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'

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.)