Hugo

Hugo
Dir. Martin Scorsese
I frequently wonder what it’s like to be a child in the world we live in. Some might scoff at this and say how young I am and how I basically grew up in this modern world. But at 26 years old, when I was a kid, we didn’t have cell phones or the internet or 3-D. Animation was still done by hand and a singing, dancing Lion King was enough to keep kids and adults entertained.
Now, it seems as though childhood is loud, brash, and painfully ADHD. Lights flash, robots explode, and everything needs to literally jump off the screen. This brings me to Martin Scorsese’s newest film, Hugo. Based on the young adult novel by Brian Selznick, Hugo tells the story of a young boy who loses his father in a fire and is forced to fend for himself in a Parisian train station. Everyday he watches and observes the lives of those that exist in the station all the while feeling a deep sense of loss and a loss of purpose. He then comes in contact with (I’m careful to not use the word ‘befriend’ because the two are definitely not friends) and young girl and her godfather, an old toymaker with a secret.
Ultimately, Hugo is a rich cinematic experience that touches on themes of loss, responsibility, growing up, and finding out your place in the world. All the while the story unfolds in glorious 3-D. Now, I’ve seen my share of 3-D and there is good, there is bad, and there is woefully unnecessary. When Martin Scorsese makes a movie in 3-D, you see it. You shell out the extra 4 dollars and you see it in 3-D. Above all, Martin Scorsese has made a film that is a love letter to all films and his command of the medium demands you see it the way he intended. The use of 3-D in Hugo creates a world that is deep, and engrossing. It pulls you into the world and creates a sense of wonder and mystery around you. Mythical dragons never fly in your face, swords are never pointed at your nose, but you see deeper into the dangerous, yet common world of the protagonist Mr. Hugo Cabret.
Effects aside, you feel the love and passion for film that Scorsese pours into every minute of the story. For someone who has studied film for years such as myself, I felt a very deep and personal connection to the story he was telling. I wonder, though, that for children who are so used to having their entertainment flashed and crammed down their throats, will they also delight in the film as I have? I think many children will respond to some of the more adult themes of loss and acceptance as well as the central mystery around the metal automaton, but I fear some children will be bored to bits.
For me, however, Hugo was a beguiling, magical journey. One that harkens back to the days when family entertainment could be a simple story about a boy trying to find his way in the world – and the magic of the movies.
Grade: B+

Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots
The equation for good family entertainment is tricky. Too loud and cutesy will alienate paying parents, too snarky and topical and kids will get bored. What is the happy medium for family films? Hollywood knows a winner on its hands when it generates sequel after sequel to capitalize on that kernel of success. Shrek was such an immediate success that, certainly, parts 2, 3, and 4 would be produced. As the returns started to diminish, executives probably started to panic. I imagine a roundtable session to go something like this: Quick – let’s grab a cute character from the movie and give it a chance in the spotlight. Hmm – Donkey? No (Eddie Murphy is too expensive). Fiona? (Nope – that last Disney princess movie flopped). Uh – howsabout that cat then, you know, the one that talks funny.
And thus Puss in Boots was created.
I admit that when I heard about this movie I rolled my eyes and dismissed it as a cash grab to capitalize on a floundering franchise and, well, it is. But – surprise, surprise, if it isn’t a buoyant, lively, funny, astute cash grab. The premise is familiar to anyone who’s seen the Shrek films, but doesn’t require any prior knowledge. Characters from oft-told fairy tales interact with one another in a twisted, modernist way. Puss (Antonio Banderas) is an anthropomorphized cat that is wrongfully accused of robbing his hometown, all the while working with his old pal Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifinakis), evading the murderous Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) and wooing a mysterious femme fatale, Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek). Puss’s lively backstory is told as a Spaghetti Western with swordfights, outlaws, and wagon chases. Contrasting this, Puss’s current quest for the Goose that lays golden eggs is a bright, vibrant fairy tale with beanstalks, giants, and one angry mama goose.
Whereas Shrek was about wink wink references for adults, Puss is a rather straightforward action/adventure starring a suave little kitty. The movie is funny without being sarcastic, exciting without being dumb, and just weird enough to distinguish itself from other talking animal pictures. I credit the voice casting with carrying a lot of the film (particularly Banderas and Hayek) as well as an assured, if somewhat heavy hand from director Chris Miller (who co-directed Shrek 3). At times, some of the requisite “lessons” can feel a bit forced and he tells a whopper of a backstory that clocks in at nearly 1/3 of the runtime – even Kitty Softpaws, to whom puss is telling his history, drifts off a bit.
I’m both impressed and a bit wary of the success of Puss in Boots as now movie studios can feel more confident churning out un-original original material (Dreamworks already has its eye on Puss 2); Pixar also has Planes on the schedule for next year (an off-shoot of its popular Cars franchise). How long before we see Slinky Dog: The Movie? It’s true, some of the most successful, both critically and commercially, animated films are sequels (Toy Story 3), but it’s the original material that most excites me. So while I will be waiting in line for How to Train Your Dragon 2, it’s films like next year’s ParaNorman and Wreck-It Ralph (both original ideas) that are marked on my calendar.

Grade for Erica: A-