The Grand Budapest Hotel might be the best barometer to determine if you like director Wes Anderson. Most of the polarizing aspects of his style are on display in the Grand Budapest Hotel. I fall more on his good side, since I believe the positives (direction, quirky characters) outweigh the negatives (emotional payoffs, perceived elitism).
The Grand Budapest Hotel has multiple time layers. In present day, a young girl approaches a monument of an author (Tom Wilkinson) who is seen explaining his book “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” The author (played by Jude Law) stays at the Budapest in the 1960s and runs into the owner, Zero (played by F. Murray Abraham). Zero recounts his tale of how he came to own the hotel, which starts in the 1930s. At that time, a younger Zero (played by Tony Revolori) is starting his first Lobby Boy job under the tutelage of head lobbyist M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). When one of the many rich women (Tilda Swinton) Gustave seduces is murdered, Gustave becomes the prime suspect. Not helping his cause is the fact that he inherits a very famous painting from the woman instead of the woman’s jealous son (Adrien Brody), drawing the ire of a very powerful man in the region.
Anderson’s direction shines in the Grand Budapest Hotel. The movie waxes nostalgic about an earlier time, and as such, Anderson chooses to shoot the movie in old ways. The panorama of the hotel, described to be breathtakingly beautiful, is just a model that looks obviously fake. Chases are shot from afar to use figurines. He shoots the movie in right angles, which yields consistently funny results when a character runs away from a still camera or a quick cut to a facial expression. Some of his directional choices border on flourish (one black and white scene is unnecessarily so, and the timeline flashback has minimal impact), but overall Wes Anderson’s direction elevates The Grand Budapest Hotel, and even carries it at points.
The characters also typically in the Wes Anderson wheelhouse: walking the line between quirky and unrelatable. Most characters have pieces audiences will understand: jealousy, decorum, love, honor, etc. However, Anderson’s exotic locations, costumes, and manner of speech guise the real human underneath the pretty colors (in this movie’s case, purple and pink). As a result, character development is minimal or nonexistent, lessening the movie’s generation of emotion. In Anderson’s better efforts (Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Royal Tennenbaums) the emotional core of the characters is very strong and drives the story; The Grand Budapest Hotel works in reverse, which exposes how thin the story (a caper) actually is.
Wes Anderson calls upon favorites of his for the cameos, but the main story is composed of newcomers. Ralph Fiennes is a revelation as a comedian here. Known for work as dark or burdened characters, Fiennes has fun playing an uppity serviceman with deft comedic timing. Tony Revolori gets less to do, but his comedy and emotional arc anchor the story and provide the best payoff. Of the many other actors that appear here, 3 leave great impressions. Saorise Ronan is cute and funny as a love interest; Adrien Brody is nicely unhinged in an Anderson way, and Willem Dafoe is VERY scary as Brody’s #2.
Wes Anderson deserves credit for finding a solid demographic for his films. His unique style is always interesting and sometimes hits great highs. The Grand Budapest Hotel misses the high, but serves his fans very well. One critique for him though: don’t quirk Nazis. They’re pretty hideous and crazy as is.