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/

The Wicker Man (1973)

4/5

Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man is an exceedingly well-made and suspenseful thriller. The plot follows Sergeant Howie as he investigates the disappearance of a young girl on a small, private island. Impeccably paced, the movie gradually builds from an unsettling, eerie introduction to outright terror in its stunning, surprising finale. It sucks you in from the beginning and never lets you go.

Technically, the movie worked, although it did not excel. The cinematography and editing were competent, although at times you could find band-aid cuts. The acting was a bit over-the-top, but on the whole quite believable. I thought the music was excessive at first, but after a while I understood how integral and necessary it was. The technical qualities of this movie aren't what impressed me; it was the mood and progression of the story. This is a quality film you don't want to pass up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/

The Golden Compass (2007)

3/5

I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/