The Grand Budapest hotel is a comedy based on a true story set in Hungary and the story is told through a women reading a book of the same title next to a statue with the word author below the head of a person who is the same person as the author of the book. the story starts of a still alive author who is played by tom Wilkinson recording himself verbally reading his book into a camera in 1985 as he describes another story he was told by a elderly gentleman who is revealed to be my Mr. Moustafa played by F.Murray Abraham who is the owner of The Grand Budapest Hotel but Author would like to know how he got/got the ownership of the failing hotel and this is when the story of the Budapest hotel is reviled as a story it is like story-ception.
the comedy with in this film is top notch with the jokes being subtle such as one scene where the young version of the owner of the Grand Budapest Hotel going to a prison and standing in front of a massive security gate and waiting for it to open and for a small door to the side of the door opens to let him in. which is just a subtle joke which is a common trend with wes anderson films.
The narrative can become wonky at some points but most of the scenes have a meaning to them but one scene in particular that wasnt that funny or seemingly meaningful is a scene later on in the film is where Zero and M. Gustave going to talk to serge x jumping from cable cars in a ski resort and repeating the same line over and over line after a little bit of movement wasn't in my opinion very funny or needed but i do see why they choose the scenes as no other way makes sense for them to get to where serge x is.
Alex, it seems that you enjoyed the film however do you think you may need to discuss the micro features? and maybe be a little more analytical opposed to just your opinion? What were the themes of the film? Who were the stars of the film? What was the narrative structure? Using some of these guide lines may help you to construct a stronger piece of writing. Please have another attempt.
ReplyDeleteThis is a short review which is mainly constructed from your opinion which is still good because it shows that you enjoyed the film. However, you need to take a more analytical approach and discuss the micro-features with their deeper meaning etc but as this is not one of the case-studies, focus on improving them first then come back to this if possible as it is good practice for analysing micro-features.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good review, you give your opinion and give good evidence to support it. however I think it could be more analytical
ReplyDeleteYour points could be more in depth and the content lacks and analytical approach. When you talk about the genre you could mention some conventions of that particular genre to back up why you think it's this genre. Also it may be useful to mention some more of the actors who starred in it. It is however good to see your use of opinion integrated into the piece
ReplyDelete