keitel making a comeback. And there are surprises, such as Ron Goldblum and Owen Wilson. A bit like the post-office girl of Zweig's novel, a young lobby boy who is escaping the devastation and overwhelming poverty of war finds himself in an opulent and extravagant hotel that gives him privy to the lives of the preposterously rich. It both changes him and forces him to take refuge in his real self, however humble. The film tells the story of how this grand old hotel of the Austro-Hungarian Empire changed and evolved over the years, becoming more sterile and functional with modernity, but more specifically the film recounts how the lobby boy eventually became the sole owner of the hotel. That is the essence of the Zweigian influence, in addition to the fact that the story is being told to the young Stefan Zweig (Jude Law), who later recounts the tale in his writings as the elder Stefan Zweig (Tom Wilkinson).

Unfortunately, Grand Budapest Hotel is not quite as charming as Moonrise Kingdom, and by the end of the film, the endless train of eccentric behaviors and character quirks starts to daze the viewer's mind. Additionally, the film neglects to capture the essence of the German spirit, much like Eyes Wide Shut tried to convey the essence of Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle but failed because it was just too American. Perhaps it is just a fact that Hollywood directors find it difficult to comprehend the shadowy depths and the tortured substance of modern German literature.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Trev29Jul 20, 2014
Wes Anderson brings creativity and style to this above average story. There were certainly funny and even exciting moments to this movie, but in the end it just didn't wow me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Rox22Aug 2, 2015
If anything, I'm a bit conflicted in my opinion of this movie. On the one hand I loved the brisk paced humor and wit that is placed throughout the film. But on the other hand it lacked any real development. It almost felt like a more seriousIf anything, I'm a bit conflicted in my opinion of this movie. On the one hand I loved the brisk paced humor and wit that is placed throughout the film. But on the other hand it lacked any real development. It almost felt like a more serious take on an episode of that old TV show 'Allo "allo.

The is a plethora of interesting and unique characters, but they are also just for show. Most of the cast feel more like props than actual people. The two main leads work well together, but almost the whole time it feels like we are just getting a glimpse of a much bigger story.

Overall:
The Grand Budapest Hotel feels like a pilot film to much bigger world. There are so many good ideas here, it is such a shame they aren't touched on more. While it is a nice movie, it ultimately feels hollow. An empty, pretty shell of what it should have been.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
NitishAug 15, 2014
I liked the Moonrise Kingdom more than this movie, Although there are huge similarities between the overall framing of the movies and also i can reconcile many scenes as similarly crafted but this time it lack the smoothness.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews