Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
Saw it in 3-D a few weeks ago. Brilliant. It's too bad so many people think it's a kids movie when it's not. I agree that a lot must be lost in viewing it in 2-D rather than 3-D... Rick In a message dated 1/21/2012 9:34:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ki...@movieart.net writes: 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
I loved it! From: rixpost...@aol.com rixpost...@aol.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 10:12:56 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO Saw it in 3-D a few weeks ago. Brilliant. It's too bad so many people think it's a kids movie when it's not. I agree thata lot must be lost in viewing it in 2-D rather than 3-D... Rick In a message dated 1/21/2012 9:34:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ki...@movieart.net writes: FinallyI saw this Christmas release. I was a little underwhelmed in somerespects and quite overwhelmed in others. It's a 3D film that must be seenin 3D. Scorsese uses 3D in an intelligent way to try to capture someof the magic at the birth of cinema. The art direction, set decoration,photography, movement, blocking, staging, and production values are atonce grand and astonishing. It's worth seeing for that alone. Asa 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 itcan hold the attention of a young kid. It is not short. Infact, it may be a little too long for someone who is not absolutelyenthralled with the subject, but that would not include me. Themovie is Professor Scorsese's ticket to impart his rapturous love of earlycinema. He tries, with remarkable success, to dramatize the mechanical world of the early 20th century using 3D to make it allcome alive and to lionize the tinkerers, chemists, cameramen and directorswho literally invented moving pictures. As a testament toScorsese's abilities as a director especially his power to harness visionwithin an enormous production, the film is impressive. Seeing thismovie on TV in 2D will be almost like missing it. It's a movie-lovers movieand it is large. How was I perhaps a little underwhelmed? TheCinema is the star of this movie. This is not a star-turnpicture. The acting is good, but Scorsese never lets these actors,with the exception of Sacha Baron-Cohen, whom he doesn't seem able tocontrol entirely, get anywhere near stealing this picture. In thissense, the film is the polar opposite of a movie like TREE OF LIFE wherethe actors are unleashed to carry the film or MONEYBALL which is oldfashioned Brad Pitt movie star stuff cooked to perfection. K. Visit the MoPoMailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPoMailing List Send a message addressed to:lists...@listserv.american.edu Inthe BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solelyresponsible for its content. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
In 3-D, HUGO is a dazzlingly wondrous feast for the eyes, which tugs at the heart of any fan of movies past. I agree with you, Kirby, much of everything else in the film is underwhelming, particularly Sacha Baron-Cohen. HUGO grinds to an abrupt, uncomfortable halt whenever he is on the screen. Aside from some spectacular eye-candy shots and unlike MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, which is my favorite film of the year, Scorsese fails to relay little in the way of affection for the city. Perhaps, Paris, with its tradition of the arts and avant-garde, is one of the few places where a magical moviemaker like Melies could have found such fertile ground to grow his screen magic. Earl Blair CAPTAIN BIJOU www.captainbijou.om - Original Message - From: Kirby McDaniel ki...@movieart.net To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 11:34 AM Subject: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
Also loved it! Seeing The Artist tonight. Thanks, MD On Jan 21, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Kirby McDaniel ki...@movieart.net wrote: 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
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
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
I completely agree...a true master piece. Philipp Sent via BlackBerry by ATT -Original Message- From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Sender: MoPo List mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:40:21 To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Reply-To: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO 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
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
I also loved WARHORSE and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 12:40:21 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO 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
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
Though I wouldn't see War Horse again (that one of my tests, whether a picture has replay value for me) - I thought The Rise of the Planet of the Apes was BRILLIANT. For once we got a realistic-looking Apes picture that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING - right up to the original 1968 classic. Though it's not clear where this picture is going as you're watching it, (is it about scientific experiments? is it about man's inhumanity to apes? is it about a cure for Alzheimers?) - by the end credits, just like the 1968 version - there is a super surprise ending whereby the audience finally learns how man became instinct, how the apes took over the planet, and why the Mars-bound astronauts in the 1968 movie (though they're not depicted) missed so much upon their return to Earth. About one minute into the END CREDITS, all is revealed. I feel sorry for the poor schmoes who raced out of the theater to beat the traffic out of the parking lot. Alas, I also wondered if this 2011 picture resonated more with baby boomers who loved the '68 movie - than with younger audiences w/no reference point to understand why the ending was so powerful in both pictures. -d. Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:25:18 -0800 From: fly...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I also loved WARHORSE and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 12:40:21 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO 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
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
Actually the audience skewed younger and they enjoyed it thoroughly. I thought it was a universal story that appealed to many. From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 3:10:19 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO Though I wouldn't see War Horse again (that one of my tests, whether a picture has replay value for me) - I thought The Rise of the Planet of the Apes was BRILLIANT. For once we got a realistic-looking Apes picture that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING - right up to the original 1968 classic. Though it's not clear where this picture is going as you're watching it, (is it about scientific experiments? is it about man's inhumanity to apes? is it about a cure for Alzheimers?) - by the end credits, just like the 1968 version - there is a super surprise ending whereby the audience finally learns how man became instinct, how the apes took over the planet, and why the Mars-bound astronauts in the 1968 movie (though they're not depicted) missed so much upon their return to Earth. About one minute into the END CREDITS, all is revealed. I feel sorry for the poor schmoes who raced out of the theater to beat the traffic out of the parking lot. Alas, I also wondered if this 2011 picture resonated more with baby boomers who loved the '68 movie - than with younger audiences w/no reference point to understand why the ending was so powerful in both pictures. -d. Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:25:18 -0800 From: fly...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I also loved WARHORSE and RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, January 21, 2012 12:40:21 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO 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
Re: [MOPO] RECOMMENDED: HUGO
I thought Hugo was a masterpiece and and one of the best uses of 3D I've ever seen, including the previous high watermark of Avatar. Seeing tiny particles of dust glinting in and out of the middleground sunlight in the station scenes and snowflakes falling (in perspective), lit only by street lamps was simply beautiful. You really couldn't take your eyes off the screen for more than a second or two without missing one exquisite visual touch after another. The recreation of the famous Gare Montparnesse train crash had me on the edge of my seat and took me by complete surprise as I'd never read the original source material, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. I loved the concept that Hugo considered his purpose was to fix broken things and his solutions for fixing Monsieur Georges and the Station Master. I know a number of critics felt that the stories of Hugo, Isabelle and Monsieur Georges never properly integrated, and the separate, smaller stories of the Station Master/flower girl and the old man trying to woo the lady with the angry dog were just distractions, but I felt everything fit together very well. Much like the many pieces of a clock in fact, the multiple story threads all came together to form a fully-realized and satisfying mechanism. As they say, if you see only one movie this year, you really should get out more and see more movies. If you're that sort of person you probably wouldn't enjoy this movie either, but if you really like the art and have even a passing familiarity with the history of cinema then I can't recommend Hugo highly enough. However, it really has to be seen in 3D to get the full visual enjoyment. Colin Hunter 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.
