HUGO.

So, before anyone else had even heard of this movie, it was one of my most anticipated of the year. Then people started hearing of it and began anticipating it, too. Then the trailer came out... and what a piece of crap that was. It went from in my Top 3 most anticipated to not even in my Top 10. It just looked abysmal and Oh-My-God-What-Is-Scorsese-Doing? But then the reviews started coming in, and most people declared it one of the best of the year. I became confused. So when the film landed in my town for basically a week-long run, I knew I had to check it out before it was too late. And what did it end up being? A very difficult film to talk about.

On the surface, the film starts off as one thing but then turns into something completely different about halfway through. We meet Hugo (Asa Butterfield), an orphan who lives in the walls of a Parisian train station and fixes clocks. One day, he's caught thieving by a toy shop owner, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), and he takes a journal that belongs to Hugo. The journal belonged to Hugo's father (Jude Law) and told how he could continue fixing an automaton. Hugo befriends Georges' Goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), in an attempt to get the journal back. But in this process, he begins to discover the secrets behind the automaton and its connection to Georges, as well as Georges' secret past. Meanwhile, Hugo must stay out of sight from the Station Inspector (Sasha Baron Cohen), who would quickly snatch him up and send him to the orphanage. The film also co-stars Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Helen McCrory, Frances de la Tour, and Richard Griffiths (yup... three Harry Potter alums!).

The film is very beautiful to watch. It gives off a magical appearance, like a whole new world exists within the walls of the Parisian train station. And it's rather fitting, as the movie as a whole is about embracing the magic of imagination. There is a lot of love given to cinema in this film, as movies play a large role in (the latter half of) the film.

But here's the problem I had with the movie... I just couldn't get absorbed by it all. It looked magical and beautiful. There was a solid mystery. The characters were good. Everything about this was completely solid film-making. But for some reason, none of that was getting my investment. I wasn't bored, though I did (ironically) look at my watch twice. The first time was a little over an hour in, and it felt like it had at least been thirty minutes longer than that.

I've thought about why this could be. I believe I've come to the conclusion that I was caught off guard; I wasn't watching what I thought I was supposed to be watching. The film was advertised as more of a whimsical kids movie about a kid who lives in clock towers and has adventures with a girl he befriends, mostly centered around a wacky station inspector and a mysterious robot. What it actually is... is a sad movie about losing everything you held dear, whether that be your parents, your leg, your love, your brother, or your life dream, and coping with it as best you can on a day-to-day basis. Every character in this movie (with the exception of Griffiths and de la Tour) lost something dear to them and live with a sadness behind their eyes. The aforementioned two just struggle to be with each other due to a minor complication.

In the end, there is a strong message of "never give up and always follow your heart." And everybody portrays that message greatly in their own little story. Even Sasha Baron Cohen moves beyond being a flat villain and has an arch of his own to overcome, and it's one of his best acting performances. Ben Kingsley also gives a very strong performance, as well (which is good considering the film is really about him).

I know I probably sounded very negative in this review, but I honestly still really liked the film. It wasn't anything like I expected, either in plot or in tone, but Scorsese still managed to show his chops in this lighter fare. Pay no attention to the terrible trailers. This film is much more than anything you've seen advertised. It has strong themes and is, as many have already said, a love song to following your dreams, to discovering the magic of imagination, and to viewing and appreciating film itself.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #23: Schindler's List.

This is my third Spielberg film I've reviewed for this 60/60 List. The first one, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, didn't sit super positively with me. Next was Saving Private Ryan, a film that I did enjoy it quite a lot. Now we're up to what is probably considered Spielberg's best film. But did I perceive it as such?

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a member of the Nazi party who also acts as a war profiteer. He starts hiring Jews to work in his factory, getting a lot of help from a man named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley). But when another Nazi named Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) shows up and begins committing cold-blooded murders on the Jewish population of the ghetto, Schindler starts to become more and more sympathetic toward the Jews. And when he gets word that they're going to be sent to their doom at Auschwitz, he puts together a list of names that he can save by bringing them to another factory in his hometown.

The acting is of course fantastic. This is probably one of Liam Neeson's finest performances. Ben Kingsley was the most likable in the movie. Ralph Fiennes as the crazy Nazi was the most fascinating. He's completely psychotic, sniping Jews from his balcony just because he feels like it or gets upset. But at the same time, he works along with Schindler, letting him keep his "workers" and even (somewhat) helping to have Schindler's workers safe from Auschwitz. He's still a total evil bastard, though. And the way everyone is acted is superb. That being said, however...

I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. Obviously I can tell you it was masterfully made. Mostly in black and white, there are only a few segments in color. The film is bookended in color, and there are a couple parts in the middle--some candles and the girl in the red dress, specifically. So the cinematography is great, the acting is top notch, etc. So why can't I figure out how to talk about this movie?

There really is no "plot," per se. There's a story, but up until the last hour of the film (in a 3+ hour film), the story is more like a random set of events that sometimes include overarching characters. You see a lot of things happening to characters whose names we might not even learn. The film is more interested in giving us a window into the lives of these particular Jews in this place rather than giving us any kind of heavy plot. It's just... these are Jews; these are Nazis; this is World War II; watch what happens between them. Then in the last half or so of the movie, we start to get things happening in the sense that the story starts to become more focused and there's a clear idea of what's going to happen and/or where the film is headed. It's no longer just Nazis killing Jews and Schindler making money.

I'm just going to wrap this up, because this is one of the toughest reviews I've had to figure out and write for this project thus far. I really enjoyed the ending that showed us the real survivors. Like I said, the movie is masterfully made and has great acting and fine characters (I know they were real people, but still). I just guess I was partially bored despite all that. It's one of those "It's not my cup of tea, but I still enjoyed it" kind of things that puts me in an awkward place. So here's where I'm at: It's a great film, but I didn't love it. However, I certainly didn't hate it, and I more than merely "liked it." For the sake of this review, I'm starting with a score at the top due to the film's quality, but I'm going to drop it down a notch because I didn't love it. I guess.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

A Week Of Uwe Boll #4: BloodRayne.

Travis is probably gonna hate me for this one. Let me start off by saying out of all the Uwe Boll movies I had up to watch, BloodRayne was my most anticipated. Why? For a couple reasons. First, it's considered by many to be up there with Alone in the Dark as one of Boll's absolute worst films, and I couldn't wait to see this for myself. Second, I remember when it came out in theater and when the trailers first came out; I remember how fake it looked, and I often said that a Sci-Fi Channel Original looked more convincing. Combine that with a completely bizarre cast and a scene where you get to see Kristanna Loken's boobs, and I was in. And no, I've never played the video games the movie is based on.

The movie is about a Dhampir (where the P is pronounced like an F)--a half human/half vampire--named Rayne (Kristanna Loken). Many years ago, her vampire father, Kagan (Ben Kingsley), raped and murdered her mother. Ever since, she's been out for revenge. Then we also have the members of a vampire-killing society--Vladimir (Michael Madsen), Sebastian (Matt Davis), and Katarin (Michelle Rodriguez). Katarin's father, Elrich (Billy Zane), was in charge of this society... that is, until he became a vampire himself. Anyway, this society protects powerful objects/body parts that can make any vampire super powerful, and--of course--Kagan is after them. But Rayne will get these objects herself if it means finding a way to get to Kagan and kill him.

The movie's story is all over the place. Half the crap in this movie doesn't make sense, and that's being generous. Hell, Billy Zane's character ends up having absolutely no point. He's in maybe 3 scenes which go absolutely nowhere, and then he's never heard from again. It wasn't necessarily confusing as it was just laughably bad. There's even a sex scene that comes out of nowhere, which is the infamous scene where we get to see Kristanna Loken topless. And then it's never mentioned again.

The acting is atrocious, as well. The majority of the cast is incredibly out of place. Ben Kingsley doesn't even phone it in; Hell, he doesn't even sleepwalk through it. He gives us what is probably the most boring villain in any vampire story, not to mention one of the laziest performances of his career. Michael Madsen is obscenely out of place, and his pauses in between his monotone speech makes William Shatner look like Alan Rickman (oh yeah, I went there). As for Michelle Rodriguez, let's just say I pull off a more convincing British accent than she does, not to mention I can keep it going longer. Half the time she talks normal. Kristanna Loken is guilty of the same, but it was more noticeable with Miss Rodriguez. I mean, Jesus, when Billy Zane gives the best performance in your movie... though I should have realized this when the opening credits actually said "With Special Appearance By Billy Zane." Yeah. Billy Zane actually gets the "special appearance" tag for this movie. That tells ya something.

I never find reason to talk about props and costumes in movies. If you're a regular reader of mine, you'll know that. But I have to comment here. The costumes, primarily the wigs, are so bad they're ridiculous. From Ben Kingsley's to Meatloaf's (yes, Meatloaf is in this movie. You know what they say, some Meatloaf Aday keeps the doctor away... or something like that). And the weapons? Never have I seen duller swords. My Sword of Gryffindor (don't be jealous) could do more damage than Rayne's arm swords. And Ms. Loken moves so slowly with them, she gives you plenty of time to take it all in.

This leads in to the action. This movie was a gore fest. Granted, the blood was incredibly fake, as were any damaged body parts (sliced limbs, bashed heads, cut torsos, etc.). The camera stayed on them long enough that you could tell how fake they were. And the bright fake blood didn't help. There's actually one scene that's pretty funny when there are a bunch of guys beating a ripped open corpse with their swords, but they're doing it so slowly and with such bored looks on their faces. It's like they were trying out for the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney World. Just going through the motions. But besides the gore, the action wasn't half bad. Sure, it was slow and not very fluid, as if the actors were too scared to play with their fake weapons, but it was still entertaining.

On top of all this, the script is terrible. Now, to his credit, Uwe Boll didn't write it. A woman named Guinevere Turner did. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the same Guinevere Turner who was partially responsible for the screenplay of American Psycho. And it. is. bad. The conversations are jilted, mainly for 2 different reasons. First, everything is expository. There is no character building conversations. Every single sentence has to to with moving along the plot, even to the point where transitions in scenes make no sense and are forced. The second reason is that there are absolutely no contractions. This movie is apostrophe-phobic, I guess, because every little syllable of every word must be said. And as I said earlier, the story makes no sense part of the time, giving us unnecessary moments of story (Billy Zane's character... or Meatloaf's character).

All of this being said, I have to say that I actually enjoyed the movie. Some will say it's painfully boring. Some will say it's just bad. And some say it's a total rape of the video game. But I haven't played the video game, and I think this movie is actually so bad it's good. With bad acting reading the words from a bad script with actors wearing bad wigs and doing bad action scenes with overtly fake gore, all to further a plot that nobody really cares about? It's just so bad it's hilarious. And yes, I did laugh at points from the badness. And the reason I think I enjoyed BloodRayne more than some of Uwe Boll's other works thus far, such as Postal or Far Cry, is because of its consistency. Postal actually has some truly good moments in it, so its inconsistency to be either good or bad made it hard to watch. Far Cry just tried too hard; it had good ideas, but a really poor execution. BloodRayne is just bad all around, a bad that is so bad you're not sure that it wasn't made like this on purpose. Even the cinematography is bad, which is why I had the initial thought from the trailers that it came off as a really bad Sci-Fi Channel Original. So what did I think of at the end? That I was wrong. I actually think it would have made a pretty decent Sci-Fi Channel Original, though it was still at that quality and did not deserve the theater run. The only reason it did was the star power, I'm sure.

If there was anything I didn't like about the movie, even in a so bad it's good kinda way, it was the ending. There's about a 2-3 minute flashback montage of a bunch of bloody/violent acts that occurred throughout the rest of the movie (some of it in slow motion), just in case you had tried to forget it by this point. And it is a bloody montage, indeed. Still, it serves absolutely no purpose other than to confuse, which it did. But that was just a minor quibble in an otherwise super-campy, super-bad, so-bad-its-good vampire flick.

When it comes to these types of movies, I hate giving them ratings, because there are two levels to it. There's the actual movie score and the "how I perceived it" score, and I really don't like doing more than one score per movie. So I'm gonna go ahead and invent a brand new score, premiering today (actually, there are 2 new scores. The second I'll hardly ever have to use, but I have had to score a handful of movies with that rating in the past, so I figured it might as well get a picture). Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the "Hot Mess" rating:


A Hot Mess

(P.S. Both new ratings can be found in the sidebar "Ratings" section.)

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME.

So, I've been mildly excited for this movie. I haven't played the video games, but I'm a fan of the concept. And anything that involves Parkour is cool. And then I started hearing the relatively positive reviews and got a bit more excited. Though despite the reviews being positive, they were only mildly so, with ratings around the 3-3.5 out of 5 range. But hey, that's at least entertaining, right? Right.

The movie follows the story of Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), who started out as an orphan but is adopted by the Persian king, thus becoming a prince of Persia. But with his street-based childhood, he has some street cred and knows how to move about (Aladdin-ish). Well, after getting some news that a major city might be selling weapons to Persia's enemies, Dastan, his brothers, and his uncle (Ben Kingsley) are forced to invade them. In the process, Dastan discovers a mystical dagger that has the ability to turn back time, which is guarded by the city's princess, Tamina (Gemma Arterton). But after Dastan is accused of murdering his father, he is forced to leave with Tamina on a quest to figure out who was really behind his father's death, as well as discovering the secrets of the dagger. The movie also features Alfred Molina as a shifty entrepreneur who dabbles with... ostrich racing.

Overall, some parts of this movie are better than others. This movie was pimped out to be the next big "Pirates of the Caribbean." What I loved most about the PotC films, besides the quirky Captain Jack, were the imaginative fight sequences. And this movie had a lot of potential for imaginative fight sequences, what with the video game's basis in parkour and instant time travel. And I felt, for the most part, this potential was wasted. There's maybe one or two scenes that utilized these things well (primarily the parkour), but that's about it. But the scenes that do utilize these things are pretty cool.

The acting is decent, with the witty banter of Dastan and Tamina stealing the scenes. Dastan was a pretty fun character, and Gemma Arterton is absolutely gorgeous. Oh, and her character is decent, too, playing a strong female lead. Alfred Molina really hammed it up, and his character walked the line between funny and bizarrely annoying. There were some moments where he was funny, but the character overall was just strange, and the whole ostrich thing felt out of place. As for the other characters, the smaller roles (like the brothers) were a bit rough. They were flatly written and--sometimes--poorly acted. And Ben Kingsley was just kinda in it for the paycheck, I think.

Which leads me into the script itself. You can tell there are some very video game moments (puzzles, etc.). And those are pretty cool. But there is some pretty rough dialogue that is so forced, so stilted, so bad... I wonder how it even stayed past the rough draft of the script. Luckily, these moments are few and far between, but when they show up (especially around the beginning), they really stick out.

I know this review seems negative, but I didn't dislike the movie. It was actually pretty entertaining, and I can agree with all those other reviews that put it in that middle ground. It's not great, but it's fun, and it's a decent way to spend about 2 hours. Sure, you pretty much see everything coming a mile away, but the journey is still an entertaining one. And isn't that what summer blockbusters are all about?


Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. And that's a strong rating... it was a tough choice between this and the next highest rating, but overall I thought this one was more suitable.)

SHUTTER ISLAND.

I've been pretty hyped for this movie for a while, mostly from a mystery/thriller standpoint more than a Scorsese standpoint (I'm by no means a Scorsese aficionado or anything). Now I'm just wondering if I went in with my expectations a bit too high. Shutter Island tells the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his newly appointed partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo). They are sent to Shutter Island because it houses an asylum for the criminally insane, and one of its patience has just escaped. But everything isn't what it seems. The doctors, nurses, and orderlies, and security--including Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), and Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch)--seem to be in on some kind of conspiracy, and it's up to Teddy to figure out what it is, to "blow the lid off this thing." The movie also stars the likes of Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levine, and Elias Koteas.

Even after I was already interested in the movie, I was told it had this epic twist to end all twists--one of the best twists in modern literature (since it's based on a book). Well, I wonder if the book is any different, because I was able to figure out the basic twist within the first 3 minutes of the movie. But just the basic part of it. All the other details, I was never able to figure out until they were revealed at the end. Interestingly enough, whenever there were clues to the ending, it felt like a giant flashing sign saying "look at me, I'm a clue!" But while I was easily able to discern the clues that would inevitably add up to the twist, I wasn't able to put them together and make sense of it before it was revealed. Of course, it all made sense afterward, but still. Oh, and they never explain the "rule of 4" thing, unless I just missed it. Because they find this letter that mentions the 'rule of 4' and 'who is 67'? They explain the latter, but never the former...

The acting, for the most part, was good. But there were times when I was like "OK, Leo, right now I'm just seeing Leo trying to play a cop." They weren't frequent, but they were there. And I worried about the movie at the beginning, wondering what I was getting myself into for 2+ hours, as it really wasn't very gripping, and it seemed to be exposition central.

But the movie does pick up after a while. What helps the movie the most are its visuals. Scorsese does good things to set the mood--the rain, the smoke, the shadows--and he runs with it. There's good cinematography here to really help with the atmosphere, not to mention some really great shots in general.

I also noticed, primarily towards the end, how much symbolism there was in the movie. There were a lot of fire and water motifs, as well as smoke. And the storm/rain acted as a great symbol to the chaos of the situation, as well as to the self-destruction of mankind.

I really don't know what else to say. It was really good, but not "OMG I need new pants" great. Maybe I had hyped myself up too much for it or something. I might not buy it when it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray, but I'd definitely watch it again if I saw it on TV. Because, while it was good and the mystery engaging, I can't see myself sitting down wanting to watch it over and over again. Definitely see it in the theater, though. Just hope you don't get an audience like mine where a woman laughed at all the parts that were supposed to be disturbing and/or unsettling (or, with... like... the one jump-scare in the movie, calls out to the entire theater 'Oh, that scared me!'). So... yeah.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Though I have to admit, the last line in the movie is excellent.)