it's wes anderson.. you're not going to find anyone that says its bad. its just neutral middle of the road "artsy" stuff. youre risking nothing by watching his stuff, especially his newer ones. yes, its good i guess.
Nope its a shocking disappointment. The most prevalent criticism of Wes Anderson's oeuvre is that he puts more effort into the his intricate dioramas than writing, plot, characters, etc. I don't find that to be an accurate criticism of his other movies, but it definitely fits here. All the sets are very ordered and detailed, to an absurd and frankly off-putting level. There's next to no character development in the movie; characters are whisked in and out before we get to know anything about them really. Kovacs has a cat and he's a lawyer. Agatha is a pastry-chef and has a Mexico-shaped birthmark. So what? Why should we care? The characters we do get any sort of real characterization of are either one-note baddies or one-note dandies (i.e. M. Gustave). Everyone is a complete caricature. It's almost funny that Anderson's two previous movies had much more rounded characters, and they starred animated foxes and children, respectively. The script is absolutely atrocious, flitting between sickening sentimentality and sudden-vulgarity-is-funny-right-guys?. It's also, tellingly, the first script written entirely by Anderson.
Perhaps most infuriating was Wes Anderson's use of emotional manipulation in the movie . He uses such things as the hotel being oppressed by the SS - sorry the "ZZ" - and Agatha being killed by the "Prussian grippe" as cheap methods of sympathy while also using them as stupid jokes. "ZZ" stands for "zig-zag," a joke that seems very characteristic of his sense of humour, but one that is totally inappropriate, especially given that the hotel isn't persecuted for any reason other than Nazis are mean and do bad things and are short-hand for bad guy. The tone-deaf preciousness is echoed in the "Prussian grippe" name; it's funny because the Spanish flu killed 50 million people? This sort of thing is practically unprecedented in Wes Anderson's movies, but then again there hasn't been one so hollow thus far so either.
>>64708577 The infuriatingness of his quasi-ideology doesn't end there either. I found M. Gustave to be a pretty terrible character, and yet the movie doesn't really try to satirize him so much as it lionizes him as a noble spirit from a bygone age or some such bs. He talks about treasuring things like "civilization" and the way things are supposed to be and Romantic poetry and "purity" in women which just makes me want to throw up. It just kind of encapsulates all the shitty things about the way Wes Anderson thinks into one truly unlikeable character.
Honestly, this movie was so bad I'm having paranoid thoughts that I don't actually like the rest of his movies. Is The Royal Tenenbaums actually any good? If I rewatch Rushmore will it seem just as bad?
One of the films was called Big Bucharest Hotel. It's sort of like 'Allo 'Allo the movie. ... It looked like the sort of thing you have to physically hold me down and force me to watch. And even, I'd be tried to forget it while it was happening.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.