I'm with you. I made the mistake of seeing HUGO with a friend with no
historical interest in cinema. There are a lot of things good about it, such
as the 3-D process - but if I had to boil its problems down to one thing it
would be poor pacing. The picture rarely takes off and fails to play up the
mystery of the broken down robot in an engaging, exhilarating way. I kept
waiting for it to zoom off the screen in that familiar Scorsese way. If a film
doesn't "take off" in 3-D, then its prospects in 2-D are worse. Having said
that, I also saw "War Horse," the Spielberg drama. Everyone knows that I'm a
big fan of this controversial love-him-or-hate-him director who has a penchant
for sweetness and canned conclusions. Forget the source material when you see
these pictures. A film should stand on its own as a product of pure cinema -
independent of its source. "War Horse" delivers about 2/3rds too late into the
picture. Very slow but at least it gets props for generating genuine tears
from an audience. But not worth the journey. Yet Spielberg's "The Adventures
of Tintin" shocked me. I was not familiar with the source material and it did
not matter. I was skeptical of Spielberg's venture into a genre that I didn't
think him capable of pulling off, e.g., animation; the other two genres that
he's crummy at are romantic-comedies and musicals, despite what we've seen in
"1941" and in "Temple of Doom." But "Tintin" roared like an animated version
of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The marriage of 3-D and animation worked in this
film in ways that should have worked in "Hugo." When we saw it, there were no
more than 20 people in the theater. The picture is a bust in the U.S. but it's
spectacular entertainment with stock villains, thrills and spills. It's a
well-crafted picture, way better than "War Horse" and turned out to be one of
the best pics we saw last year. Worth the price of admission.
I have not yet seen "The Artist" which is gathering tremendous momentum but has
been slapped with the art-house label, which will hurt the number of screens
available for viewers. I'm hoping it's indeed as great as critics say it is.
Meanwhile, about "Tree of Life" and "Moneyball" - "The Tree of Life" is
available on DVD and is petering out for awards notoriety, but we saw it twice
and was quite taken with it both times. But it must be said that the film is
incomprehensible without the subtitles turned on. I can only imagine how angry
paying viewers must have been with their inability to make out the content of
the voice overs. Director Malick's vision of where you are in the continuum of
life, e.g., what came before you and what will come after you, is intriguing.
It has a Kubrickian feel hence it is a very divisive picture for audiences. On
the other hand, "Moneyball" was a blow-down, knock-em-dead wonderful picture;
director Bennett Miller, who was the guy who helmed my favorite picture of 2005
("Capote" with Philip Seymour Hoffman), is a master by taking a baseball
picture you think you're going to hate and turning it into a wonderful
character ensemble; Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill were wonderful and it's great to
see Pitt playing "older" so well and Hill playing something other than a
sex-crazed schlub. The sharp writing of "Moneyball" is similar to the "The
Social Network" because both pictures were penned by Aaron Sorkin, though
"Moneyball" has the bonus of being co-penned by Steve Zaillian ("Schindlers
List"). A wonderful picture.
Finally, two other pictures that were solid faves for me last year were
"Bridesmaids" and "The Descendants." The less I say about "Bridesmaids" the
better. You'll either love it or hate it. More laughs per minute than any
other picture released last year. "The Descendants," however, requires an
advisory. Despite the fact that it's being marketed as a light family
relationship picture, the picture is in fact very dark and framed with sadness
from beginning to end. It is not a "great night out on the town" type of
movie. Yet it demands your attention because the dialogue feels authentic and
faithful to how people face the impending death of someone close to them.
Clooney plays against type and that's what's different. His character, despite
his millions, is grossly incompetent. That's the main appeal of the picture;
how is he going to right a sinking ship that's filled with so many people who
depend upon him?
The Academy Awards are a phony exercise that I unfortunately cave into every
year as a guilty pleasure. I make it a point to see every product nominated
for "Best Picture" so that I know what people are talking about on Awards
night. The nominations are out next Tuesday. With 6-10 films eligible for the
big prize, I am curious to see which films I've seen will or will not make the
list - and which films I have yet to see - that I will have to see - before the
big show. -d.
P.S. - two other pictures that made my top 10 that will likely be overlooked
next week were the documentary, "Buck" and the finance drama "Margin Call."
Both are now available on DVD.
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:34:49 -0600
> From: ki...@movieart.net
> Subject: RECOMMENDED: HUGO
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> Finally I saw this Christmas release.
>
> I was a little underwhelmed in some respects and quite overwhelmed in others.
> It's a 3D film that must be seen in 3D. Scorsese uses 3D in an intelligent
> way to
> try to capture some of the magic at the birth of cinema. The art direction,
> set decoration, photography,
> movement, blocking, staging, and
> production values are at once grand and astonishing. It's worth seeing for
> that alone.
>
> As a kids' film, it is a little too grown-up, I think. For age 10 and above.
> Not that there is anything objectionable in it; I just wonder if it can
> hold the attention of a young kid. It is not short. In fact, it may be a
> little
> too long for someone who is not absolutely enthralled with the subject, but
> that would not include me.
>
> The movie is Professor Scorsese's ticket to impart his rapturous love
> of early cinema. He tries, with remarkable success, to dramatize the
> mechanical world of the early 20th century using 3D to make it all come
> alive and to lionize the tinkerers, chemists, cameramen and directors who
> literally invented
> moving pictures.
>
> As a testament to Scorsese's abilities as a director especially his power
> to harness vision within an enormous production, the film is impressive.
>
> Seeing this movie on TV in 2D will be almost like missing it.
> It's a movie-lovers movie and it is large.
>
> How was I perhaps a little underwhelmed? The Cinema is
> the star of this movie. This is not a star-turn picture. The acting is good,
> but Scorsese never lets these actors, with the exception of Sacha
> Baron-Cohen, whom
> he doesn't seem able to control entirely,
> get anywhere near stealing this picture. In this sense, the film is the
> polar opposite
> of a movie like TREE OF LIFE where the actors are unleashed to carry the film
> or
> MONEYBALL which is old fashioned Brad Pitt movie star stuff cooked to
> perfection.
>
> K.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
