Dir. Jason Reitman
I think as humans it’s one of our goals in life to avoid responsibility. Something about waking up and thinking about the bills that need to be paid, that rattling noise coming from the car or that call to the doctor you keep putting off that just seems so…lame. Growing up, I had romantic notions of being an adult. I could buy all the video games and Dunkaroos my little heart desired! You come to find, however, that there is precious little time to play video games and Dunkaroos have so many carbs. I think that’s why Charlize Theron’s character Mavis Gary in Young Adult struck such a chord with me. She is a woman hell-bent on recapturing her glory days of adolescence and she will do just about anything to get it.
As we’re introduced to Mavis, she’s passed out in her bed. She carries around a tiny Pomeranian named Dolce in a pink bag. She writes, or rather ghostwrites, young adult novels about the lives of prep school students and gains inspiration from eavesdropping on real students. Frankly, Mavis’s life is a mess. She did, however, escape the clutches of her small town upbringing and tells herself each and every day how fortunate she is to go on to bigger and better things. One day, though, an email announcement about a former flame’s baby triggers something inside of her and she races back to her hometown to win back the heart of her high school sweetheart Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson).
Young Adult is basically an extended character study on the broken, sad, and bitter Mavis Gary. As played by Charlize Theron, Mavis is utterly engrossing and often times you wince at the things she does and says. In her mind, she’s a hot, irresistible seductress yet on the outside she may be hot, but she is really just pitiful – and frankly the woman is batshit crazy. There was a certain suspension of belief with Mavis; she certainly didn’t exist in the real world as we know it, but in her own crazy fantasy world. Luckily for the audience we have Matt Frehauf (Patton Oswald), a high school classmate of Mavis’s, that not only deflects her shallow insanity back at her, but provides us with a nice dose of cold reality. In high school, while Mavis was prancing around as one of the most popular kids in school, oblivious to the world, Matt was accused of being a homosexual and savagely beaten by those who ran in the same circle as Mavis. As a testament to Mavis’s ignorance, she simply recalls him as “Hate Crime Guy”. The two make for a strange pairing yet ultimately bond over their love of liquor and the fact that they are both outcasts for very different reasons.
The picture painted in Young Adult is dreary. I think we’re programmed to think that the popular jocks and cheerleaders in high school that make our lives miserable will end up being failures at life – but when you actually see what that looks like it kind of breaks your heart. As I watched the movie, I was reminded of a similar themed movie that came out this summer starring Cameron Diaz. In it, Diaz played almost the same character but instead aimed for low-brow guffaws and that film ended up a mean-spirited, hollow mess. Young Adult avoids this trapping by making Mavis a very complicated, three-dimensional character. It doesn't hurt that the acting is several grades higher too.
There are moments during Young Adult where I laughed out loud. There are moments where my mouth was agape in utter shock. There are also moments of strange tenderness as well. There was a moment towards the end of the movie where Mavis teeters on an epiphany. She may have been caught up in a moment, but she really began to think about her life. She receives some words of advice from another character that tips her scale in one direction – at this moment you see just how fragile and broken Mavis truly is and you pray that she’ll change but she probably won’t. Well, I guess that’s growing up.
Grade: B
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Adventures of Tintin
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Few directors have that instant name-recognition like Steven Spielberg. My mom can probably name at least one or two of his movies which is quite a feat. Also, I think Spielberg is very assured in all the films that he does. Themes, set-pieces, even music flow through all of his works and tie them together. When Spielberg makes a movie it can usually be classified in one of two groups: Important “message” type films (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, this year’s War Horse) and Rollicking adventure films (Indian Jones movies, War of the Worlds). The Adventures of Tintin is firmly in the latter category. In fact, other than the search for a lost treasure, and maybe touching on some themes of vengeance, The Adventures of Tintin is almost all straightforward action with little subtext.
We’re introduced to our character Tintin (Jamie Bell) while he is shopping in his native Brussels. Most of the world is familiar with the titular hero, as he is star of his own long-running comics by author Herge. After purchasing a mysterious model ship, Tintin is suddenly thrust into a treasure-seeking journey that takes him across the globe and where he meets future partner Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). That’s pretty much all there is to it. Tintin and Haddock follow clues and trail a meanie played by Daniel Craig who, like Spielberg, is making his second appearance of the holiday season following The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
The action scenes are bright and lively and cartoonishly over-the-top. In particular, a dizzying chase through the fictional Middle Eastern city of Bagghar that begins as a simple “follow that man!” scene and results in the decimation of the entire city. I admired the way the camera loops and flies and swivels around the action in a way that would be nearly impossible in live action. Every action-packed segment is thrilling and jaw-dropping yet ultimately feels hollow because the plot is so thin.
This brings me to the topic of the motion-capture element. Motion capture has its fair share of detractors, most of which lie in the “uncanny valley”, that is that no matter how good the animation, the characters will always have a lifeless, eerie, robotic quality. I can firmly say that Tintin boasts some of the most impressive computer animation of the year, yet it’s true, there is something oddly disconnecting about the characters. I mostly noticed it in the way Tintin’s face never quite emoted like a real person, his forehead was always a little stiff. I think, however, this didn’t affect my enjoyment of the movie, and as motion capture becomes more and more prevalent in films we become more and more adjusted to the off-kilter quality of the characters. Actor Jamie Bell does a fine job capturing the optimistic and sunny Tintin and veteran motion-capture actor Andy Serkis fits easily into the role of the alcoholic Captain Haddock.
All said and done, The Adventures of Tintin is an interesting combination of newfangled, modern cinema blended with an old school yarn about treasure seekers. Though the movie is entertaining enough, I left the theater with a sense that I might have been satisfied with the meal, but not necessarily wanting more.
Grade: B
Few directors have that instant name-recognition like Steven Spielberg. My mom can probably name at least one or two of his movies which is quite a feat. Also, I think Spielberg is very assured in all the films that he does. Themes, set-pieces, even music flow through all of his works and tie them together. When Spielberg makes a movie it can usually be classified in one of two groups: Important “message” type films (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, this year’s War Horse) and Rollicking adventure films (Indian Jones movies, War of the Worlds). The Adventures of Tintin is firmly in the latter category. In fact, other than the search for a lost treasure, and maybe touching on some themes of vengeance, The Adventures of Tintin is almost all straightforward action with little subtext.
We’re introduced to our character Tintin (Jamie Bell) while he is shopping in his native Brussels. Most of the world is familiar with the titular hero, as he is star of his own long-running comics by author Herge. After purchasing a mysterious model ship, Tintin is suddenly thrust into a treasure-seeking journey that takes him across the globe and where he meets future partner Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). That’s pretty much all there is to it. Tintin and Haddock follow clues and trail a meanie played by Daniel Craig who, like Spielberg, is making his second appearance of the holiday season following The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
The action scenes are bright and lively and cartoonishly over-the-top. In particular, a dizzying chase through the fictional Middle Eastern city of Bagghar that begins as a simple “follow that man!” scene and results in the decimation of the entire city. I admired the way the camera loops and flies and swivels around the action in a way that would be nearly impossible in live action. Every action-packed segment is thrilling and jaw-dropping yet ultimately feels hollow because the plot is so thin.
This brings me to the topic of the motion-capture element. Motion capture has its fair share of detractors, most of which lie in the “uncanny valley”, that is that no matter how good the animation, the characters will always have a lifeless, eerie, robotic quality. I can firmly say that Tintin boasts some of the most impressive computer animation of the year, yet it’s true, there is something oddly disconnecting about the characters. I mostly noticed it in the way Tintin’s face never quite emoted like a real person, his forehead was always a little stiff. I think, however, this didn’t affect my enjoyment of the movie, and as motion capture becomes more and more prevalent in films we become more and more adjusted to the off-kilter quality of the characters. Actor Jamie Bell does a fine job capturing the optimistic and sunny Tintin and veteran motion-capture actor Andy Serkis fits easily into the role of the alcoholic Captain Haddock.
All said and done, The Adventures of Tintin is an interesting combination of newfangled, modern cinema blended with an old school yarn about treasure seekers. Though the movie is entertaining enough, I left the theater with a sense that I might have been satisfied with the meal, but not necessarily wanting more.
Grade: B
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Dir. David Fincher
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one of the most highly anticipated films of 2011. The novel, published posthumously by author Steig Larson, ignited with American readers and has resulted in a trio of films in the author’s native Sweden. It was only a matter of time before the American film rolled into theaters. Questions flared up, however. Would the American version shy away from the brutal violence and explicit sex? The answer is, mostly no. The film is a movie for grown-ups and never placates to the audience.
At its heart, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a murder mystery. It’s one that is about on par with a really good episode of Law and Order: SVU. The hunt for a serial killer of women, though, is only a small portion of the pie. Another slice is Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), the shamed reporter of a tabloid magazine looking for vengeance and an opportunity to clear his name. Elsewhere, punk/sleuth Lisbeth Salander (Roony Mara) is trying to survive/kick ass despite the obstacles, um, obstacles placed by her sleazy guardian (Yorick van Wageningen). The two heroes, for lack of a better word, team up to untangle a mystery involving a dysfunctional family that includes incest, Nazis, and pretty much all things unsavory.
So we have all the pieces of the pie. Rooney Mara’s daring portrayal of Lisbeth Salander is the whipped cream that makes the dessert so delicious. The role of Lisbeth is one that caused quite a lot of input from fans. Many believed that Noomi Repace’s Lisbeth from the Swedish films was perfect; some even calling her to take on the role in the American films. Natalie Portman was an original frontrunner, whispy, beautiful, Natalie Portman. I must say that Mara’s Lisbeth is a nuanced, complicated, and thoroughly rich performance. Fierce and strong yet damaged, she commands the screen with her icy intensity. The supporting characters, including Craig’s Blomkvist, turn in strong performances as well, though in my mind I pictured Mikael as a little more doughy and everyday, not the James Bond-ian hero embodied by Craig.
David Fincher brings a dark, cold atmosphere perfectly set in the frigid Swedish landscape and proves most effective when the characters are trying to figure something out or in mortal danger. Some of the quieter, emotional moments feel a bit uneven amidst the dreary industrial feel of the film.
I liked Lisbeth and Mikael’s partnership although at one point, the tone of the relationships shifts and becomes sort of clumsy. The film rapidly loses steam after the tense climax and is punctuated with a mini Oceans 11-type caper that really seemed a bit silly.
In the end, though, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a deft, dark and well-crafted mystery supported by strong performances.
Grade: B+
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one of the most highly anticipated films of 2011. The novel, published posthumously by author Steig Larson, ignited with American readers and has resulted in a trio of films in the author’s native Sweden. It was only a matter of time before the American film rolled into theaters. Questions flared up, however. Would the American version shy away from the brutal violence and explicit sex? The answer is, mostly no. The film is a movie for grown-ups and never placates to the audience.
At its heart, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a murder mystery. It’s one that is about on par with a really good episode of Law and Order: SVU. The hunt for a serial killer of women, though, is only a small portion of the pie. Another slice is Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), the shamed reporter of a tabloid magazine looking for vengeance and an opportunity to clear his name. Elsewhere, punk/sleuth Lisbeth Salander (Roony Mara) is trying to survive/kick ass despite the obstacles, um, obstacles placed by her sleazy guardian (Yorick van Wageningen). The two heroes, for lack of a better word, team up to untangle a mystery involving a dysfunctional family that includes incest, Nazis, and pretty much all things unsavory.
So we have all the pieces of the pie. Rooney Mara’s daring portrayal of Lisbeth Salander is the whipped cream that makes the dessert so delicious. The role of Lisbeth is one that caused quite a lot of input from fans. Many believed that Noomi Repace’s Lisbeth from the Swedish films was perfect; some even calling her to take on the role in the American films. Natalie Portman was an original frontrunner, whispy, beautiful, Natalie Portman. I must say that Mara’s Lisbeth is a nuanced, complicated, and thoroughly rich performance. Fierce and strong yet damaged, she commands the screen with her icy intensity. The supporting characters, including Craig’s Blomkvist, turn in strong performances as well, though in my mind I pictured Mikael as a little more doughy and everyday, not the James Bond-ian hero embodied by Craig.
David Fincher brings a dark, cold atmosphere perfectly set in the frigid Swedish landscape and proves most effective when the characters are trying to figure something out or in mortal danger. Some of the quieter, emotional moments feel a bit uneven amidst the dreary industrial feel of the film.
I liked Lisbeth and Mikael’s partnership although at one point, the tone of the relationships shifts and becomes sort of clumsy. The film rapidly loses steam after the tense climax and is punctuated with a mini Oceans 11-type caper that really seemed a bit silly.
In the end, though, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a deft, dark and well-crafted mystery supported by strong performances.
Grade: B+
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Dir. Brad Bird
It’s amazing to think that the first Mission Impossible movie starring Tom Cruise came out 15 years ago. Back then, Alanis Morissette was at the top of the charts and the O.J. Simpson trial was just warming up.
The first movie in the series, directed by Brian De Palma, was, despite some iconic scenes, a labyrinthine plot that focused more about canted angles than coherency. The next movie, appropriately titled Mission Impossible II (or MI: 2 for you cool kids), eschewed the twisty-turny plot for a more straightforward action film with John Woo’s signature balletic action scenes. 2006’s film (MI: III, surprise), took the film into J.J. Abrams land meaning complex, emotionally turbulent scenes and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one bad-ass villain. Despite the strength of MI:III (which was the strongest film to date, I felt), the film struggled at the box office and the franchise was in question.
Five years later, however, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made it off the ground under the watchful eye of director Brad Bird, Pixar animation wunderkind responsible for such lauded films as Ratatouille and The Incredibles. As an animation director, Bird has an eye for the absurd. Ridiculous, over-the-top action scenes set atop towering sky-scrapers, in whirling sandstorms, and a daring escape from a Hungarian prison. Preposterous, yes, but it is called Mission Impossible, not Mission Plausible. The action scenes are set up with dizzying aplomb. Several members of the audience were gasping just at the notion of Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt climbing the outside of the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, but he was going to do it with, basically, one hand tied behind his back! The film certainly has some of the best action of the year, and in glorious IMAX no less.
Ghost Protocol represents a shift in tone for the MI series. Abrams had set up his film with a very complex emotional undertone, the home life of Ethan Hunt, if you will. That film saw Ethan settling down and getting married and the difficulties that can bring to an international spy. Though this complication is present in Ghost Protocol, in surprising ways, the film is more about good, old fashioned action. The MacGuffin this time is a set of codes that a megalomaniac wants to control in order to unleash nuclear war on the world. Not the most original, for sure and even Michael Nyqvist as the film’s main antagonist has very little presence in the movie. Similarly, Tom Wilkinson shows up as the secretary of IMF but basically phones in his role as the "Basil Exposition" character. Instead, the team, comprised of regular Simon Pegg and newcomers Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton, hop from locale to locale always just a step behind the bad guys meaning a daring chase to catch up.
Let’s be honest. The action movies of late have been tiresome. Yes we all marvel at the cosmic hammer of Thor; we all coo over the ambulatory simian Caesar, but for my money, the best kind of action is the one of an ordinary man, try to get the bad guys before they blow up the world. And if he has to jump down an empty elevator shaft only to stop a few millimeters before being eviscerated by a large spinning fan – so be it.
Grade: A-
It’s amazing to think that the first Mission Impossible movie starring Tom Cruise came out 15 years ago. Back then, Alanis Morissette was at the top of the charts and the O.J. Simpson trial was just warming up.
The first movie in the series, directed by Brian De Palma, was, despite some iconic scenes, a labyrinthine plot that focused more about canted angles than coherency. The next movie, appropriately titled Mission Impossible II (or MI: 2 for you cool kids), eschewed the twisty-turny plot for a more straightforward action film with John Woo’s signature balletic action scenes. 2006’s film (MI: III, surprise), took the film into J.J. Abrams land meaning complex, emotionally turbulent scenes and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one bad-ass villain. Despite the strength of MI:III (which was the strongest film to date, I felt), the film struggled at the box office and the franchise was in question.
Five years later, however, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made it off the ground under the watchful eye of director Brad Bird, Pixar animation wunderkind responsible for such lauded films as Ratatouille and The Incredibles. As an animation director, Bird has an eye for the absurd. Ridiculous, over-the-top action scenes set atop towering sky-scrapers, in whirling sandstorms, and a daring escape from a Hungarian prison. Preposterous, yes, but it is called Mission Impossible, not Mission Plausible. The action scenes are set up with dizzying aplomb. Several members of the audience were gasping just at the notion of Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt climbing the outside of the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, but he was going to do it with, basically, one hand tied behind his back! The film certainly has some of the best action of the year, and in glorious IMAX no less.
Ghost Protocol represents a shift in tone for the MI series. Abrams had set up his film with a very complex emotional undertone, the home life of Ethan Hunt, if you will. That film saw Ethan settling down and getting married and the difficulties that can bring to an international spy. Though this complication is present in Ghost Protocol, in surprising ways, the film is more about good, old fashioned action. The MacGuffin this time is a set of codes that a megalomaniac wants to control in order to unleash nuclear war on the world. Not the most original, for sure and even Michael Nyqvist as the film’s main antagonist has very little presence in the movie. Similarly, Tom Wilkinson shows up as the secretary of IMF but basically phones in his role as the "Basil Exposition" character. Instead, the team, comprised of regular Simon Pegg and newcomers Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton, hop from locale to locale always just a step behind the bad guys meaning a daring chase to catch up.
Let’s be honest. The action movies of late have been tiresome. Yes we all marvel at the cosmic hammer of Thor; we all coo over the ambulatory simian Caesar, but for my money, the best kind of action is the one of an ordinary man, try to get the bad guys before they blow up the world. And if he has to jump down an empty elevator shaft only to stop a few millimeters before being eviscerated by a large spinning fan – so be it.
Grade: A-
Friday, December 2, 2011
Movie Review
The Muppets
Dir: James Bobin
Hollywood is no stranger to the reboot. Nothing invigorates a floundering franchise like new talent in front of and behind the camera. As soon as The Muppets movie was announced several years ago, I had already cast my doubts. I had grown up with The Muppets and had quite a soft spot for them. I remember watching reruns with (obscure to me) celebrities and not quite getting a lot of the jokes. A recent trip to Disneyworld and watching the Muppetvision show (largely unchanged since my childhood) had me pining for the Muppets again. It seems as though the same nostalgia radiated through Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother) as he has imbued his script for the new Muppet movie with the same warm, glowing reverence.
Segel stars as Gary, a grown man in a long-term relationship with schoolteacher Mary (Amy Adams). Gary’s brother Walter is one of the biggest Muppet fans you’ll find – and he’s a Muppet himself but doesn’t quite realize it. On a group trip to Los Angeles, Walter discovers a nefarious plot to shut down the old Muppet theater so with the help of Kermit the Frog and all the Muppet pals, the group attempts to put together a show that will save the theater.
The premise is familiar and has a equal parts road trip and Busby Berkely, “putting on a show” vibe to it. Throughout, cameos come fast and furious from the likes of Rashida Jones, Jack Black, Selena Gomez and that kid from Modern Family. The cameos, though, are really the only modern thing about the Muppets which turns out to be a good thing. There are no winking jabs at Disney or nudging references to the “industry”. Snark, sarcasm and a cynical attitude are eschewed in favor of silliness. That’s not to say that some of the jokes aren’t aimed at adults (we can clean up the theater much faster through montage!), but it always comes from a heartfelt place that just wants to make the audience smile.
Despite all the laughs (and there are many), much of the movie deals with nostalgia in a difficult way. Kermit, in particular, finds it difficult to revisit the past and (until convinced otherwise) is mostly content with leaving things the way it is. He, in many ways, is very modern in that he’s not just a bounding source of optimism, but seems to understand that the sometimes history can be painful. That being said, sometimes I wanted to just smack him and tell him to snap out of his funk, but luckily we have Miss Piggy to do just that. Speaking of, Miss Piggy and all the Muppets, display very interesting and funny quirks. Almost the way that ensemble superhero movies have so many characters that you’re bound to connect with one of them, The Muppets all have something about them that is individual that you can connect with. Miss Piggy has been hurt romantically in the past and is fiercely guarded; Gonzo has compromised his individuality and “sold out” as the head of a large corporation -- heady stuff for a blue furry creature.
Ultimately, The Muppets is a movie that will probably appeal more to adults who have missed the Muppets for the past 10 or so years rather than 6 year olds (though everyone can enjoy the chicken rendition of Cee-Lo’s Forget You). Plus, if this movie isn’t a success you can expect a reboot in 4 years starring the Moopets, and that’s something you definitely don’t want to see.
Grade: B+
Dir: James Bobin
Hollywood is no stranger to the reboot. Nothing invigorates a floundering franchise like new talent in front of and behind the camera. As soon as The Muppets movie was announced several years ago, I had already cast my doubts. I had grown up with The Muppets and had quite a soft spot for them. I remember watching reruns with (obscure to me) celebrities and not quite getting a lot of the jokes. A recent trip to Disneyworld and watching the Muppetvision show (largely unchanged since my childhood) had me pining for the Muppets again. It seems as though the same nostalgia radiated through Jason Segel (How I Met Your Mother) as he has imbued his script for the new Muppet movie with the same warm, glowing reverence.
Segel stars as Gary, a grown man in a long-term relationship with schoolteacher Mary (Amy Adams). Gary’s brother Walter is one of the biggest Muppet fans you’ll find – and he’s a Muppet himself but doesn’t quite realize it. On a group trip to Los Angeles, Walter discovers a nefarious plot to shut down the old Muppet theater so with the help of Kermit the Frog and all the Muppet pals, the group attempts to put together a show that will save the theater.
The premise is familiar and has a equal parts road trip and Busby Berkely, “putting on a show” vibe to it. Throughout, cameos come fast and furious from the likes of Rashida Jones, Jack Black, Selena Gomez and that kid from Modern Family. The cameos, though, are really the only modern thing about the Muppets which turns out to be a good thing. There are no winking jabs at Disney or nudging references to the “industry”. Snark, sarcasm and a cynical attitude are eschewed in favor of silliness. That’s not to say that some of the jokes aren’t aimed at adults (we can clean up the theater much faster through montage!), but it always comes from a heartfelt place that just wants to make the audience smile.
Despite all the laughs (and there are many), much of the movie deals with nostalgia in a difficult way. Kermit, in particular, finds it difficult to revisit the past and (until convinced otherwise) is mostly content with leaving things the way it is. He, in many ways, is very modern in that he’s not just a bounding source of optimism, but seems to understand that the sometimes history can be painful. That being said, sometimes I wanted to just smack him and tell him to snap out of his funk, but luckily we have Miss Piggy to do just that. Speaking of, Miss Piggy and all the Muppets, display very interesting and funny quirks. Almost the way that ensemble superhero movies have so many characters that you’re bound to connect with one of them, The Muppets all have something about them that is individual that you can connect with. Miss Piggy has been hurt romantically in the past and is fiercely guarded; Gonzo has compromised his individuality and “sold out” as the head of a large corporation -- heady stuff for a blue furry creature.
Ultimately, The Muppets is a movie that will probably appeal more to adults who have missed the Muppets for the past 10 or so years rather than 6 year olds (though everyone can enjoy the chicken rendition of Cee-Lo’s Forget You). Plus, if this movie isn’t a success you can expect a reboot in 4 years starring the Moopets, and that’s something you definitely don’t want to see.
Grade: B+
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
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+
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+
Monday, November 7, 2011
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-
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)