Average User Score: 8.3Apr 21, 2014Wes Anderson's film is decently paced, written moderately well, and contains a bevy of talented actors who all conspire to do their part, butWes 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
Average User Score: 7.6Jun 14, 2013The cinematography was excellently done, with beautiful sweeping shots of gorgeous environments and very professionally done CGI. TheThe cinematography was excellently done, with beautiful sweeping shots of gorgeous environments and very professionally done CGI. The soundtrack was fairly well done by Hans Zimmer, but was nothing too spectacular in comparison to some of his other efforts.
The film was a origin story, and yet could have been so much more had Snyder and Nolan attempted to flesh out the character of Kal-El, Clark Kent, and Superman. Instead the film and its makers settled for an action flick that required hardly any depth in dialogue or plot. Rather than creating a deep and engaging, character driven film complemented by the action that is to be expected from a Superhero film, Snyder relies on impressive explosions and fight sequences that leave much to be desired.
The acting is to be praised. Henry Cavill does well enough with his character, but the most passionate performances come from Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent. Their relationship and the relationship with Clark could have been a fascinating story arc, but unfortunately was pushed aside for the action sequences and the "save the world" story arc that plagues superhero film tropes. Michael Shannon adequately fulfills his role as Zod, the villian.
Ultimately this film will leave serious film goers disappointed, as it has little character driven story arcs and shallow dialogue. The film will attract those interested in a decent superhero story in comparison to Marvel's takes and who don't mind an action flick that relies on little else.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.2May 17, 2013Wonderfully done, I think this film is being largely overlooked because of reviewers' inability to stay open minded.
The soundtrack getsWonderfully done, I think this film is being largely overlooked because of reviewers' inability to stay open minded.
The soundtrack gets the most flak, followed by the party scenes at Gatsby's luxurious mansion. I actually find that the largest annoyance, for myself, was the ghostly text appearing on-screen and the odd transitions between future and past, cutting in Tobey McGuire's head at odd points. It seems that the film backs into some dull film tropes that don't quite fit the rest of the film's wonderfully extravagant scenes.
How does a director envision a 1920's book that depicted the Roaring Twenties in the extravagant and wondrous fashion that those living then felt? It only seems right to use a similar music style to our culture. Therefore, rap and R&B styles moved in, and I think it fits the crazy and loud parties that they experienced. Many will disagree, but this is all about adapting the text to fit our modern lifestyle, and it is logical to use the musical style that serves the same purposes that jazz served to the Roaring Twenties.
The acting was a strong point in the film, one that I was not expecting. Carey Mulligan wowed as Daisy, nailing her flowery voice and childish personality. Joel Edgareton was powerful as the strong and old-money rich Tom Buchanan, capturing his burly personality. To wrap up the wonderful acting, Leo was as good as ever, the best fit for Gatsby that I could imagine at any time period; a classy man who is beautiful but has the dark side of himself, the selfish area that has created an image that can't be achieved.
I do believe that Nick Carroway was miscast, as I think that Tobey isn't the best fit. He did okay, however, as the starstruck boy.
Enjoying this film was not hard for me, as a younger individual who appreciates the music style in the first place. If one is strongly connected to the Jazz of the twenties and the story, it's important to approach the film with an open-mind, and appreciate the acting.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8May 17, 2013It's an obvious aspect of the film-making industry that many sequels just don't match up to the originals. J.J. Abrams and the cast of StarIt's an obvious aspect of the film-making industry that many sequels just don't match up to the originals. J.J. Abrams and the cast of Star Trek: Into Darkness were able to avoid a slump in their sophomore follow-up, and that is impressive in its own right. However, the acting shines through, with truly emotional scenes between intense action sequences, and the film flows extremely well throughout.
J.J. Abrams choices of scenes and environments has always been a strong suit of his, one which he used to full effect in the first Star Trek in 2009. In "Into Darkness", the environments are used to great effect, from the opening scenes to the final shots in the credits.
The soundtrack is wonderful, making the viewer feel the emotions of the scenes. Of course, the theme is the highlight of them all.
The acting is wonderful. Without knowing that Benedict Cumberbatch was going to be in it, nor with the knowledge of the character he portrayed, I was impacted by his performance. Midway through the film his portrayal made me second guess myself every couple of minutes. The relationship between Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) was masterfully done in both dialogue and the performance of said dialogue. Pine and Quinto's on-screen relationship is a wonder to see, creating layers and depth to Spock and Kirk's relationship. In addition, the rest of the cast is well acted again, a testament to how well each actor and actress fits into their role.
It was a great follow-up to the first Star Trek reboot, definitely worthy of continuing the series.… Expand