A decade ago writer-director Wes Anderson was considered a wunderkind, following the releases of Rushmore (1998) and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001).  He has had cult success since then, with The Darjeeling Limited (2004), Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012), but he has yet to break through as a major commercial filmmaker.  Actors love him, as do some critics, but he’s always been rather hit-and-miss with me.  His status has not changed.

Anderson’s new movie, The Grand Budapest Hotel, is a lot like Moonrise Kingdom. It’s all very whimsical and fluffy, with a great many familiar actors in parts large and small all running wild in various vignettes.  This movie is designed as a 1930s period piece cross between Grand Hotel and an Agatha Christie drawing room murder mystery, with reams of dialogue and lots of nonsensical action.  If one can enter into the spirit of the thing, it must be quite enjoyable.  I found it rather tiresome after a short while.

Ralph Fiennes is the legendary concierge of the title establishment, with newcomer Tony Revolori as his faithful lobby boy.  Their story, told in triple flashback fashion, involves hotel decorum, a painting, a ski chase, young love, a prison bust-out, class and racial discrimination, a secret will, and, of course, murder.  There is a great deal of plot, a fair amount of character, a little bit of action and lots of the whimsy for which Wes Anderson is known and, I suppose, appreciated.  Some of it works, much of it is just too absurd for my taste.  I wish I had liked it more.

Ultimately, I didn’t care.  Despite a few serious touches it is impossible to take it very seriously, and it wasn’t funny enough or pointed enough to thoroughly score as a satire.  It doesn’t need the odd swearing that gives it its R rating, and it could use some belly laughs here and there. I think this project might fare much better on the stage, where its infinite and intricate artificialities might be heightened for greater effect.  As a movie, it’s an intriguing misfire, filled with talent and possibility but just not meaningful enough to warrant adulation.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  25 March 2014.