The Artist: Just...See It.

So before 2012 started up, my good ole friend Josh came to visit (publicity plug, you should check out his NYC blog: http://krigman.blogspot.com/) and we went to see The Artist! I'd been hearing things for weeks about this film and I was ready to find it highly enjoyable, but I was never expecting what I got to watch.

Totally buying this poster.

Have you ever been so psyched that you feel like you can feel your blood flowing? You get really still, listen your hardest, and don't move your eyes in anticipation. And then some indescribable awesomeness comes at you fast and you try to hold onto it for as long as humanly possible before it melts away into less intense, enjoyable familiarity.

I rarely get this feeling anymore. Maybe I'm a jaded, unemployed twenty-something or maybe I just haven't been able to see real, true beauty for a while, but The Artist gave me some silver lining.

The Artist is made by movie people and it shows. This film gave me what I imagine sports people feel when their team wins the Superbowl. You've been waiting and waiting and waiting for some incredible display of awesomeness and THERE IT IS!! WOOO!!! OH MY GOOODDD!!!!

This is a movie theatre probably.

But ok, backing up and calming down, for those of you who have no idea what this movie is, The Artist is a piece of sincere romantic poetry for the lost art of silent film. The entire film is done in the style of a silent film from the 1920s (yes, close your gaping jaw, the movie has only a musical soundtrack with virtually no other sound...AND IT'S AWESOME! Sorry, calming down...). The story starts in 1927 with George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a debonair movie star at the top of his game, accidentally helping virtual nobody Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) launch her career in Hollywood. Despite having obvious chemistry (the sequence of their reshoots is adorable), George and Peppy part ways after their only film together. Peppy’s career gets bigger as her roles move from being an extra to being listed in the credits. George’s life moves on as usual, despite he and his wife having obvious problems, and his career is as good as ever.

Ready, set, publicity stunt!

Then comes the advent of sound. Ignoring the “fad”, George sets out to create his own movie in the traditional silent style while Peppy stars in a new sound film called “Beauty Spot”. While there is nothing wrong with George’s film, Peppy’s movie leaves his in the dust, and while her career takes off, his is left a shambles. The remainder of the story is largely about George finding where he fits in the world of new cinema, following Peppy’s success on a parallel story line which (frequently) crosses with George’s own.

Womp womp.

The acting is fantastic! I had never really considered how different acting could be without sound. Of course anyone could spot the difference between the over-the-top antics of real silent films from the 1920s and the understated drama of being able to hear even the slightest sigh in typical cinema today. However, seeing modern actors without their voices was really fascinating. Additionally, I had also never seriously considered how culturally androgynous people are in silent films. Without being able to hear accents (George and Peppy are French! Represent that.), people at once become more relatable.

Stylistically, the film is so loyal to following a silent film mold that sometimes you catch yourself thinking “What the heck is John Goodman doing in the 20s?!”

Seriously, share your time travel secrets with me, John Goodman.

The actors glow in the luminous gray scale at the beginning and, as George’s fortunes decline, the tones flatten to reflect his misfortune. The soundtrack, as well, is impeccably well suited to the 1920s era. But despite The Artist’s lack of color and sound (haters, I will not be taking you seriously) it is far from boring. Hazanavicius takes countless liberties in playing with modern angles and even playfully adding sound into dream sequences and the like that the screen is mesmerizing. They pay just enough homage to the classics of the past while taking advantage of modern technology that the film ends up being both nostalgic and innovative. A love song to a lost film genre, Michel Hazanavicius upcycles a film style long considered obsolete.

12,000 outa 5 bitches. Go see this movie.

Oh my God, even the preview is amazing. Did you get that I liked this movie? No?

Hugo: Not Just a Story About a Creepy Robot

Ah, home for the holidays. Nothing like spending one awesome day with your entire family and then collapsing into that whole "well...what do we do now?" period after Christmas and before New Year's Day. What did my family do, you ask? One guess.

Hint: it begins with an 'M'...

In my family, my mother, youngest brother, and I have a tendency to go to the movies when we don't know what to do with ourselves. It's like the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious of actions, if you will; the something to do when you have nothing to do at all. So our family-friendly trio opted to go see Hugo for this year's round of post-Christmas dead time.

Judging from what I had of the preview I was mostly going on the ideas of "this looks really pretty" and "omigod this is a kid's movie directed by Scorsese!" Admittedly, I was a little skeptical about how good it would be as the well-known director's first attempt at a different audience, but I was pleasantly surprised at the end result.

The film begins with the story of a young boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a Parisian train station. As we learn early-on, Hugo's father died in a museum fire and he was left to his uncle to help keep the clocks of the station in working order. But Hugo's uncle has since disappeared and he continues to work the clocks in order to keep himself off the radar of the bumbling station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). After getting caught stealing parts from the booth of a toymaker (Ben Kingsley) the boy's cherished notebook, filled with pictures of parts for an automaton that he and his father were repairing, is taken away from him. Hugo is extremely distraught, even following the old man back to his house to try and get it back. In an attempt to win back this notebook, he befriends the toymaker's foster daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). Armed with a taste for adventure from her many books, Isabelle urges him to embark with her on an adventure to fix Hugo's broken "automaton" (robot, to you and I). During this journey, they find out a message that the automaton's been hiding, and with it Papa George's secret past.

Beautiful cinematography: ready, set, go!

Without giving too much away (or at least trying not to..), what they find out is strongly attached to the early history of film itself, making the film largely a love letter to cinema. Showcasing clips from early films such as Train Entering a Station, The Kiss, The Great Train Robbery, and A Trip to the Moon, Scorsese takes a young audience's attention and directs it to a subject that most children do not learn until they are college-bound. This movie sneakily incorporates a good deal of film history into a children's adventure plot, which of course makes crazy cinephiles like me absolutely delighted. It manages to capture the majority of film's modest beginnings without seeming like it's going off on a tangent, and thus keeps the mystery of the plot intact while teaching history.

In terms of the feel of the movie, I've got to say, it's beautifully shot. Everything is in crystal-clear high definition and the lighting in every shot is gorgeous. Each frame could be placed on a wall as art. The movie is also shot somewhat idealistically and romantically, reflecting in itself glamorous films of the 20s, and giving a nod to Oscar glam in the end scene.

What's the Great Depression?

That being said, perhaps the reflexive nature of the film is a bit much for a children's movie. Everything was just slightly heavier than most kid's movies are, which is a somewhat common mistake that directors make, in my own humble opinion (anyone else hate The Polar Express? Bleh.). For example, while I would say that all of the acting was very well done by the young actors Butterfield and Moretz (who I love. Please see Let Me In), there was a certain maturity to it that left them seeming a little unrealistic to some degree. Although that was probably on purpose (I imagine most children that live in train stations by themselves are slightly more mature than their peers), I had a hard time viewing them as regular children, and thus had trouble empathizing a little. Hugo has some moments that seem overly sentimental, which I feel is a little weird for a boy. Perhaps I'm being picky, but I should also admit that I have a low tolerance for sap (unless it's hilariously overdone. As in every Lifetime movie I've ever seen) and I have two extremely non-emotional little brothers who seem to foil Hugo.

Another qualm that I certainly have with the film is the creepy robot kid. In the days of such movies as Child's Play, I, Robot, and Surrogates, I was waiting for the damn thing to come alive and kill people for the entire movie. Also he keeps on staring at Hugo in, like, every scene. Dear Martin Scorsese: Why in God's name would you place a message from a poor boy's dead father in such a freakin' creepy "automaton"? Yeesh...

After a string of murders the children regretted ever fixing the damaged robot.

But besides Creepy Robot Child, the movie is actually quite a pleasure to watch. For those of you with a passion for film without much knowledge of how it came to be, I certainly hope that you will check this out and that it will pique your interest in learning the history of film (as I'm sure Sir Scorsese planned...sneaky man...).

Touche Scorsese, and well done.

Four outa five stars.

PS Sacha Baron Cohen is the funniest person in this movie. If for no other reason, see it to see his performance.

Also, here's the preview in case you need more persuasion to see how pretty it is.

Tower Heist (aka Working Class People Rock)

Met up with Mom yesterday at the Cumberland Mall and decided that we needed more time to hang out with each other. So we did what we do best: we went to the movies. Apparently 2:00 PM is a very unpopular time to be screening films because the only things available were Breaking Dawn (couldn't bring ourselves to do it) and Tower Heist.

Shazam.

Now I wasn't too thrilled at first to be watching Tower Heist. THe movie was highly anticipated but after Thanksgiving I don't really recall hearing anything at all about it, and seeing Eddie Murphy made me a little skeptical (let's face it, after the disasters of Pluto Nash, Norbit, Imagine That, and Meet Dave, there has been little to redeem this poor man). But Tower Heist actually ended up being a pretty bearable movie, thanks to an awesome supporting cast and a plot that would interest people that have been perhaps screwed over by the recession (99%? Anyone?).

The plot revolves around Ben Stiller's character, Josh (he doesn't look like a Josh to me, but I digress..), who is the expert concierge of a high class apartment complex called The Tower. The man who owns The Tower, Arthur Shaw (played menacingly by Allan Alda), is pretty tight with Josh in the beginning and one gets the vibe that Josh kind of looks up to him as a father-type figure. But trouble strikes when we learn that Shaw is being investigated for fraud and that Josh invested all the staff's paychecks in his stock (or something...finanace isn't my thing. But basically all you have to know is that Josh screwed up by trusting this guy and everybody loses money cuz of him).

SO! Josh, feeling extremely guilty that these people don't have money because of him, decides to get back at Shaw and hence plans a Tower Heist (see what I did there?).

I'm pretty sure this is how they did it in Ocean's 11..

This film was actually kind of unexpectedly charming. The major plotters of the heist are adorably inexperienced. Matthew Broderick plays the hilariously bankrupt Wall Street banker, Mr. Fitzhugh, and I'd be lying if I said he wasn't my favorite character in the entire film. Additionally, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, and Michael Pena made up an unbeatable team to match (and even overshadow) Stiller's charming underdog character.

In an interesting twist, the movie doesn't get caught up in gadgets and impeccable timing like other espionage movies. The film is obviously unrealistic, but is honest in that it never pretends that these guys are anything but working class heroes. Even Fitzhugh, who was an investment banker (or something else high up) is equal to the others in that he now has nothing. This film sort of realizes the problems of the recession, the issues with the wealthy, and the endless loop of unrecognized hard work and battles it with the camaraderie, love, and humor of the lower middle class.

I'm mildly surprised that this movie didn't do better actually. The ending isn't 100% happy, but if puts the working class in the position of martyr for the greater good, making honor more important than happiness (which is maybe hinting at an attitude that we should try). The only thing that bugged me about this film's sort of social agenda is the fact that these actors are top-grossing comedians who aren't technically in the 99%, so the material was therefore a little hard to swallow since you're kind of watching it and thinking "well, no offense, Ben Stiller, but I'm not buyin' it". So maybe I just answered my own question, haha, but check it out for yourself.

Your sack lunch does not fool us, Ben Stiller.

(Also, disclaimer: if you have a hard time watching people dangle from extremely high heights, make sure you cover your eyes)

Just as a side note...

I feel like I should acknowledge the fact that I failed my own challenge of watching 10 Thanksgiving movies. Sorry, kids. Guess it's hard to promote a holiday that's more based on food than most things.

Sorry, little guy.

THE MUPPETS ARE BACK!

In the words of Kermit the Frog, "Yaaaayyy!!!" the Muppets are back!! Went to the theater last night with high expectations and I'll tell you what, guys, the critics are right about this one.

Best brothers ever.

The plot, written by Jason Segel himself, begins as the heartwarming tale of Gary (Segel) and the newest Muppet, Walter. Walter has been a huge Muppet fan his entire life and when Gary and his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams), are about to head out for LA for their tenth anniversary, they invite Walter along for a tour of the Muppet studios. However, when they arrive, much to their disappointment, the studio is in disarray. Walter leaves the tour to check out Kermit's old office and, while hiding, discovers a plot by an oil company to buy the rights to the Muppet studio and have it destroyed! The story then focuses on the three finding Kermit and trying to get a show together with the whole gang to try and raise money in order to keep the studio and the show going.

Well holy crap, guys. I have not seen a movie in a long time that manages to be upbeat without being sappy and light without being stupid. Well done, Jason Segel. The film manages to do what, up to this point in time, only Pixar seems to be able to do. The material is appropriate for children but includes jokes and characters adult enough for grownups to identify with as well. Even though it's two hours long, the show seems to be as short as any children's movie, keeping the audience engaged with a new slight conflict every 15 minutes or so and making them wonder if they'll end up getting the studio back!

Like a beacon in the night..

For any nostalgic Muppet fan, also, you have found your film. The movie's central plot revolves around bringing back the golden era of the Muppets, even though it pokes fun at itself by admitting that a lot of kids today are unfamiliar with them (speak for yourself, Selena Gomez, Muppet Christmas Carol is still one of my favorite movies ever.).

But even for non-fans, the plot is brightened by upbeat characters and catchy tunes (oh my God, "Man or Muppet" was my favorite thing in the world). And if nothing else, the celebrity cameos alone are enough to get you through til the end (look for Whoopi Goldberg, Sarah Silverman, Jack Black, Rashida Jones, Allan Arkin, Bill Cobbs, Ken Jeong, Jim Parsons, and a bunch more!).

It was one of those movies that had a sympathetic audience. When Kermit takes a minute to sing "The Rainbow Connection" everyone in the theater started singing along and seemed to love the Muppets' refound identity as much as I and my two equally nerdy friends did.

Yessssss.

Check it out!

Five outa five stars bitches.

Puss in Boots: Not Bad, DreamWorks, Not Bad

So when I booked my flight in August to go see my lovely friend Emily in Los Angeles obviously I had no idea what her schedule would be. Bless her little med school-bound heart, she has two enormous tests on Monday and so we couldn't get sloshed and dance around like morons in a random bar for the weekend. Lady had to study. And understandably so (seriously, I had to ask her what organic chemistry was cuz i had no idea). So she leant me her fascinating Prius and I set out for downtown Claremont.

So what did I do there? I found a movie theater of course!

Fancy.

As maybe some of you have caught on at this point, I will watch almost anything (NOT Window Water Baby Moving. I don't care how much you pay me. I'm scarred for life from that horror.). The more intellectual fodder I like to save for watching with others simply because I enjoy the different perspective for the more complex themes. But going to see brainless rom coms, camp films, and kid's movies by myself? I'm totally always up for it! So despite the theater's really cool offerings (indie films galore!) me and myself opted for the new Shrek spinoff, Puss in Boots. Now I thoroughly enjoyed Shreks 1 and 2 but had missed Shrek the Third and other spinoffs (didn't they have a Halloween one?) so I wasn't really sure where the franchise had ended up. But I've got to say, I'm really glad I saw it.

I mean how could I resist that face?

The plot revolves around Puss reuniting with Humpty Alexander Dumpty and Dumpty's new partner Kitty Softpaws in a quest to steal magic beans from Jack and Jill and find the golden eggs of fairytale beanstalk fame. Puss is originally reluctant to join Dumpty and Kitty because of Dumpty's former betrayal of their friendship, a ploy that involved Puss unknowingly robbing the bank of their hometown, San Ricardo. But he reconsiders after Humpty Dumpty reassures him that the eggs will go to their hometown of San Ricardo. But Humpty Dumpty and Kitty might not be as trustworthy as they seem...The ensuing adventure is pretty well done and appropriate for all ages to boot.

Puss (Antonio Banderas) is his usual charismatic self and his new girl, Kitty (Salma Hayek), is pretty charismatic herself. Although some might argue that Humpty Dumpty was a little annoying, I feel like knowing that he was voiced by Zack Galifianakis suddenly made that ok.

Seriously, who trusts an egg in a matador suit?

The characters all blended together in a typical outlaw way (Typical boy interested in girl so he stays even though he hates the other guy even though the girl and the untrustworthy ex-friend are in cahoots. Formulaic.). Also, this film seemed to trim down the fairytale sidelines, giving the audience a better chance to get to know the characters as opposed to setting up multiple digs on classic folklore and nursery rhymes (although at this point that probably also has to do with the fact that they're running out of them). Cameos by Jack from the beanstalk tale and Little Boy Blue were my favorites.

The thing that I loved most about this film was the merge between the fairytale thing that we have seen in the earlier Shrek movies and the introduction of classic Western-style cinematography. There are quite a few scenes that recall classic westerns like The Wild Bunch, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and even cheesier ones like Zorro. But this franchise never does anything without a little tongue in cheek and a lot of the genre is both honored and made fun of simultaneously. I enjoyed their usage of multi-perspective shots in the same frame, which is a very hokey kind of 1960's trick (circa The Thomas Crowne Affair original with Faye Dunaway, check it out!). But the whole aesthetic of the film was very fitting for the subject matter, and especially for the voice of Antonio Benderas. Good job DreamWorks!

4 outa of 5.

Anonymous, or Shakespeare's Not Really Shakespeare

So over here in California for the past week. Been couch surfing at my cousin's for the past couple of days and I've got tons of time to write new posts since she's at work til the afternoon. I know, I know, you're all waiting with bated breath. Well fear not, cuz I've got a new review for you. Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to break my Thanksgiving movie marathon for this one just in the name of staying current.

Last night we went and saw Anonymous, a film which I'd seen previews for but hadn't really had my eye out for in movie listings. I always feel a little dumb when it comes to movies that take place during Elizabeth I's time, and this one was no different. The English names are a bit repetitive, and after a while you had to remind yourself of which Cecil was which and who they were talking about when they referred to "William" (William Cecil? William Shakespeare? Will.I.Am?). After a while, though, you more or less understood what was going on.

So the movie begins almost exactly like Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, even to the point of having the same prologue (Derek Jacobi). The prologue introduces the subject matter in an anonymous playhouse and then the backdrop melts away to a realistic setting. The main theory surrounding the film is that William Shakespeare was not the actual author of his works. His close friend, Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto), is approached by the Earl of Oxford (played by Rhys Ifans pretty elegantly, and also known as Edward. Write that down.) to put on a play. Since Court doesn't approve of gentlemen writing plays or poetry, the Earl gives a number of plays to Jonson. When Jonson puts on the plays, the playwright is simply kept anonymous. One night the shows are such a big success that the audience begs for the playwright to show himself. So who volunteers? Illiterate actor and unpleasant fellow William Shakespeare.

But for the most part the film does not revolve around William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), which is a good thing because he's really severely unlikeable. It revolves more around the life of Edward (Earl of Oxford, remember?). Having had a lifelong interest in writing and poetry, he decides to start sharing his plays anonymously in order to build English morale on the backdrop of Elizabeth's succession.

Who am I?

The plays are interspersed with big chunks of Edward's past as well. Young Edward (Jamie Campbell Bower) is shown marrying the daughter of William Cecil (David Thewlis) to keep a murder quiet, having an affair with the queen and impregnating her, and finding out his son is the Earl of Southampton.

When we get back to his future he is plotting with Essex to (re)win the queen's favor in order for him to get a leg-up in the succession and in Court.

So holy moly. Lot of stuff going on here. Not that conspiracy theories are ever simple, but it's even more confusing in an Elizabethan setting.

I've got to say, the movie dragged on quite a bit. They seem to get so wrapped up in the hypothetical politics more than the actual plays, which is a shame because I feel like their main audience was probably Shakespeare scholars. Also both my cousin and I were surprised with how overdramatic the acting seemed to be. I don't know about you guys, but Queen Elizabeth I in my mind has always been a pretty stoic, no-nonsense kind of queen (think Shakespeare in Love). Now I'm no history buff, but the Elizabeth we got in this film was like something out of a soap opera. She screams, she dances, she has sex, she's a wild card. And it's kind of uncomfortable to see her that way.

Another thing that was totally distracting, and I don't mean to hyperbolize, but almost every character in the film had a bizarre voice. Jamie Campbell Bower as a young poet? The creepy guy from Sweeney Todd that sings "I feeeeeel youuu, Joaaannnnnnaaaa"? I don't think so. Also I'm not alone in thinking that Ben Jonson kind of sounded like Hagrid and that Robert Cecil very closely resembled Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I feeeeel youuuu, Eliiiiizabeeeeeth

Perhaps if the film had been a little less lengthy, one could better focus on the positive originality of it all. After all, the audience ends up sympathizing with Ben Jonson way more than they do the greedy Shakespeare, and really Edward is very beautifully played by Ifans. But there is so much plot clutter that at times they reach a little too far.

For example, I don't care how good of a poet you are, you can't think up verse in the middle of foreplay.

Nope.

Not buyin' it.

3 outa 5 for some cool settings and such but bit of a letdown in terms of story.