Hugo (2011)

I remember hearing that Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed) was directing a movie called Hugo, rated PG. To say I was skeptical was an understatement. Exiting the theater, however, I had the distinct feeling that I now understood the gangster director better than I ever did watching Gangs of New York. Among many other things, Hugo's magic is found in the apparent affection Scorsese had for this creation.

The story follows a boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield). The 12-year-old orphan is depicted in tattered clothes, disheveled hair and a perpetually dirty nose. Following after his late father (Jude Law), he runs the clocks in the railway station - though to do so while avoiding the station's constable (Sacha Baren Cohen), intent on sending him to the orphanage, is not easy. He doesn't say much at first, but his eyes tell a story of their own. His passion lies in the old automaton that his father left him and he stresses and thieves to get it working again. With the help of his new friend Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz, straight outta Kickass), they fix the automaton just enough for it to draw them a picture - a picture that leads them back to the famed film director Georges Melies.

It's based off the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. By itself, the story is lovely, but it's even more magical when seeing it connect to Scorsese on a personal level. In an interview, Scorsese has said that he identified with the young Hugo's lonely voyeuristic upbringing. As a young boy, Scorsese was very ill with asthma and spent much of his time indoors at the movie theater. In many a sense, it's semi-autobiographical. But Scorsese isn't just Hugo, he's also Melies. An inventor and filmmaker, Melies was instrumental in early film and in special effects. Small films like A Trip to the Moon and The Impossible Voyage are still remarkable and iconic. Scorsese filmed this film in 3D and it's beautiful. The opening shot zooming over Paris is striking, bright, and impressively detailed. 

This is largely a movie about movies. What film lover doesn't love that? Hugo's sad eyes light up when he goes to the pictures. The dawning of the cinematic world is unfolded before the children's eyes (and our own). It celebrates movies by reflecting back on where we've been and paying tribute to those we owe so much. It paints a beautiful picture of the power that film has on us. Because through movies, we can see our dreams. 

Beyond that, the story itself is deeply emotional. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Monsieur Melies himself. There are some incredibly touching scenes of him lamenting the loss of his work and the decline of his career. He cries at the thought of his films being melted and destroyed and his life's work unseen and unappreciated. These scenes are some of the best in the film.

All the elements blend together for a perfect love letter to the movies we all love and hold dear. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz model our own discovery and longing for adventure while we get to learn about the story played by the veteran actors. Beside Kingsley, Christopher Lee delivers an exemplary supporting performance.

Despite its PG rating, it appeals more to adults in a family friendly way. I can't say I would have appreciated it as much as a child than I do as an adult. Either way it's wonderful to see this other side of Martin Scorsese through this beautiful tale. 9/10

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Spoilers. Just sayin’.

I remember so well when this movie was released.  I was 10-years-old, and I wanted sooo badly to see it – but due to its PG-13 rating my mom wouldn’t let me.  I got over it.  I’m glad, now, that I didn’t see it then because when I finally was able to, I could appreciate it.  At 10-years I already loved movies and knew all about Steven Spielberg; E.T., Close Encounters, Jaws, & Jurrasic Park were favorites from my childhood.  I did not, however, know who Stanley Kubrick was (pretty sure that name came along when I was 12 or 13).  This began as Kubrick’s project and you can see his prints all over it.

Sometime in the future, where the world is starting to freeze over and couples must obtain a license to have children, technology has advanced so much that man can create life.  Artificial intelligence (robots) are hardly distinguishable from human beings.  Scientist Allan Hobby (William Hurt) wants to take it a step further: What if we could create a Robot that could love.  Not physical lust but love like a child would care for his mother. What if?

And so David was created (Haley Joel Osment).  Monica (Frances O’Connor) and Henry (Sam Robards) Swintons – whose child is being held in cryostasis until a cure is found for his disease – decide to test out this new product. (Yeah, I totally stole that from IMDb.  But I didn’t really know what the kid’s problem was.  So sue me).  Henry brings him home and Monica is initially furious.  No “mecha” could replace her own physical child.  Trial period ensues.  Should they choose to keep David, they must perform an irreversable imprint ritual.  Monica spends time with David and they begin to bond.  She decides to do the imprint thing (sadly, this now makes me think of Breaking Dawn…) and David is now in for good.  The transformation is instant – Monica is now Mommy and David wants nothing but to make her happy.

Problems arrive when their “real” son, Martin (Jake Thomas) recovers and comes home.  Suddenly David’s got competition.  Suddenly “Daddy” has changed his mind about the entire ordeal.  Suddenly David is getting in trouble and doesn’t know how to get mommy’s love anymore.  David cuts a lock off Monica’s hair to gain her love but is falsely accused of sinister motives.  Things get worse when he’s found holding Martin at the bottom of a pool… but only because he was frightened seconds earlier and wanted protection.  Monica (sob sob sob) can’t take it anymore, David’s gotta go.

So what does she do?  She drops him in the middle of the woods with nothing but a smart Teddy, some money, and a dismal parting message: “I’m sorry I didn’t tell you about the world.”  WTF?  He may be artificial, but he’s still a kid.  All he can figure is that his mother must not love him because he isn’t real like Martin.  He decides to search for the Blue Fairy so that he can become a real boy like Pinnochio.

Part two, the story takes a turn and we are introduced to (though we don’t thoroughly explore) this “world.”  Mecha exist everywhere, but humans resent their presence.  “Flesh Fairs” are held to destroy and publicly ridicule mecha, led by Lord Johnson-Johnson (Brendan Gleeson).  Human nature hasn’t degraded far enough for them to ridicule an 8-year-old boy, however, when David is under display.

David still searches for the Blue Fairy, still accompanied by Teddy and newly accompanied by Gigolo Joe – Hey Joe what do you know? (Jude Law).  He is led (guided by Dr. Know (Robin Williams)) to an underwater Manhattan.

The end to this film is an end for discussion, and I must admit I have a few issues with it myself.

David is reunited with Dr. Hobby, creator.  We learn that David is the new frontier.  Soon he will be available to anyone who wants a child that can love.  Suddeny, though, David leaves.  Hey Joe what do you know is taken by the police.  David finds the remains of a Pinnochio exhibit on an underwater Coney Island.  David and Teddy stay in the helicopter thing for, wait for it, two thousand years praying to the Blue Fairy.  After those two thousand years – the Mecha of the future and some sort of real Blue Fairy (Meryl Streep) find David and are able to reunite him with his mother for a day only.  The film ends after a perfect day spent with Monica.

I’m not in the habit of writing an entire synopsis for a simple review, that’s not my thing.  But I’ve been thinking about this movie so much that it helps me to sort it all out.  I’m even having difficulty throwing in sarcastic comments, made-up words and dumb jokes I’m thinking about this so hard.  Allow me to interject now with a big WTfreakingF???  Like, seriously.  I don’t even know what to think.  But now that I’ve gotten this out of my system, thanks for listening to that really boring summary instead of our usual review format.  I feel much better now, folks.  Anyway, there are the little things that bug me… for example though I liked Jude Law’s character I found the sexual innuendos unnecessary.  It gave an interesting perspective to David’s unique ability to truly love, but in the end it contributed nothing.  I also wonder what the point is of owning a perpetual 8-year-old.  But those are small things.

Many complain about the end.  Many are convinced that Spielberg took this film a completely different direction than was the intention of Kubrick.  (Spielberg has been quoted to say that this is false, Kubrick’s intentions were met in the finished product.  Apparently).  Granted, I had a WTF moment myself and it took two viewings to really place it but seeing as mecha cannot become human, this is sci-fi not fantasy, I found the ending appropriate.  David found closure.  His wish essentially came true.  He was able to spend a perfect day with his mother and do the things he wanted to.  Who knows what his future holds – he is one of a kind, now.

My issue concerns the almost-end.  Apparently he was led to Manhattan as part of a plan.  Apparently he was special.  Apparently the fellow scientists (including Miles from Lost!)  were dying to meet him.  He was made in the image of Doctor Hobby’s son for crying out loud!  Yet…. nothing else happens?  David… gets left?  Did they search for him?  What would have happened next?  Now do their Davids and Darlenes get shipped to the world?  We are led to this moment and nothing happens.  That threw me.  And really bothers me.

My admiration for this film outweighs my contempt for its faults, and although I was thrown by the ending it adds to my appreciation.  Though I love Spielberg and Sci-Fi always – the selling point is Haley Joel Osment.  He may be the very best child actor to have passed through cinema, and yeah I’m being serious.  It’s not easy for an adult to correctly display artificial emotions, yet he does it without a single misstep.  His eyes tell the story.  His performance could not be duplicated.  If anything, the film is worth it for him.

It is unique.  It is fascinating.  I was invested every second.  As with all works of art, it’s now left to interpretation, so do what you will with the ending.  I, however, highly recommend the film.  It must have been worth it if I’m already eager to watch it again. :) 8/10

On a side note – I want a Teddy.  That’s my kind of companion!