The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), directed by Wes Anderson, is quite the diametrical romp - at once a meticulously art directed composition, with an enigmatic performance from lead actor Ralph Fiennes, while also a convoluted storyline that lacks an emotional punch. Anderson is certainly firing on all cylinders of his storytelling style, but whether delightful images and quirky story make for an engaging film is the question each audience member must contemplate for themselves.

The tale opens with Russian doll jumps through time, ultimately landing in the 1930s at the Grand Budapest Hotel in the country of Zubrowka, following the adventures of the energetic concierge M. Gustav (Ralph Fiennes), who hires a new lobby boy named Zero (Tony Revolori). When a wealthy patron of the hotel mysteriously dies, Gustav and Zero journey to pay their respects and end up stealing a valuable painting that should have been bequeathed to Gustav, but for the family’s devious actions and greed. The resulting chase leads to a short stint in jail (and a breakout that is enabled through expertly baked pastries), a cohort of Grand Hotel concierge’s teaming up to save their fellow hotel connoisseur, and an epic final showdown at the Grand Budapest where the growing militarism of Zubrowka displays the country’s inevitable path to war. In the end, Gustav is murdered by the unruly military, leaving to Zero both the hotel and the memory of their adventures together.  

Ralph Fiennes gives a masterful performance as M. Gustav. He is light and airy, yet moves with a determination that is borne from the character’s placement outside the class he serves. He expertly balances the height of absurdity that his character frequently encounters with the scenes of conflict that propels the action. There is a revolving door of guest stars, some that even take on bit parts, but all are game to participate in the comedic tale that Anderson weaves. One odd element is that Zero as a young man hardly resembles the older version, portrayed by F. Murray Abraham, a slight distraction that breaks the connection between the storyteller and the story. The younger Zero’s performance is a deadpan approach, his connection to the elder concierge is more assumed rather than demonstrated - one of many examples that prove true emotion is often beyond Anderson’s directorial reach. The closest Anderson gets to an emotional beat is when the story slows down for a moment after the jailbreak when Gustav reaches beyond his blathering about perfume to realize that Zero has a tragic backstory affected by poverty and war; the scenes moves dangerously close to a touching moment before the prison alarm sounds and the two are off on their next adventure.

If plucking emotion out of a story is not Anderson’s forte, then the film’s artistic aesthetic is clearly his jubilant passion. The framing is meticulous, the pallet is muted, and symmetry abounds. The film plays around with changing aspect ratios to match the various time periods it leaps between - although this is not a flashy device, but rather a subtle touch. A most delightful aspect of the film is the noticeable appearance of titles and words sprinkled throughout the film, expertly placed in the setting and framed into prominence.

Not all of Anderson’s filmmaking techniques aide his aesthetic. For example, he retreats back to his enchantment with stop motion to film a downhill ski chase that enters into the realm of cheesy filmmaking. Additionally, whenever a film is so meticulous, the few shots that stray from that precision stands out as aberrations. When he takes the film crew outside into nature and films with the camera handheld, the result is a choppy effect that is in stark contrast to the smooth dolly work or controlled framing within the hotel set.

Overall, the elements of the film where Anderson thrives are his typical strengths - all aspects of the production value, writing and directing dry comedy, as well as carving out an interesting story. The components of his filmmaking that are less appealing are also on display in this film - lack of true emotion from his characters, mashing filmmaking styles together - live action and stop motion - and the occasional slip in precision. This film has been made by a man sure of his craft, which is quite enjoyable to experience, yet sometimes the carefulness of that aesthetic creates some distance from his audience - almost like we are admiring the Boy with Apple painting as it is placed above the mantle, but just a bit too far out of reach for a true connection.