The Grand Budapest Hotel (***1/4)

For those who know the films of Wes Anderson (Rushmore, , Moonrise Kingdom, The ), there is scarcely any point in reviewing them other than in relation to each other. You already know if you’ll like this, or you haven’t seen Anderson’s work. [A recent Saturday Night Live parody, in the form of a horror movie trailer, is hilarious and specific in a way that, say, a Steven Spielberg parody could probably not have been.] Whether set on a train in India (The Darjeeling Unlimited), in the poshest parts of New York (The Royal Tenenbaums), or inside animated tunnels (The Fantastic Mr. Fox), they all seem to take place in a half-real, half fairy-tale world of pastel colors, secret passageways, and Rube Goldberg-inspired plots. His heroes are the verbose but well-meaning, like the middle-aged concierge Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and his young protegé Zero (Tony Revolori) at the center of this period piece.

It does not take place in Budapest but in Lutz, a fictional city in a fictional Eastern European country where people mostly speak English in a variety of accents, but mostly English and American. It is supposed to be 1932, which only matters insofar as it conjures up a world in which conflict and even modernity lie ahead. Technically, it is the late 1960s; the story is told by an older man (F. Murray Abraham) to a younger one (Jude Law), and this only matters insofar as it depicts the 1930s elegance as having long past, the hotel in a long, slow decline, its past  as mythical seeming as a fairy tale, though the cavernous lobby remains.

Save perhaps the anti-climactic ending, the plotting here, involving the mysterious death of an elderly guest, is clever and fun. As always, the humor comes at odd moments and in unexpected ways. For me, one such moment was when Zero is surprised to learn that one way Gustave satisfied his elderly female guests was by sleeping with them. His mentor explains that when you are young “it’s all fillet steak…but as you get older, you have to move on to the cheaper cuts.” Gustave adds that he likes the cheaper cuts. There’s no meanness in Anderson’s heroes, though this movie has a pair of villains.

Anderson is apt to quickly jettison both heroes and villains from his story. For me, his previous movie, Moonrise Kingdom, had an emotional center that differentiated it from his other work, though perhaps that was an individual response. Maybe the tale of an old man recalling his long-ago mentor and long-ago life will bring a similar nostalgia to some people. For others, it will be another solid effort by one of Hollywood’s most distinct voices.

IMDb link

viewed 3/26/14 7:30 pm at Ritz 5 and posted 3/26/14

The Bourne Ultimatum (***3/4)

Even though I haven’t see Rush Hour 3 quite yet as I write this, I’m going to go out out on a limb and declare this the best of summer 2007’s numerous “threequels.” The Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy were above-average thrillers that avoided most of the tropes of the action-thriller genre. The main character, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), had an unusual back-story involving memory loss and self-doubt. He is powerful, extremely observant, and smart, but not flashy or cocky. Still trying to figure out the truth about his CIA past, he is vulnerable. At first he tries to enlist the aid of a London-based reporter who’s reporting on the death (in the earlier movie) of Bourne’s girlfriend, but soon he finds his real target, the head of a CIA “deep cover” unit played by the reliable David Strathairn. Rather than cooperating with the Russians or some such, Strathairn is inspired by his belief that the need to protect Americans justifies extreme methods of training its agents, which brief but chilling flashback segments reveal were used on Bourne. Bourne’s onetime nemesis, now potential ally, in the agency, deputy director Pam Landy, is again played by Joan Allen.

The screenplay, primarily by the returning Tony Gilroy, is certainly solid. It’s important that the action occurs in the context of a character-driven story arc, which is finally resolved. However, what elevates the film to greatness is Paul Greengrass, who in between directing The Bourne Supremacy and this film made United 93, an equally great elegy for September 11. This is a very different film, but his quasi-documentary style is recognizable. Close-ups, hand-held cameras, and the naturalistic use of sound and movement increase the immediacy and realism of the action sequences, which are frequent and exciting. With his lead character now in Moscow, now in Turin, now in Madrid, etc., Greengrass literally cuts to the chase over and over.

The climax, perhaps, is a dizzying sequence shot in Tangiers, where Bourne tries, on foot and by motorcycle, on rooftops and blacktops, to evade both the CIA and the local police while trying to protect another agent. The excitement comes from near-constant tension rather than violence. The body count is fairly low, and Bourne more often wounds than kills. The chases figure into the plot and aren’t just set-ups for explosions and mayhem. There are only a few quiet moments, but Bourne’s sit-down with agent Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) conveys, without much dialogue, pages of literary exposition.

In sum, if you don’t like this movie, you probably don’t like suspense thrillers.

IMDB link

reviewed 8/10/07

Severance (***1/2)

Think of The Office (the British version, thank you) reconfigured as a horror film and you get close to the sensibility of this bloody funny movie set in the woods of Eastern Europe. A motley group of coworkers for a weapons manufacturer has gathered for a corporate retreat. There’s the pothead, the tool of a boss, the American girl, and so on.

As one thing after another goes wrong, tensions flare, and that’s before anyone spots the large person stalking them. Well, anyone except the audience, who’s seen the opening teaser with the scared man hanging from the tree, and the pothead, whom the other characters don’t believe. The horror storyline is only a little better than the usual crazy-man-with-a-chainsaw scenario, but it’s deployed for maximum suspense.

The mayhem is extremely, though briefly, gruesome in a couple of places. The humor is welcome and demonstrates some of the personality of the characters. But it never undercuts the scares, which aren’t played for laughs.

In sum, terrifyingly funny.

[reviewed 5/31/07]

IMDB link