Hugo

A lot of people were loudly skeptical when they heard that Martin Scorsese would be directing a 3D family movie, but for some reason I wasn't. The main things I thought were that his films are successful because they are well crafted, not because they're violent, and he is a strongly visual director, so he could probably handle the third dimension as well as anyone in the business. Both of these proved to be true when I saw Hugo, based on a book that weaves a small part of the real history of film into a nice story about a young boy who finally makes some friends.

Hugo Cabret is a young orphan who lives in the walls of a Paris train station, and is left to maintain the building's clocks on his own when his drunk uncle skips town. He's also trying to repair a broken automaton that his father found in a museum and was working on before he died, and his quest to do so introduces him to Ben Kingsley's character, the owner of a small toy shop in the station, and his adoptive daughter played by Chloë Moretz, who loves reading but has never seen a movie. He takes her to the theater, and shows her the automaton, and they eventually stumble into revelations that that bring the seemingly disparate elements of a broken robot and the love of film together.

Visually the film is pretty stunning, whether you see it in 3D or 2D, though I saw the former. The sets and costumes are impeccably gorgeous on their own, and the depth from the 3D further brings the world to life in a pretty incredible way. I was definitely more impressed than I was by Avatar. This movie proved to me that the argument that 2D film is inherently superior because it is more dreamlike is absolute garbage. The visuals in this movie make it seem almost like it's animation even though it was filmed with live actors, and they bring you into a fantasy setting that doesn't seem real, but much more imaginative and fun than that. I don't like the over-saturation of 3D in the theater market, because most films aren't made with it in mind and don't seem to really benefit from the process. But Hugo was made to be shown this way, and the effect is great at pulling you into this other place, in the same way that many people probably felt when they watched a movie for the first time.

In a funny way, that 3D thing does really well to tie into the idea of the dawn of filmmaking and the newness of the concept when the film takes place. It's a couple decades after the cinema had become commonplace, but the characters do a good deal of digging into the medium's origins, and a good portion of the running time is just devoted to celebration of the art form. Scorsese is a big proponent of film preservation and film in general, so it makes perfect sense for him to get attached to this concept, almost to the detriment of the main plot of the movie. There were some flaws with the movie that detracted from the overall good feeling I got from the experience. I thought Asa Butterfield's performance was a little uneven, and while I liked Sacha Baron Cohen's inspector character, he only seemed to be in the movie because the story needed an antagonist. I definitely liked him more when he was awkwardly trying to be friendly than when he was the villain rounding up orphans.

And for a family movie, I don't know how much kids would actually like it. A good deal of what's interesting about the film is referential to things they probably wouldn't understand, and it was neither terribly funny not terribly exciting most of the time. There were a couple really fun moments, but what I liked most about the movie was the setting it created, and pretty much every kid's movie is decent enough at that. But if you enjoy Scorsese as a filmmaker, and still have a sense of wonder, and an appreciation for the history of human entertainment, you'll probably like the movie a lot.

(500) Days of Summer

I kind of like romantic comedies that aren't really romantic comedies. I think Annie Hall is a great example of one, and so is (500) Days of Summer. They're both really funny and sweet, and have interesting romantic stories. But they aren't romantic comedies. Because that classification requires the two leads getting together at the end, right? And that's not what we have here. Right from the start we know that Tom isn't going to end up with Summer, because of the whole 500 day thing. The only surprise was how early in that period they actually break up, with the rest dealing with how he responds to his devastation. The movie jumps back and forth in time constantly, using the technique to establish his miserableness after it's over, show how they got together, and then cleverly reveal over time what helped lead to a dumping that he apparently didn't see coming. It's a great script, and a well put-together film with good acting by the two leads. One of my only issues with the whole thing really is the slightly silly title.

The film walks a precarious tightrope the entire time, as it really strives for a specific mindset, with lots of stylish touches and gimmicky scenes throughout. A split-screen is frequently used to show what's happening in two different locations, or in one particularly interesting sequence, two different realities. The whole 500 days thing permeates the film, as we're constantly told exactly how many days into the relationship we are at a given moment, which provides comedic juxtaposition and assists the storytelling. There's some weird stuff going on, and if you combine it with the two main characters' indie music sensibilities (they like The Smiths and he sings Pixies at a karaoke bar and discuss their favorite Beatle) and the character of Tom's sister, it could all become really cheesy and silly quickly. Only the last part really bothered me at all though, and I thought the way the chipper mood of the two when they're together clashed with his depression when it's over was smart. It manages to be emotional without getting too sappy, because it's easy to see how much duller his life is without her.

The only thing I know about Marc Webb is that he's directing the too-soon Spider-Man reboot, but he seems to have a handle on filmmaking here. He juggles managing the actors with getting all those quirky bits in, and the style never gets in the way of the story. My man crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues, as he does a great job with the material and comes off as likable despite some of his actions being less than positive or justifiable. Zooey Deschanel is good too, being instantly desirable when she's supposed to and coming off well despite the one-sided nature of the film's perspective. I don't understand why Chloe Moretz can never just play a normal little girl, and her wise-beyond-her-years little sister act didn't quite work for me here. She's not objectively bad, though. Clark Gregg, who's most recognizable these days as Agent Coulson in all of the Marvel movies, is also likable as Tom's super-cheerful boss. I've talked before about how sometimes films don't need to be perfect to just be effective emotional experiences, and I think that definitely applies here. A lot of the individual elements might have bugged me on their own, but all together it's a really slick and entertaining film. Not a romantic comedy, but a funny and charming movie nonetheless.

Kick-Ass

So, Kick-Ass. What's interesting about this comic adaptation to me is that that's not actually what it is, exactly. The book was apparently written at the same time as the script for this film, so the departures in tone and story are organic growths from the same idea rather than changes for the sake of changing. Based on what I've read, the movie is less mean-spirited than the book, and also less plausible, especially near the end. Fundamentally, I think it kind of has an identity crisis. Aaron Johnson is a dork in high school who idiotically tries to be the world's first real super hero, and at first things progress very believably - he gets a silly costume, dons the name Kick-Ass, confronts some thugs, and then gets stabbed and hit by a car. Eventually he gets a bit better at it, although he's still quite amateurish. Things take a change though when another pair of heroes are introduced, the father/daughter team of Big Daddy and Hit Girl. Nicolas Cage and Chloe Moretz are both pretty great in these roles, Cage especially with a cadence straight from Adam West's school of acting. And the action scenes that feature them at work are a lot of fun. But they're just both way too good at stylishly killing people to buy into the rest of the story as something that could happen.

I generally liked the super hero stuff, although that's not all there is to the movie. There's a fair amount of whiny narration and boring high school stuff going on, none of which you haven't seen before a million times. It's not that it's impossible to make that thing interesting, it's just that this movie fails to do so. He has a couple embarrassing situations, an extremely improbable story arc with a girl who's out of his league, and that's about it. His friend played by Clark Duke has a few funny lines, but if they were going to do this whole ultra violence thing, they could have dedicated more time to developing that part of the story and just cut a lot of the high school stuff out. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is surprisingly still likable as a rich kid who gets involved in the super hero business, and whenever all that stuff is the highlight the movie is a lot more fun. Some of it gets fairly brutal, but it's never too far away from making you laugh again. And about the shock value stuff with a preteen girl killing mobsters and cussing like a sailor - if that stuff offends you, then guess what, it's working. I'll watch the sequel when it comes out, but first Matthew Vaughn has to direct the first X-Men movie without Wolverine. Let's hope he can fix the franchise.

Let Me In

Let Me In is a good movie. The problem is it's a remake of a great one. I don't have the poisonous hatred of remakes that a lot of film fans do, although I do sort of see it as a lack of creativity. Let Me In rarely steps outside the bounds set up by its Swedish counterpart, so what's its purpose for existing? Early box office returns suggest it's not going to end up making that much bigger of a dent in the American public than the original. If I saw it with fresh eyes, I might have been more impressed with it, but I was sort of comparing it to Let the Right One In the whole time, and I don't think most of the differences helped. Matt Reeves proved he can shoot a regular movie, and the cast was very good. Chloë Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee have already made impacts in other movies recently (which I need to see), and are pretty much a wash performance-wise with the original kids. Richard Jenkins is one of those great "that guy"s, and he's great as Abby's caretaker. Elias Koteas' character didn't make as much sense as the concerned citizen from the original (why does it seem like he's the only cop in the whole town?), but he does a fine job as well.

Directly comparing the two movies, I would describe a lot of the changes as just being less subtle. I mean, good on them for cutting the cat scene, but everything else is bigger and more directly explained for no real benefit to the story. They felt the need to outdo some of the hospital scenes with more elaborate special effects, and this is even more prevalent with Abby's attacks. It's not enough for her to suddenly pounce, she has to turn into a computer animated monster and get a scary looking face. The original had a nice period feel taking place in the early 80s, with enough clues to give you a sense of time, but the remake hits you over the head with it, creating a soundtrack out of the era's hits, and adding big cameos for an inappropriately placed Kiss shirt and Ronald Reagan. The latter ties into another thing, the sudden adding of a ton of religious stuff seemingly everywhere. It's pervasive and I don't really get it. And people just say and ask things they don't have to, making things more obvious than they need to be.

Visually, I wasn't nearly as impressed. The original was gorgeous, while the new one is merely pretty good looking. It definitely hits the "orange and teal" thing too hard, and that actually kind of hurts the attempt to bring you to the 80s, since it's just not what the world looked like. I will give credit to one big change though, Jenkins' method for getting blood is a lot more interesting than in the original. Neither idea is actually terribly smart, but in the remake it provides for a hell of a lot more tension in those sings as opposed to just creepiness, leading to a remarkable extended shot as impressive as any single take I've seen in a long time. Seriously exceptional moment of filmmaking. I honestly liked the movie, and don't think it's an insult to say it generally just doesn't stack up to its origin. It's a good vampire movie that thankfully doesn't glorify them like a lot of the other crap in theaters these days. I like what Reeves has done in the last few years, and hope his next project is just more original.