Thursday, February 2, 2012

The Best Films of 2011


Every year, my friends and I gather together at a local diner and discuss our favorite films of the year. When this came about this year, I failed at seeing a lot of the best movies. I ended up making a list that was something of a Best Genre Films list than anything else.

Since then, I have caught up with a lot of the movies that were on my friend's lists as well as some others. I know that I still haven't seen some of the best ones ("Certified Copy", "We Need to Talk About Kevin", "Shame", "A Dangerous Method", "Meek's Cutoff"), but I will catch up to those soon enough and submit another list.

Another thing, I kinda cheated on a couple of these.

That being said, here we go...

11. Fright Night / Mission : Impossible - Ghost Protocol / Scream 4
Directed by Craig Gillespie, Brad Bird and Wes Craven

Every year that I have done a list, number 10 has turned out the same. One of these three way ties that have some connection, tenuous as it may be. This year's theme is genre pictures. Not just that, but all these films are not original and could be part of a series.

Start alphabetically with "Fright Night".
There were really no good reasons that this movie worked. It was a remake of an 80s horror film that I actually hold dear to my heart. Unlike "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" of the same era, "Fright Night" had a certain charm to it. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but that might be what made it so alluring. It really could have been the simple fact that it was one of those movies on VHS that I always walked past in Red's Video as a kid and thought that the cover art was awesome.

So, going into the remake, I was worried. Well, within the first twenty or so minutes, all those worries went away. This was one of the most enjoyable, fun horror movies I've seen in a while. While it was funny (though not so much as the original), it really had some ridiculous horror chops, but not to the point where you were grossed out. This movie is a clear example of what a horror remake should be.

"Mission : Impossible - Ghost Protocol" had something similar to the remake of "Fright Night" going on : it had an uphill battle. The last "Mission : Impossible" movie, while great, didn't meet box office expectations so a lot of people were worried about this latest installment. Turns out, it's probably the best out of the four. The only reason I say probably is because I still really like the De Palma original with all of it's paranoia.

When you really get down to it, this movie is proof that Tom Cruise is a force to be reckoned with. People don't take him seriously because of his Scientology or whatever, but honestly, the man is a movie star. Plain and simple. I wouldn't doubt if later into the series he turns into the new Mr. Phelps and gives the missions. I feel that even then, they won't be able to talk him off the side of a building.

Let me say too that that sequence is probably the most exhilarating, entertaining sequence in an action movie that I've seen in a long time. My friend Allen kept telling me about how I should have seen it in IMAX, which I should have, but seeing it on the screen that I did had a profound effect anyway. I have a fear of heights and that part made me sick. That is about the highest compliment I can give to that movie. You know, aside from it being directed at a brisk pace and having some of the best action sequences committed to film.

Last, but certainly not least, in this three way is "Scream 4". On paper, the movie didn't seem like it should have worked whatsoever. All the characters are ten years older, Courtney Cox looks like a scarecrow that escaped from a nearby cornfield and Neve Campbell is still hot. Wait, that last one worked to the advantage of the movie.

But, no matter, besides the window dressing of the movie (including a young cast of talented, attractive people), it's the plot that really matters here. Though it resembles (some say too much) the original "Scream", I think that's an asset of the film.

SPOILER ALERT

I can't really speak of how much I like this movie without giving away it's secrets. For those of you who haven't seen the movie yet, do not read on.

Jill, Sidney's cousin, being the killer is a stroke of genius. Kinda like the "Orphan" twist from a few years ago, everyone said they saw it coming. I'm a little more easily lead so I can't say that I did. I really think people are bullshitting. This is one of the few times a movie has legitimately surprised me as to who the killer was. And I will say that I was surprised for "Scream 2" and "Scream 3", but for different reasons. Those two movies had killers in them that were barely involved with the action. In the background.

In this movie, they just put Jill right in the middle of everything and it turns out she's the killer. The other brilliant thing about the movie is that it explains that reboots are awful when, essentially, that's what they're doing. Rebooting the "Scream" franchise. There are so many levels of metafiction sewn into this script, it's ridiculous. And I mean that in the best way possible.

I hope, and I really do mean this, that they continue on with the series after this one. Not just to carry on the story, but because I really think they have a shot at something special with finishing this trilogy.

Another thing too: with Wes Craven now 72, he directs like he just got out of college. I am, and always will be a huge fan of yours, sir even after seeing "The Hills Have Eyes : Part 2".

10. Moneyball
Directed by Bennett Miller

Here is another movie that shouldn't have worked. I remember a few months before it was released in theaters, one of my sports nuts friends was telling me about how he didn't think it would work. That the book was excellent, but he didn't see how it would make an interesting film.

He couldn't have been more wrong. The movie is interesting. The fact that it's story is unique and true makes it all the more. Brad Pitt settles into his part perfectly as Billy Beane. His nomination this year is deserved quite a bit. I believe that between this and "The Tree of Life", he's shown remarkable range. Not that I didn't think he had it before, but I think a lot of people don't give him enough credit because of his looks.

And another thing too, where the hell did Jonah Hill come from? He used to be this incredibly annoying kid in every stupid gross out comedy and then he calms himself down and turns in this performance. I honestly believe that if he continued on as he is in this film, he'll have a long, prosperous career. I just hope that someone else tells him this. Maybe the nomination he got will be proof enough.

But, back to the actual movie, you have to give real credit to Sorkin, Zallian and director Miller for bringing this story to light and making it entertaining. What's nice about it is that it doesn't give you the easy answers. They could have ended with the record setting game that the A's won, but they didn't. They showed that a lot of people considered Beane a failure and the whole system.

What this movie shows more than anything else is that people are resistant to change. From Art Howe, to Billy Beane, to the baseball community in general, people just don't want to use new ideas. They'd rather be stuck in their ways and continue to fail than make some kind of ballsy move. This movie shows that people can change and adapt, even against the odds.

9. The Artist
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius

I know, a lot of people are probably gonna have me strung up by the short hairs for having this as low as I do, but there was one fatal mistake the filmmakers made (in my opinion) that derailed it at it's most important point.

But, before I get into that, let's talk about all the good things that it has going for it. Much like this year's "Hugo" and "Midnight in Paris", a lot of the love for this movie comes simply out of nostalgia. The movie is made with such skill and grace that it's hard not to get carried away in the pure filmmaking. Jean Dujardin is going to have a long career after this movie, especially after he wins the Academy Award (or at least I hope). The man has all the looks and skills of a movie star but none of the pretensions that come with it. His costar Berenice Bejo is beautiful and talented as well.

A lot of the time in the movie is spent showing how silent film actors were thrown to the side as soon as sound in film was invented. When it comes down to it, that's how a lot of life is. As new technologies crop up, people get lost in the mix. The song "Video Killed the Radio Star" comes to mind. People have short memories. They'd rather watch "The Fifth Element" on Blu-Ray than let themselves get carried away by a film like "The Artist".

Yes, you're right. The movie is a 100-minute black and white silent film, but there's not a movie out in theaters like it. And while it doesn't hold a candle to the classic silent films like "Sunrise" or anything Chaplin did, it's nice to see it on the big screen with an audience that appreciates it.

Now, for the negative thing that prevented this from being higher on my list:
One of my favorite films of all time is Hitchcock's "Vertigo". Has been since I was about eight and didn't understand a thing about the plot. The music is so, so familiar and famous that anyone that has seen "Vertigo" would be able to notice the musical cues if they were used in another film.

"The Artist" does this. It uses a track from the "Vertigo" score. Now, I wouldn't mind this so much if the movie was set in modern times, but it's not. The movie is set during the depression. "Vertigo" was made in 1958. My friend Allen tells me that they didn't use the exact music from "Vertigo", that instead they used an adaptation of it that was made in 1989. THAT ONLY MAKES IT WORSE!

Let's think about this for a second. When you see "The Artist", the thing that drives you from scene to scene (because there is no sound) is the score. Just like a silent movie did way back when. Now, the whole movie is supposed to be entertaining for those who do not know silent films and nostalgic for those who do. Isn't it kind of cheap to use music from a classic movie in the score to this one? Granted, the music works for the moment that it occurs, but the score for "The Artist" (at least up until that point) is so good that I'm sure they could have gone with something, anything but that.

It just seemed like a copout in the middle of an excellent film. I had a hard time putting this on my list for that reason alone. But cooler heads prevailed. I think...

8. The Guard
Directed by John Michael McDonagh

"The Guard" is an incredibly difficult movie to qualify. It's almost like a comedic "Bad Lieutenant" in Ireland movie. I guess that's a good way to describe it. Kinda. I don't really know. The success of this movie hinges upon two things : the performances and the script. And it succeeds brilliantly.

Brendan Gleeson might be one of the most underrated actors out there for the simple fact that he falls into his characters like really no other actor. Between this and "In Bruges", he's cemented himself as a great comedic talent as well, something I never would have seen. He played the straight man in "In Bruges" and now gets to be the funny one in "The Guard". he really is something to behold in this film.

The plot of "The Guard" really makes no difference. It could easily be something out of a "Miami Vice" episode. What is so great about the movie is how the characters treat certain situations. We see Brendan Gleeson being an irresponsible lout the entire movie, but then see this incredibly sweet relationship that he has with his dying mother. We see that even though he is kind of an asshole, he is a good cop. Not just that, but he's incorruptible. He has such an interesting set of morals. He'll do drugs and buy prostitutes, but he won't take a bribe.

He also screws with people for his own amusement but really doesn't mean anything nefarious by it. He makes a racist comment to an incoming cop and continues to, and in Gleeson's performance, you can see that he's testing the new cop. Getting him on his level. Trying to gain a report with him. The part of the film where Don Cheadle (the cop in question) realizes that Gleeson is just screwing with him is oddly touching. You see a friendship blossoming, a mutual respect.

This is the type of film that not a lot of people have seen, but it deserves much more acclaim than it's gotten so far. If you haven't seen it, find it now and watch it. I'm sure you'll like it as much as I have.

7. Warrior
Directed by Gavin O'Connor

Talk about a surprise. My friend Mike has been telling me about this movie since the weekend that it came out. When it comes to this kind of thing, I consider Mike to be an expert. This kind of thing is sports. I am not a sports guy. Anyone that has seen me will know this. But, as I usually do, I passed this off. Not because of any reason besides I was told I would like it.

Well, I am an idiot.

Once it came out on Blu-Ray, I decided to buy it. I had a feeling I might like it, but was still hesitant. Once I saw it, all those feelings went away. The movie is about the closest thing that anyone in my generation will get to "Rocky". It is one of the most emotional movies I've seen in quite a while. The only person that made a movie more emotional this year was Spielberg and that's saying something.

The entire time you watch this film, you're not sure what's going to happen. Instead of having one person to root for in the film, you root for them both. Both brothers. But, towards the end of the movie, I noticed that they had pulled a fast one on me. The movie was not about who was winning, but if the characters became a workable family unit at the end.

It was kinda clever and made me rethink the movie. Got me to watch it again. And when I did, I realized that it was less a sports movie and more about these broken people trying to get by in life, similar to "Win Win" earlier in the year. You like both of the characters, but the most heartbreaking character is Nick Nolte.

If this movie was set thirty years ago when Nolte's character was the dick that he was, the movie may have been different. You would have felt completely differently. But, as the movie shows you, none of these characters are completely innocent in their lives. They've all screwed up at one point and they want to move on and be happy. Nolte's character believes that he can reconcile with his children and be a part of their lives. About halfway through the movie, you get the feeling that it won't happen.

But then comes The Scene. I say "The Scene" for the specific reason that when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. When you see this scene, you are completely devastated. And it ends with such a touching moment between him and Tom Hardy.

Sure, the movie is melodramatic. But, let's be serious, movies are supposed to be.

6. The Adventures of Tintin / War Horse
Both directed by Steven Spielberg

This is another stretch of my list, but whatever, it's my list. The connecting theme, though you should know, is Spielberg. One is the best animated film of the year, the other is the best John Ford movie that he never made. Kinda like J.J. Abrams made the best Spielberg movie he never made with "Super 8".

But, no matter, "The Adventures of Tintin" never stops. Not for a moment. The camera is constantly moving and it's always exciting. When you're not thrilled by the action, you're laughing at the dialogue. This is really what you would expect from Spielberg. When you really think about it, Spielberg hasn't made a movie like this since "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". A lot of people complained that there wasn't a lot of character development in the movie, but that's small change. I thought there was enough to hang your hat on, so to speak. For a movie that's as exciting as this movie is, I can't imagine having a complaint as most people had.

Some people might say this was somewhat of a magic trick. Spielberg distracted me with a bunch of cool looking action and I let him slide on the character development. To that, I can say you could be right. That I've been on this blog, complaining about how Nolan does something extremely similar to this. The difference is this: Spielberg isn't trying to make the end all, be all psychological maze of a movie. He's out to make an entertaining film. Plain and simple. With that in mind, I think he had an unqualified success with "Tintin".

As far as "War Horse", I can't say much about it. It is a strange movie, to be sure, because it really is like watching an old John Ford film. The in your face emotions, the good people with big hearts and a horse. And the scenery. Good Christ, Kaminsky (the cinematographer). You truly are amazing.

You really can't push this all on the cinematography and the emotions. You gotta hand it to Spielberg. His professionalism and his shot composition are something to behold. He always knows exactly how to wring every emotion out of the audience. He is a master manipulator. I know that sounds like an awful thing. But really, that's only an awful thing for a significant other. As a director, he has to be manipulative. Just like Hitchcock, Capra and especially Ford.

Another connecting thread between these two films is John Williams. I mean, holy shit. I know that I have a little bit too much respect for him and Spielberg but I wish that when I'm John Williams' age that I'm still doing all the shit that he does. He did two full, excellent scores this year for two great films. And he's in his 80s. He and Clint Eastwood. Damn. That is so damn impressive. And the scores don't slouch. You know, maybe Williams draws upon some chords that he's used over the years, but honestly, the man has been around since the mid-60s, you're going to eventually fall on the same themes.

5. Melancholia / The Tree of Life
Directed by Lars von Trier and Terrence Malick

This is also kind of a cheat. The movies are similar, but not the same. They both deal with the cosmos and humanity in equal measures. It was difficult for me to keep one but throw away the other so this was my solution. Deal with it.

"Melancholia" was about what I expected from a von Trier film about the end of the world. It focused on the characters dealing with the situation over having all these people spread across the globe, trying to figure things out. It is incredibly bleak, depressing, but also has a lot of heart to it, oddly enough.

Kirsten Dunst gives a performance that was sadly overlooked by a lot of the awards this year. It could possibly be the same thing that happened with Brad Pitt for the last twenty years. She's a pretty face, no one wants to take her seriously as an actress. Now, I know a few people with depression. I can honestly say that Kirsten Dunst's portrayal of a depressed woman really is accurate. The way she acts during the final scenes of the movie have this incredible peace attached to it. She knows the end of the world is coming and she knows there's nothing she can do about it, so she just waits for it to happen.

Unlike her sister. Charlotte Gainsboro (known famously for cutting off her clitoris with rusty scissors in last years "Antichrist") plays her sister. Her sister wants to be able to do something about what's going on. She fears the end of all existence. She wants to shield her son from it and be able to have some kind of resolution to it. But she can't. It's out of her control and it drives her mad.

Really, the movie is about death. Some people go through life fearing that they will die someday. So they waste their lives. Others know that it will happen but keep it in the back of their minds at all times. It's incredibly bleak, but realistic. What I will say is that the science may not match up with the planet going through the universe like some kind of a bulldozer, but used as a metaphor, it works.

On the flip side of the coin is "The Tree of Life".

Here is a film that is completely up to interpretation. It is two hours and 18 minutes long and you can put whatever you want into it. I know a lot of people were put off by how the movie was. The dinosaurs were ridiculous, there was no dialogue that you could really hear. But, if you think of it from the perspective of the Sean Penn character (or his child self), a lot of it makes sense.

When you think of your childhood, what do you remember? You don't really remember a lot, unless you have an eidetic memory. You remember feelings. Moments. Images. You don't remember plots. Or at least, rarely you do. Especially from ages 10-15. Given that thought, all the home stuff makes sense.

As far as the cosmos stuff and the dinosaurs, I don't really know. Maybe it's indicative of Sean Penn's character trying to find his place in the world. Maybe he feels like his life pales in comparison to what's already happened. Wars, feast, famine, plate tectonics. All this shit is more important than his measly life.

At the end, when everyone comes together, I took that as the afterlife. I feel like others have as well. It could also be seen as Penn coming to terms with his life. That these people all were integral in who he is as a person. Him hugging his child self is him finally understanding all the trials and tribulations that he went through as a child.

Who really knows what it means? I'm not sure Malick does. Penn has famously said that he doesn't understand anything that happened in it. But, could "The Tree of Life" be the new "2001"?

I think it's possible. Give me a couple of years to think it over and the creation of the world to compare it to.

4. Contagion
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

If you know me, you might know this little anecdote already:

When I was a younger, my brother and I would go to a movie almost every weekend. Some were good, some were bad, but there was one that changed my life forever. In 1995, a film called "Outbreak" was released. I just thought it would be a decent thriller with not much going on with it besides that. Little did I know that it was more or less about the end of the world.

I was and never have been good with end of the world scenarios, especially when I was a kid. I was more a Charlotte Gainsboro at the time, worried what would happen. Well, during "Outbreak", I started crying hysterically because I was scared. At the time, I was only 11 (my birthday was a couple of months after this) so I think it was relatively justified that I was crying. My brother had to take me out of the theater at the time and leave the movie halfway because he didn't think it was good for me to stay.

This story became somewhat of a legend on it's own. Friends of mine heard about it, made fun of me for it. Family members thought it was funny that my brother had to leave early. This past year, I bought "Outbreak" for my brother on Blu-Ray as a kind of apology for making him miss the rest of it.

Since probably six or seven years ago, I've come to terms with "Outbreak". It is actually a movie that I like quite a bit. It's entertaining, suspenseful and exciting. It's still a little scary, but I can handle it now that I'm older.

So here comes "Contagion". I started thinking that it would be something similar to "Outbreak". It is and it isn't. Where "Outbreak" was entertaining, "Contagion" is realistic. "Contagion" made me uncomfortable for days afterwards. Not in a "Hey, I saw a person get their eye ripped out in a movie and now I'm grossed out" way, but in a "Holy shit, this could happen" way.

I was impressed with the movie, but then I heard something from Allen I didn't know. Because I didn't read the article or see the interview like he did, I don't want to try paraphrasing what he said, but Soderbergh deliberately tried doing something different with "Contagion". He made it more like a documentary. There is no histrionic melodrama, the actors disappear into their roles and there is no helicopter chase. (Yes, there was one in "Outbreak", but damn, was it awesome.)

There's no real action in the movie at all. This is just another instance of the characters doing what they can to survive. Another thing too, although I knew it was coming the entire time, the ending still disturbed the shit out of me. I think the music had something to do with it.

Excuse me, now. I'm going to go bathe in bleach before I write my entry for #3.

3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by David Fincher

Okay, that's better. Little burny, but better.

Anyway, I've never seen the Swedish version of this or read the books. (Books...HA!) What I do know is that this is an incredible film, front to back. A lot of people critique Fincher for not having a heart, to be emotionless and all that jazz. I see him as more of a worker than most other directors.

Fincher is a perfectionist. My friend Greg had a great thought regarding Fincher, saying that he's obsessed with details and that carries over into his work. If you go back and think of "Zodiac" (easily the best film of 2007), this theory works well. "Zodiac" was a movie about characters obsessed with details who end up (sorta) solving a crime. "Dragon Tattoo" is very similar.

If you were to put the two films side by side, the themes are close to one another. Craig and (the incredible) Mara are detail obsessed freaks who end up solving a 30 year-old case. In "Zodiac", Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey, Jr. pretty much do the same thing. What's so amazing about "Dragon Tattoo" is exactly that: the details.

There's a sequence in the film that's pretty minute when you think about it, but all together integral in the long run. They start going through old photos, trying to find out who the victim of this crime was looking at. All the photos are meticulously shot so you only get a little of an idea as to what's going on in the frame. This is an amazing sequence. The amount of time that it must have taken to get these shots just right to keep the suspense up is ridiculous when you think about it.

But, without getting too caught up in the details, let's talk about Rooney Mara for a moment. Rooney Mara basically came out of nowhere two years ago when she was in the remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". The movie itself was pretty terrible, but I really liked her in it. She has a plain Jane, girl next door look that works for her. And she was a good actress, the one sign of light in the darkness of that film.

Then she was in "The Social Network" in a small part, but she was effective. She was the type of girl that I would have gone after in college. (And likely failed at picking up.) This isn't because of how she looked (although that helped), it's because of her personality. This could be a testament to Aaron Sorkin's writing or her acting. I attributed it to her.

Now, here she comes along in this like a bat out of Hell. I mean that too. Every choice she makes is such a badass motherfucker choice. The reason I'm using those words is because that is what she portrays the entire time. Badass motherfucker. Her performance is likely the best female performance of the year. Not Meryl Streep, or Viola Davis or Glenn Close and her cross dressing. No. Rooney Mara.

Take for instance one of the hardest scenes to watch in the movie, her rape. Not only is the scene brilliant from a technical standpoint, making you cringe at every thing that happens, but her acting is really what brings it all to the front. Seeing a lot of horror movies in my life, I've seen a lot of rape scenes. They're disgusting, as is the act. I don't really see the point of most of them, or all of them really. But the entire time she's getting raped, you know she's got something up her sleeve. You know that this guy that raped her is going to get his. And good God, he does.

That's another thing, too. From an attractive quality standpoint, Rooney Mara is incredibly attractive for a lot of reasons. I wouldn't normally go for a girl like her (at least not in all the makeup she's in) but her raw sexuality and her bluntness are an uncommon quality in women in film. You don't see a lot of that. And the fact that Mara tackles it with such conviction, and, dare I say, grace is a testament to her all too obvious talent.

Oh yeah. Daniel Craig is good, too.

2. Drive
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn

If Steve McQueen were alive, he would have starred in this movie. I know some people didn't like this movie as much as others, but I was hooked from the beginning to the end. Ryan Gosling cemented himself as a star this year. I liked this movie worlds better than "The Ides of March". I thought that while he didn't say a lot, the looks and the emotions that he got out during the movie were a ton better than anything in that movie.

But aside from him, the movie is a throwback to something out of the 60s. A lot of movies were throwbacks this year. Dealt a lot with nostalgia. Anyway...

The plot, again, is pretty inconsequential. He drives, gets embroiled in a heist and has to get out of it. What sets this movie apart from a lot of movies like this is Gosling's code. He has standards. Kinda like Brendan Gleeson in "The Guard", his morals are weird, but he at least has some rules he adheres to.

And that's another thing, Albert Brooks. What's up, dude? You mean you could have been playing badass bad guys for years and you are just now starting? What the fuck? Talk about a scary character. He is such a nice guy, and you get a sorta fuzzy feeling seeing Albert Brooks at all in a movie, and then he just stabs some guy in the eye with a fork and then pulls out a butcher knife and finishes the guy off. That's how you apologize for "The Muse". Let's just hope he has some more apologies coming up.

As far as the direction in the film, I can almost say it's flawless. I do think that it may have bordered on pretension at times, but really, the movie didn't have a lot of faults to it. It even killed off a character I didn't really like just around the time I started not liking him. That was pretty impressive to me.

And I will say that I want to have a marathon of "Drive", "Faster", "Speed" and "Crash", preferably the Cronenberg one. The Haggis one would just muddy the waters.

1. Hugo
Directed by Martin Scorcese

This really was a foregone conclusion. Since I saw this, it shot up to the top of my list. Now, like I said, I haven't seen all the movies I wanted to see so this could still change, but really, how is there another movie out there that succeeds on so many levels?

First and foremost, we have to commend Scorcese. I know it's a little overwrought these days. Scorcese breathes in the right direction and he gets an award. But, he took something that he loves (film) and turned it into an entertaining film itself. The movie is a love letter to films. He loves everything about films and he loves all films. He goes to an era that he would have loved to have lived and does his best. And he does all this with an assured hand. He knows what he's doing at every moment.

Unlike the film that he won Best Director for five years back, "Hugo" feels like a complete movie. "The Departed", as good as it was, succeeded on style, dialogue and performances. But, it didn't have a lot of depth. "Hugo" has depths that rival some oceans. We have a story about an orphan, dealing with his father's death, we have this mystery about a person living in a train station and we have the history of silent film. All in one movie.

The movie also has the task of rekindling people's interest in silent films. And to think, Scorcese does all this while showing it in 3D. Now, I hate 3D. I don't understand what the point of it is. But Scorcese and Spielberg have shown me that it can be used well and properly. That does not mean that I now like 3D, I just know that, in the right hands, it could be used well.

That's some other food for thought. Scorcese is directing a movie in 3D about the beginning of film. Way back when this was all going on, people were legitimately afraid of films, thinking trains and bullets were going to come out of the screen at them. Now, we have the technology where it could happen. Scorcese, in his weird, bushy eyebrowed way, is telling us that 3D is just the next step. He kinda convinced me. Sorta.

On top of the subject matter, you have to remember too that the production design, editing, cinematography and score are all top notch. You feel like you're a part of this film. The dialogue comes off like something out of a Robert Altman film at times. Scorcese deliberately used techniques he learned from other silent filmmakers in this film.

So, when it comes down to it, you feel like you've eaten a full meal when you walk out of "Hugo". You realize that film can be more than just "Transformers" and "Twilight" and "The Hangover Part II". Film can transport you places you've never been, or places you have been. Get you to know people you might not have normally. It can be an experience instead of a hinderance to your life.

Scorcese could make terrible movies for the rest of his life and I would never lose my love for him and my appreciation for what he brought to the screen with "Hugo". Not just that, but it would be nice to see Scorcese slumming it for a while. Maybe he can direct the "Green Lantern" sequel.

Well...

Maybe then, I'd lost some respect.

But, I'll never know if he doesn't try.

No comments:

Post a Comment