Hugo 3D Review

Many are tipping Hugo to be the movie of the year, including James Cameron who stated that it was ‘a masterpiece’ and told Scorsese personally that it was the best use of 3D technology he’d ever seen (this included his own films). I agree with him, sort of. Yes the 3D technology was used well and I am not one for dismissing the whole idea of 3D movies, I think they can work very well, what I don’t want is for the industry to overuse it and make It a gimmick when it should be a cinematic technique used to enhance the effectiveness of a film. However I don’t agree with Cameron that it was the best movie of the year, yes it looks beautiful and has a wonderful old fashioned feel to it but it struggles to find a purpose and feels very messy at times.

Okay so we begin with this beautiful tracking shot through clockwork and then the Parisian train station, a good start, but slowly but surely I begin to lose heart. There is this very odd sequence in the beginning where Hugo (Aza Butterfield) repeatedly asks for his notebook back which is very dreary and went on for much too long. But that’s not my real problem with it; I feel that it tried to be too much. It starts off as the social journey of Hugo which involves fixing people shown through his obsession with fixing things, fair enough. Then it turns into a movie about magic and then becomes this homage to early French cinema, and it really frustrated me. It had so much potential to be a very sound family film but the sudden topic shifts distorts its purpose and then it just falls apart.

Despite the confusion I did enjoy the reference to early cinema which is clearly Scorsese having fun with the movie as a film historian. I also liked the fact that it related to a real story and that of one extraordinary filmmaker, George Méliès. Which was fascinating and I recommend reading up about him because he is a quite extraordinary man, so passionate about movies which is what the film portrayed very well. I also liked the sub-stories that were done very well, like the library scenes with Christopher Lee. They felt a bit irrelevant but again in the spirit of a family film I accepted them and enjoyed them very much.

I thought the acting was very dodgy in some places, Aza Butterfield, who, after reviewing his filmography on IMDb, has a quite impressive backlog. I thought he was disappointing and there were moments where he showed potential but I found him quite monotonous and unnatural along with Chloe Moretz who was poor compared to her work in Kick-Ass (2010) which is quite brilliant. Ben Kingsley was very good and so was Christopher Lee, but Sacha Baron Cohen was really odd. I couldn’t understand his accent and it was unnecessary, other than his poor vocalisation he was good enough. But from a cast like that I expect a very good showcase of acting and instead I got a bit of a mixed bag.

I know I’m being harsh but that’s because I expected so much more from it, after hearing such amazing reviews from people I respect like Mark Kermode, who I admire a great deal. I wanted more from it and instead I got a quite adequate family flick which is what it sets out to be. I mean it’s not ambitious as a movie; it isn’t riddled with these political undertones or anything like that. It really is a movie about a kid living in a train station, which is fine. I am a bit disappointed that Scorsese didn’t deliver on this occasion because I rate him very highly as a filmmaker, I definitely like this idea of established serious directors going for family projects, because I don’t think many ‘kids’ movies get this sort of attention and everyone deserves to observe the work of such geniuses.

I don’t think it will trouble at the Oscars for any of the major awards but has a shout for the cinematography because it does look very good. For me the film of the year is very much undecided but The Artist looks promising, which comes out in January, so whether that counts is up for dispute but it will be very interesting to watch the two films together as they both run across the same theme of the exploration of the history of cinema, which is a subject I have a great deal of interest in. For me though Hugo 3D is very much like a box of really delicate milk chocolates, very sweet and quite tasty but one does prefer a richer more substantial box of delights.  

***

Breaking Dawn (Part 1) Review

The Twilight Saga is certainly a phenomenon. The fact that , my 15 year old sister is willing to stand in the harsh winter weather for five hours to catch a glimpse of the stars is further proof of that, as if the herds of screaming girls and $2 billion accumulated income wasn’t enough. One cannot help but be immersed in the hype and was vaguely excited about the next instalment. I feel that the first film was actually very watchable, it stood as a film on its own and yes the ends were slightly frayed making for a smooth transition into the next movie, but had that been the end of the series I can say I would have been satisfied. After that they have got progressively worse with more and more obscene love-making and intense camera angles, it has become claustrophobic and ultimately uncomfortable to watch.

Having said that I was persuaded to go and see Breaking Dawn Part 1. I took my seat in the local multiplex and armed with the knowledge that Mr Taylor Lautner would only be removing his shirt once throughout the entire picture, I was optimistic to say the least. One thing to get out of the way, if you haven’t seen the previous films, don’t bother at all, you really need to know the back-story to understand what’s going on. The first problem I have with it is the book didn’t have to be split into two films, now I am aware the reasons behind this are purely financial and I understand that producers wanted to squeeze every penny out of this series, but it really would have been so much better as one movie, the scenes became way too repetitive. The second problem I have is the direction, the choice of shots are really poor and noticeably amateur, the techniques used are elementary and it really does feel like you’re looking at a high school play shot on a camcorder.

Bill Condon who is the named and shamed director of this mess of a movie, I do have some respect for. He directed Dreamgirls (2006) which I did find boring but it held together fairly well and was okay, and Chicago (2002) which he wrote the screenplay for and is one of the best modern-made musicals around at the moment, so he deserves some credit, but the direction of this is unsatisfactory.
 

Now I am being very generic when I say the direction is poor so ill give some examples. The wolf scene where Jacob talks to his clan in wolf form, a concept that hasn’t yet been done in the series, is dealt with very badly. Essentially the wolves don’t appear to be moving their mouths when they speak which would probably have been cheesy, but Condon chooses an even more bizarre way which is to have this odd voice over effect where he shoots the wolfs face and then the actors voice is played over the top, it is very poor and feels like a secondary school drama piece. Now I can’t suggest what might have been a better way of handling it because I’m not a film director but surely there is a way around it, but as it is, it really doesn’t work.

There is also the ending which I won’t spoil for those who haven’t seen it, but there is a very poignant and haunting final shot (that’s as much detail as I’m going into) that should be followed by a classical and chilling symphony but is instead followed by Christina Perri (famous for ‘Jar of Hearts’) singing some teenage pop anthem. That really frustrated me because I so badly wanted to feel something at the end of that film having strived so hard to find any sort of emotion other than boredom from after the first 30 minutes, and that climax (which was shot quite well considering) was ruined by that stupid irrelevant pop crap.

Having said that, It was decent enough and yes it lacked real cinematic purpose and that horrible feeling that the film was made to make money and not to tell a story kept popping up but that’s a given with the majority of mainstream films. The acting was dreary and frustrating as it often is and the best performance was defiantly Billy Burke as the emotional father as always. What I found odd was the amount of laughing from the rest of the audience, the comical moments were unintentional and I did find that a little weird and I too found myself laughing at inappropriate bits because the idea of a vampire trying to have intercourse with a mere human is funny. The laughter aside it was very average and there were good bits and there were truly abysmal bits. It’s not a complete waste of time and money but it really didn’t need to be two movies.  

**

You ain't seen nothin' yet...

A couple of things to get out of the way before I begin.  I am madly passionate about film. It’s pretty much my life (without sounding like too much of a socially deprived weirdo).  When I was young, even younger than I am now, I decided that all I would want to do for the rest of my life is watch movies, and doesn't every kid after a truly mind-blowing cinematic experience, but my passion persevered through my alienated adolescence and here I am sixteen years of age with a lifetime of movie-going ahead of me.

Right now I have a list of top titles (not necessarily recognised top titles) that I think every film buff or any other human being for that matter should definitely give a go. 

I'd like to start with my favourite film of all time, Good Will Hunting (1997) a film I only had the pleasure of seeing a couple of years ago on a long Tuesday night of homeworking, nestled on one of those BBC 12 sort of channels, when on came this masterpiece.  It could have been the relevance to youth and trying to find purpose in life that drew me in or simply the outstanding performance of Robin Williams, an actor who I wouldn't normally rate that highly, but something made me put down my pen and toss aside the stack of homework sheets.  Now there are inevitable problems with the film in that it feels very clichéd.  The whole idea that a boy genius from a troubled background is given the ticket to 'the good life' by a lonely MIT professor, but it is so much more than that.  It is a very intelligent narrative coming from two young stars worthy of their Oscar (Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, 1998). What astounds me is they clearly have such an understanding of life and hardship that they can depict this tale plucked from their imaginations with sincerity and it feels painfully real.  The director, Gus Van Sant (and yes I am aware he is the psycho that attempted the remake of Psycho) does an extraordinary job of using the camera and the light to show personality and dramatic tension.  It’s probably one of the first films I’ve seen where I’ve noticed the camera almost as part of the narrative.  

Now I’ve gone on far longer than I intended so I will round the others up fairly quickly. Disturbia (2007) with Shea LaBeouf which, I think is superb and one of the best thrillers of the modern age.  I should say I have a general rule which I’m sure I share with many others, YOU CAN'T REMAKE HITCHCOCK, and yes arguably Disturbia is a Hitchcock remake, except it’s not.  I would say it uses the premise of Rear Window (1954) but in doing so becomes a complete story in its own right. All I can say is watch it and I hope you agree.

Airplane (1980) is one of the best comedies of all time, and also has the best movie quote of all time "Excuse me stewardess, I speak Jive" which is just brilliant. Just don't watch the sequel.

Sherlock Jr. (1924) is one of those rarities that most people haven’t heard of let alone seen.  It is a black and white film, its silent and it’s so old it’s become an antique.  I know my generation has a prejudice against B+W movies which I really don't understand, but this is really worth the 'struggle' guys. It is genuinely funny with a timeless dream-like quality, and has ignited an admiration for Buster Keaton, one of the greatest film-makers of all time. If you can only bare one silent feature in your sad sorry life then make Sherlock Jr. it!  By the way it is hard to track down but you can watch the whole thing on YouTube in one part by visiting this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRwl8OpUbWU.

Finally I’m going to be boring and say Citizen Kane (1941) which is considered by many (including the American Film Institute, who I do normally problems with) to be the best film of all time.  I don’t think it is but it’s certainly close.  It is a Rite of Passage and you are not a man or a woman for that matter until you know the true meaning of 'Rosebud'.

Remember this isn’t a list my favourite films but they are a few that I would class as must-sees.  So that's it guys my first post, keep checking the site out for new ones and in the words of Austria’s greatest contribution to the cinema…

"Hasta la vista baby!"