The Artist (2011)

2/5

Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist is an interesting film. It is (almost entirely) a silent film, about the transition from silent film to talking moving pictures, similar to Singin' in the Rain. George Valentin (Dujardin) is the silent film star and Peppy Miller (Bejo) is the rising new talent. As Peppy continues her ascension to the top by embracing the future, Valentin inevitably loses his fame and fortune by his refusal to give in to what he sees as a passing fad. Valentin sees all of his wealth auctioned off and is eventually pushed to the brink of suicide.

The story is deeper than it seems at first. One could look at it with the lens of gender politics. It serves as an allegory for the emasculation of man, as well as the rise of the powerful woman and feminism as a whole. One could also look at it with the lens of revolution. It is about anything and everything in life that is affected by the unending onslaught of technological advances. We saw it with talking pictures, with color film, and perhaps we are seeing it now with 3D movies. But it is about any revolution, not just in movies and not just with technology. It is about men clinging to their past glory and failing to fully grasp the threat of change.

But just because a movie has a lot to say doesn't mean it's good. I came into the theater knowing nothing about the film, not even that it was silent, and I think that was a mistake. I felt increasingly claustrophobic in the theater, as if I was taking off in an airplane and my ears weren't popping. The pressure kept building up and building up in my head as I waited for someone to make a sound, but the oppressive silence continued. I understand why Hazanavicius chose to make it silent, and indeed there are two phenomenal scenes that derive their power from the silence (the nightmare sequence and the "BANG!" at the end), but I just couldn't take it.

I don't know what it was about this movie, because I love silent films that were made in that era, but I just could not tolerate this one. It already had the difficult task competing with Singin' in the Rain in content, and starting the movie off in silence drew comparisons to how The Wizard of Oz started off in monochrome. (Also, there is a scene where Peppy sticks her arm in the sleeve of a hanging jacket and pretends it is a man hugging her that I am sure was stolen for another movie, but I can't remember which, and I find that irritating for some reason.)

All in all, this is a movie that takes a chance by using silence, and does so to great effect, but which may easily alienate some viewers. I don't quite know how to explain my bad experience, but I am sure others will be better able to appreciate this film for what it is.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

Water for Elephants (2011)

3/5

I had low expectations for Water for Elephants, but it surprised me with its competence and adequacy. The movie starts with an elderly Jacob (Holbrook) telling a circus manager about the "greatest disaster in circus history." The younger Jacob (Pattinson) is studying to be a veterinarian when debt forces him to join the circus, where he meets up with charming but sadistic owner August (Waltz) and his star performer and wife Marlena (Witherspoon). There is supposed to be an instant attraction between Jacob and Marlena, propelling the events to follow in motion, but there is absolutely no chemistry between the actors. Waltz does a spectacular job, but his character is almost identical to Col. Landa in Inglourious Basterds, which made it less interesting and less terrifying to watch here. The cinematography was great and the visual impact of the movie was strong, but the story as a whole was about as thin as the romance. It's an entertaining diversion, but ultimately offers very little beyond that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067583/

The Help (2011)

4/5

The Help is a surprisingly affecting tale of race relations in Jackson, Mississippi during the civil rights movement. It is the story of "the help," black women who work as nannies and maids to rich white Southern belles, as told by budding author Skeeter (Stone). She asks Aibileen (Davis) and Minny (Spencer) to tell her what it's really like to work as the help, despite the significant danger publishing such an account would pose to everyone who contributes. Aibileen describes what it's like working for Elizabeth (O'Reilly), an incompetent young mother who plans to have another daughter because the daughter she already has is unattractive. Minny describes being fired by Hilly (Howard), the quietly racist, fervently superior, self-appointed ringleader of the young women in town, for using the indoor toilet during a tornado instead of the outhouse.

The story is predictably emotional at times, treading exquisitely close to melodrama, while mixing in equal parts entertainment and humor. This movie is blessed to have a competent director and eagle-eyed editor, who understand the heart of the story and let it shine through any fluff. The script is sensational, brought to life by superb acting. Viola Davis does a phenomenal job; her expressive face and subtle movements (a shift in body weight, a hesitance in her response) are able to convey incredibly complex feelings. Bryce Dallas Howard gives a riveting performance that combines charm and slime to create a wholly unlikeable young matriarch. But the movie is about more than racism and more than events in the past: it is about parenting, about unexpected relationships, and about the courage and sacrifice required to do the right thing. This is a gripping film from beginning to end and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454029/

Man on a Ledge (2012)

4/5

Man on a Ledge is a thoroughly preposterous yet eminently entertaining edge-of-your-seat thriller. The man on the ledge is Nick Cassidy (Worthington), an NYPD officer who was framed for stealing a $40mil diamond from David Englander (Harris). Intent on proving his innocence, he walks out on the ledge to draw attention away from Englander's vault, where the supposedly stolen diamond remains. He requests a specific negotiator, Lydia Mercer (Banks), as his brother Joey (Bell) and Joey's girlfriend (Rodriguez) begin to break in to the vault so that they can reveal the truth.

As I said, preposterous. But easily one of the most suspenseful and engaging movies I've seen in a while. This is most likely entirely due to tight editing, which keeps the intensity high and maintains focus on propelling the story forward. Surprisingly, Bell and Rodriguez were the most humorous and human part of the film, and also the most exciting. Their banter kept the relatively hackneyed plot fresh and lively. Worthington and Banks, on the other hand, were fairly bland (despite obvious attempts to suggest complexity and deeper motivations). Everything is well-shot and well-acted, but the script, while clever initially, feels quite contrived. It just doesn't hold water, from simplistic dismantling of security systems to instantaneous assumptions of innocence. While it may be realistic, it simply doesn't ring true to a moviegoer's ear. To make matters worse, everything somehow ties up too neatly in the end while simultaneously being messy in the most unsatisfying way. All in all, however, this is an enjoyable way to spend an evening; just don't think too hard about it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568338/

Hugo (2011)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Hugo is pure magic. Its conception and creation were very clearly labors of love by exquisitely talented craftsmen. The story begins with a boy, Hugo (Butterfield), who lives in a train station. He is caught stealing gears from a toy shop owned by Papa Georges (Kingsley), who forces him to empty his pockets. Among the stolen goods is a notebook that was given to him by his late father (Law). The drawings in the notebook seem to bring back unwanted memories for Papa Georges, who threatens to burn it and report the boy to the station master (Baron Cohen). He follows Papa Georges home, pleading with his eyes, and waits outside the house until he sees Papa George's niece (Moretz). Hugo enlists her help and they soon find themselves on an adventure that grows beyond their wildest imagination.

I know the book on which this movie is based has a lot of illustrations, so I can't give Scorsese all the credit for its visual power, but boy does this movie pack a punch. The story is told in images, with snippets of silent film interspersed with inspiration from Hitchcock's Rear Window. And it is an emotional roller coaster, juxtaposing the kind of pure sorrow and exhilaration as only a child could experience. It combines complex characters with expressive acting to tremendous effect. The energetic pacing complements the classic storytelling structure, thanks in no small part to Thelma Schoonmaker's efficient editing. Even the 3D technology was well-done. I know that because it did not give me a headache. (Whether a 3D movie gives me a headache is really my only criterion now for how good the 3D is--Avatar is the only other movie to have good 3D by these standards.)

Not all is perfect in this movie, but its flaws are easily overlooked. I have no doubt that the special effects used in this movie will one day look as dated and comical as King Kong or The Birds. But for now, they're passable. Also, the side characters are somewhat poorly developed. There are hints at uniqueness and charm--and the atmosphere itself is already filled to the brim with wonder and awe--but the side characters never get fully fleshed-out. Jean-Pierre Jeunet would have perhaps been a better choice to breathe life into the subplots and side stories, as he did in Amélie and Delicatessen.

This film succeeds on all fronts: as entertainment, as art, and as heartfelt nostalgia for cinema. Go into the movie knowing nothing and you will be surprised and delighted. Go into the movie a second time and I am certain you will still be profoundly shaken. That is the mark of good storytelling, and that is the mark of phenomenal filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970179/