Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Select a Page

Movie Reviews

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Karen Posada
0

By

2011/12/21 at 12:00am

Reviews

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

12.21.2011 | By |

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ is a movie anticipated by many: the book fans, the Swedish version of the film fans and everyone else that has gotten curious by the buzz around the book trilogy that hooked millions. This thriller will not disappoint any of the aforementioned, many might think there was no need to make an American version of the film, but the truth is that it combined all the good elements of the original one along with the book as a guide of course to make a great remake. This version makes the book and original more eye opening by bringing the action scenes to a higher standard.

 

The film is based on a book by the Swedish writer Stieg Larsson, it was published back in 2005 and was quickly made into a Swedish movie in 2009. It develops the story of a financial journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) who has legal troubles and is in the verge of loosing his entire career and taking the magazine he works for Millennium down with him. A rich millionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the kind of person he usually does his research about, decides to hire him for an unusual chore: to investigate the disappearance of his niece Harriet and odd 40 years ago. The story that develops at the same time on the screen is that of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara); a social outcast that spends her time being the best investigator at a security firm, who uses any method she can to complete the tasks assigned to her. These two unite to make an unbeatable team that will try to solve a crime no one expects them to. This game of “Clue” gets more interesting as the film progresses.

 

Mara is fantastic as Lisbeth, her make up, her attitude; her whole persona is played out perfectly. Seeing Mr. Bond aka Craig in this role is quite interesting, he still is a ladies man but is way more human than Bond; it’s almost tough seeing him be so weak at times but he’s also fantastic. The images in Stockholm and the imaginary town of Hedestad are very similar to those of the original film; (despite of the fact that the filmmakers say they didn’t use the original to do this remake) although somehow they are more captivating. The film runs for 2hrs and 30mins, which gives justice to the lengthy book, but towards the end it gets so fast paced that it might be hard to follow for those not familiar with it. The sequence of the book is mainly followed except for some minor changes to the script, which are easy to adapt to. There are several scenes that are very hard to watch, so be prepared. Try to make it to see the beginning of the film; the title sequence is a treat in itself.

 

The Swedish film is the most watched Swedish film ever! That might not be the case in America but it will surely have high-ticket sales for a while after it comes out. If you’ve been waiting for this film since you heard they were doing an American remake of it you will surely be rewarded for the wait. Director David Fincher cooked up the perfect movie to honor the book and the writer’s memory and to keep us waiting patiently for the other 2 to follow.

 

And to read an interview with Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig , click here, plus follow Karen Posada via Twitter to @karenlpo

Midnight in Paris (Movie Review)
Midnight in Paris
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/12/20 at 12:00am

MoviesReviews

Midnight in Paris (Movie Review)

12.20.2011 | By |

Just being in Paris at midnight is a memorable experience that true romantics will appreciate, and most likely, never forget. In the case of Woody Allen, he decided to make a movie about it. Its title is self explanatory – ‘Midnight in Paris,’ and it is without question, his best work since ‘Matchpoint’, a powerful drama that echoes the writings of Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It is also, through May, one of my top 10 films of 2011.

‘Midnight in Paris’ is a simple romantic comedy set in Paris that bursts with engrossment. As the story begins, Gil (played by Owen Wilson) and his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) are tagging along on a trip to Paris with her father, John (Kurt Fuller), and mother, Helen (Mimi Kennedy). These two young people, who are engaged to be married in the fall, have Woody-Allen-like experiences there that change their lives forever.

In true Allen fashion, our New York legend need not be on screen to be felt. His words and direction are immediately recognizable from the onset as we hear the protagonist’s dialogue off-camera while the opening credits are still on screen. Allen, who is filming in Paris for the second time in his career (his first was Everyone Says I Love You), finds his imaginative form again here as his star Owen Wilson meets legendary historical figures of the literary, art and film world, including Spaniard/Mexican Luis Buñuel. It’s this type of inventiveness humor that has been sorely missed from his work. Somehow he has found it in ‘Paris’. Throughout the years, Woody has had a very consistent track record of making very good to very bad movies. His last two films ‘Whatever Works‘ and ‘You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger‘ didn’t impress the way ‘Matchpoint’ or ‘Midnight’ do. In ‘Whatever Works‘ comedian Larry David didn’t even managed to crack a smile on my face. The script wasn’t interesting enough nor was the payoff. In “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger ‘, Woody improved the story and even threw in Antonio Banderas for kicks, but it ended up being a rehash of previous average films and had nothing original. Then suddenly he comes out with a gem like this that is simple and honest, true to the Woody of old. To say it titillates the mind’s eye is more than effective.

On the acting front, Owen Wilson, fresh off being a part of one of the worst films of 2010 – How Do You Know – and the overhyped and awkward comedy ‘Hall Pass’, is obliviously innocent and likable as Gil, a hack Hollywood screenwriter that is penning his first novel which he can’t seem to get passionate about. He’s an uncouth and distracted person that finds it difficult to please his fiance or her family. Wilson plays the role with a wonderful, natural comic instinct and charm that we as the public have come to grow fond of. As is typical for a Woody Allen film, the rest of the superlative supporting cast is top notch. They range from stars like Adrien Brody and Kathy Bates, Carla Bruni to talented newcomers like Corey Stoll, Nina Arianda, Tom Hiddleston, Alison Pill, and Léa Seydoux.

But no matter what actor steps in as the ‘star’, the real star will always be Woody Allen’s essence which he leaves on the screen so richly. The script is tight, it always moves forward and there are no frills to be had. The performances are quirky, funny, sexy and astute. ‘Midnight in Paris’ is Woody Allen’s valentine to the City of Lights, and I hope he comes back to New York yearning to recapture his love for the city like he has in Paris.

[youtube id=”FAfR8omt-CY”]

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/12/16 at 12:00am

Reviews

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

12.16.2011 | By |

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Guy Ritchie’s sequel, ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’, is a highbrow action film that is exciting, thrilling, and very fun. This second effort, to an original that possessed an incohesive script and an inability to hold my attention throughout its duration, provides a fantastic adversary, stylish action sequences, a creative plot and a seamless flow that all fall perfectly into place. I must confess, this was a delightful surprise worth a second watch.

Sherlock Holmes has always been the smartest man in the room…until now. There is a new criminal mastermind at large—Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris)—and not only is he Holmes’ intellectual equal, but his capacity for evil, coupled with a complete lack of conscience, may give him an advantage over the renowned detective. Around the globe, headlines break the news: a scandal takes down an Indian cotton tycoon; a Chinese opium trader dies of an apparent overdose; bombings in Strasbourg and Vienna; the death of an American steel magnate… No one sees the connective thread between these seemingly random events—no one, that is, except the great Sherlock Holmes, who has discerned a deliberate web of death and destruction. At its center sits a singularly sinister spider: Moriarty. Holmes’ investigation into Moriarty’s plot becomes more dangerous as it leads him and Watson out of London to France, Germany and finally Switzerland. But the cunning Moriarty is always one step ahead, and moving perilously close to completing his ominous plan. If he succeeds, it will not only bring him immense wealth and power but alter the course of history.

The reason this movie worked so much better than the first one is due to the new villain in town that opposes our protagonist – Professor James Moriarty played wonderfully by Jared Harris, known from the Mad Men television series. Heroes like Holmes suffer from the ‘invincible syndrome’ that affects so many stories of the like. We all know that the hero will always win and it’s hard not to zone out when this happens. But not here; Moriarty supplies the film with a subtle sinisterness, menace and belief that he can defeat Holmes, mind to mind, wit to wit, and punchline to punchline. It’s this plausibility that makes the difference between an ordinary action film churned in a Los Angeles warehouse and a rousing and titillating experience this sequel brings forth.

I would be remiss in not mentioning Robert Downey Jr.’s performance, which is infused with some hilarious moments, but also with a sense of fear for his death and to the loved ones around him. Jude Law serves as a nice compliment to Holmes, but is unequivocally overshadowed by Downey’s performance. Noomi Rapace doesn’t replicate anything remotely to her character of Lisbeth Salander in ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ but perhaps proves that she can do a film in English. Finally, Stephen Fry, who somehow has to convince us he is Sherlock’s brother, is a graceful and charming man who manages to stand out from all the action sequences.

What the movie has going against it, at moments, is the English accents that get in the way of understanding the, at times, entertaining but complicated plot. Nevertheless, if that’s the worst I have to endure, then it becomes just a matter of taste because there are many who like those accents.

Guy Ritchie is in rare form here. Not since ‘Snatch’ has he been this good. His stylistic camera shots, his slow-mo trademark moments and his irreverent humor are all present here, but he’s added a maturity to the storytelling that has polished his filmmaking. The action sequences are phenomenal. Some that come to mind are the bullet-fest on a train, Jude Law’s cannon incident with a tower and a sharpshooter, plus the race for their lives through a forest while a deluge of bombs bullets and missiles almost claimed their lives.

‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’ is being released concurrently with another unabashed action film in Tom Cruise’s ‘Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol’ in IMAX. Even though ‘MI:4’ might be better, your decision will ultimately boil down to your particular tastes in stars, a classic vs contemporary story, and whether one of them is sold out or not. You really can’t go wrong with these selections, making this week in movies, one of the most entertaining of 2011.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Karen Posada
0

By

2011/12/14 at 12:00am

Reviews

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

12.14.2011 | By |

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

This really is a treat for action lovers; ‘Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol’ is filled with relentless action almost all throughout the film. Seeing the film in IMAX made it even more enjoyable because a lot of the shots in the film are so thrilling that you feel like you are hanging on by a thread along with our main character Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise).  This film is one of the best action films of the year and it really lives up to the hype and fits in nicely with the phenomenon of all the ‘Mission Impossible’ flicks.

 

In this sequel Ethan gets some new team members from the IMF: Jane (Paula Patton), Brandt (Jeremy Renner) along with his old pal Benji (Simon Pegg). After a terrible misunderstanding between Russia and the U.S. the team is sent to try to stop a terrorist: Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), from detonating a missile that will start a nuclear war. The trick is that the team must complete this task on their own without help from the IMF, since because of the misunderstanding the president has shut them down and so they begin what they call “Ghost Protocol”. If the team is not able to stop Hendricks intricate plan, which involves using a satellite, then Ethan’s team will be blamed for the terrorist act and everything they’ve worked for will go down the drain along with their entire lives.

 

Cruise is the exact same Ethan we’ve seen in the past, he still performs amazing stunts and has the same strong character that seems to be untouched by anything physically and emotionally. We travel to Hungary, Russia, Dubai and India. The Dubai sequence has some of the best scenes, my favorite is Ethan having to climb the tallest building in the world with some “spider-man” like gloves. There are some interesting twists in the movie but one of its biggest flaws is the plot. The whole Russian/American tension just like in the Cold War era has been overplayed.

 

If you are a fan of the past Mission Impossible movies this one will certainly not disappoint, it connects it to the rest nicely. Director Brad Bird certainly made his own version of the series while still respecting those that already exist; the combination of both of these elements is what made this film maybe the best out of the Mission Impossible series. 

New Year’s Eve
Karen Posada
0

By

2011/12/07 at 12:00am

Reviews

New Year’s Eve

12.7.2011 | By |

New Year's Eve

There’s not much to expect from ‘New Year’s Eve’, unfortunately this movie with so many well known actors doesn’t have much to give; not even entertainment value.  I can’t help but compare it with Garry Marshall’s ‘Valentine’s Day’, the director used the exact same recipe here: tie in about 7 stories and try to use some humor along with drama on the biggest holiday of the year.  It’s tough to get the audience to care about a character with so many things going on and so many stories to follow, you don’t get much of a background on the characters and just when you are starting to get into one of the stories it changes to the next one. The biggest star in the movie is of course New York City, a place where the holidays; New Year’s Eve in particular is like no other.

 

The film is an analogy to new beginnings, looking back in the past and pushing the rewind button to not make the same mistakes and to accomplish the resolutions we procrastinated on. The only story that has a little substance is that of Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer) a woman who has followed the same routine for years and worked endlessly without being appreciated until one day she decides to change it all and we have a little fun with her exploring NYC. We basically follow around the whole cast as they prepare for midnight, some are anxious about their midnight kiss, others are anti-holiday, others are nostalgic about the year that has passed and others are too busy working to care about the holiday. The love stories are predictable and boring, there are some minor twists but not exiting enough to improve the movie. 

 

The audience was surprised with some guest appearances, but we already had enough of a cast for me to find it necessary. The Hispanics in the movie Ava (Sofia Vergara) and Kominsky (Hector Elizondo) have small supporting roles, Vergara plays the exact same character she does in her hit show ‘Modern Family’ with awkward anecdotes and childish behavior, who knows if they’ll ever cast her as something besides a stereotype. Elizondo is always a Marshall aka the help, so no surprise there.

 

A 2 hour-long movie of running around is exhaustingly boring, the movie has a nice (not original) concept but it’s not enough. I’m not sure how I feel seeing Academy Award winners such as Halle Berry and Hilary Swank in such petty roles that seem to be for amateurs. The only thing this movie inspired in me is a curiosity to actually be crazy enough to see the ball drop live in Times Square and I enjoyed recognizing the different sights in NYC, such as Smith Street in Brooklyn towards the end of the film.      

Shame
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/12/02 at 12:00am

Reviews

Shame

12.2.2011 | By |

Shame

In what can be considered one of the most intense films of the year till now, ‘Shame’ from Afro-American director Steve McQueen, will make you reanalyze you opinion about sexual addiction disease. Michael Fassbender’s  (X-Men: First Class) acting can only be considered brilliant and his chance of being nominated for an Oscar is almost guaranteed. The film pushes the boundaries of nudity to levels of high discomfort for the usual movie goer, and because of this, for those that go to see it I suggest you to keep and open mind free of judgments.   

 

The plot develops around Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender), a man of thirty something living in a comfortable apartment in New York. To avoid his work routine he seduces women, in a series of stories without a future and one night stands. His methodical and organized life style is altered with a surprise visit from his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), a rebellious and problematic girl. Her high strong presence will make Brandon loose control over his own world.

 

Because of this visceral premise, the MPPA, the organization in charged of classifying films in the USA, has decided to label it NC-17. This means that people younger than 17 years old will not be able pay to see it. This is the first movie in 2011 to get this rating due to the sexually explicit scenes and situations that McQueen presents, in particular, the three shots of the main actor’s genitals at the beginning of the film. 

 

Besides the intriguing story, we have to talk about the Michael Fassbender’s unforgettable performance, not only does it give the movie wings in this award season, but he clearly represents the suffering of a sickness that undergoes a lot of skepticism in society. Is sexual addition really a legitimate sickness or just a simple excuse that men use to apologize for their promiscuity? Fassbender’s character is humanly damaged and he can’t seem to find a solution. That frustration becomes bitterness, which we can see on his face and his eyes in almost every scene. It’s an amazing representation worth of applause.

 

The director Steve McQueen uses the protagonist as his personal relief to show with all of his artistic capability the embarrassment and shame of this addiction. There’s no eroticism here, only physical, emotional and psychological filth that has no redemption. The film takes place in New York and you can see the influence it has had from directors such as Abel Ferrara, Martin Scorsese and Sidney Lumet.  

 

‘Shame’ is one of the best movies of the year, but it’s not easy to watch. The plot will disturb many, but that same reaction will have you glued to the screen from beginning to end.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Karen Posada
0

By

2011/11/29 at 12:00am

Reviews

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

11.29.2011 | By |

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

There are so many spy films out there that in order to appreciate a new one it has to have an element very few offer, ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ has it but not enough to entertain for more than an hour.  The movie does well in drawing in the audience with its retro look and mysterious scenes but its game of cat and mouse starts getting boring.  The fine acting in it gives it appeal as well as the fact that it’s based on a continuous successful story: John Le Carré’s book and TV miniseries from the 70’s.

Le Carré gave director Thomas Alfredson his blessing to create his own version of this well-known story, he told him “Please don’t shoot the book or remake the TV miniseries. They already exist.” The story is about discovering a mole that has infiltrated the English Secret Intelligence Services’ most secure circle referred to as “the circus”; it is set in 1973 during the Cold War. This was a period where the whole world was shaking with uncertainty and none trusted their own shadow. The director did an excellent job setting the piece in the 70’s it could be easily mistaken for something done in the era with the sepia colors, fashion and environment.

The story begins with a secret job done by Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) gone wrong and it opens up a whole can of worms. This incident puts George Smiley (Gary Oldman) into forced retirement, which he then is pulled out of in order to find the double agent inside the agency working for the soviets. Smiley works off the list of 5 men the head of the Circus “Control” had pinned down when he still worked for the service. These are all men Smiley has known most of his career: Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) code named Tinker, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) known as Tailor, Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds) nicknamed Soldier, Toby Esterhase (David Denick) and the last man on Control’s list is Smiley himself. Smiley is the perfect spy he blends in and is hard to notice at the beginning of the film where he barely utters a word, but as the film develops we see the beauty of Oldman’s acting while he gets help from the only two men he can trust Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) who shows up unexpectedly asking for help in exchange of information and Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) an agent eager to learn.   

It is said Le Carré’s story was so successful back in the 70’s because the Cold War and espionage was something many people could relate to at the time, so hearing a real spy tell his stories was worth seeing. The same can be said of this film because Oldman does an excellent job to try to involve us in the story but there are elements in the movie that confuse and bore us. The technique of flashbacks is used a lot throughout the narration, which works, but when we have continuous flashbacks and back and forth opinions on who might be the mole it just starts getting unappealing. There is more than one interesting story tying the movie together but by the time we finally find out who the mole is we no longer care and we forgot what information was even given to the other side to feel relieved.

It is refreshing to see a movie involving spies that doesn’t have much action or gore, with a few scenes in exception. Unfortunately though I think we have become accustomed to a small dosage of either or both in order to enjoy a good story.  I see this more as a movie to pop in on a lazy Sunday as long as you are feeling awake enough to try to follow all the twists and chatter to figure out who the mole is. PS. Look out for Oldman’s favorite scene that he told us about in our interview, where he does a long monologue without the help of flashbacks a fine piece of acting!

The Artist
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/11/28 at 12:00am

Reviews

The Artist

11.28.2011 | By |

The Artist

Are you sure no one pressed mute on the audio system when the movie was playing? Wait, are you telling me this is a brand new silent film for 2011? So you’re sure this is not a lost film retrieved by some film historian who restored it to its lustrous beauty for a Thanksgiving release? These are questions I’m sure some asked when they saw the trailer to ‘The Artist’, a newly created silent film for the modern era, cooked in the tradition of Douglas Fairbanks’ films. Ironically enough, this homage to yesteryear, could bring home the Oscar for Best Picture. At least it has legs to compete for it. But does it deserve it? No.

But before I get into the reasons it won’t win, it’s good to know what this movie is all about. Set during the twilight of Hollywood’s silent era, ‘The Artist’ tells the story of a charismatic movie star unhappily confronting the new world of talking pictures. The year is 1927, Hollywood. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is one of Hollywood’s reigning silent screen idols, instantly recognizable with his slim moustache and signature white tie and tails. Starring in exotic tales of intrigue and derring-do, the actor has turned out hit after hit for Kinograph, the studio run by cigar-chomping mogul Al Zimmer (John Goodman). His success has brought him an elegant mansion and an equally elegant wife, Doris (Penelope Ann Miller). Chauffeured to the studio each day by his devoted driver Clifton (James Cromwell), George is greeted by his own smiling image, emblazoned on the posters prominently placed throughout the Kinograph lot. As he happily mugs for rapturous fans and reporters at his latest film premiere, George is a man indistinguishable from his persona — and a star secure in his future. For young dancer Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), the future will be what she makes of it. Vivacious and good-humored, with an incandescent smile and a flapper’s ease of movement, Peppy first crosses George’s path at his film premiere and then as an extra on his latest film at Kinograph. As they film a brief dance sequence, the leading man and the newcomer fall into a natural rhythm, the machinery of moviemaking fading into the background. But the day must finally end, sending the matinee idol and the eager hopeful back to their respective places on the Hollywood ladder. And Hollywood itself will soon fall under sway of a captivating new starlet: talking pictures. George wants no part of the new technology, scorning the talkie as a vulgar fad destined for the dustbin. By 1929, Kinograph is preparing to cease all silent film production and George faces a choice: embrace sound, like the rising young star Peppy Miller; or risk a slide into obscurity.

I will give credit to French director Michel Hazanavicius, known internationally for the spy spoof comedies ‘OSS 117’ also starring Jean Dujardin, for bringing back an obsolete format and creating an exceptional and refreshing piece of cinema. But ultimately, the principal reason it won’t win Best Picture is because his screenplay wasn’t “mind-blowingly” enthralling. It was a good predictable story without enough pounce to place it in a league of its own. If one were to compare this film against the preeminent work of the era, it will pale in comparison. After the first half hour, the novelty wears off and you’re hoping it won’t be just another silent film, but have a contemporary twist that separates it from the rest. You expect it to delve dramatically deeper than Chaplin’s ‘The Kid’ or funnier than Keaton’s ‘The General’, but it never reaches those heights. Now, compared against today’s Hollywood fare, ‘The Artist’ has a much better chance to stand out and be a heavyweight contender. But can you really give the Best Picture prize to a film just on novelty? I would hate to think the Oscar committee is that easy. The Best Picture of the year has to be a movie that excels in every single aspect of its process. One that is indubitably the preeminent work of the year. Does ‘The Artist’ really stand above the rest? In my opinion, no, but at the time of writing this review, I have yet to see ‘War Horse’, ‘The Iron Lady’ and ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’. Those might end up being disappointments, but I expect the best will come out of the aforementioned three. I’ll update this post periodically as I see them.

Where the film has strength is in the acting of its protagonist Jean Dujardin. He is one of the most charming men I’ve seen on screen, period. He is a lock for a Best Actor nomination, and even a win. Regrettably, his co-star Bérenice Bejo has much to be desired. Even Uggie the Dog was wonderful. Hazanavicius, for his part, should be rewarded with a directorial nomination since pulling off a film of this magnitude couldn’t have been easy. Then we must look at Guillaume Schiffman’s cinematographer work which is some of the finest of 2011.

The experience of watching this film begins with frantic curiosity, then a battle of patience as one slowly goes into a period of adjustment due to the lack of dialogue. ‘The Artist’ is a sensorial film; the fact that there is no text brings you back to a basic way of telling a story that only works on the feelings you have created. It can be very rewarding for those in search of something “new” and “unusual”.

‘The Artist’ is a real good mix of comedy, romance and melodrama presented in the composition of a silent film. But come to think of it, could it be that its most distinctive attribute is its subliminal message that the past can still provide better cinema than the rest of today’s best 3D, IMAX offerings? A win will surely leave more than one studio executive lurching in utter silence.

Hugo
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/11/27 at 12:00am

Reviews

Hugo

11.27.2011 | By |

Hugo

I would describe ‘Hugo’, Martin Scorsese’s new cinematographic attempt, as a fairytale for adults, that takes children into account, but it is not exactly directed at them. The pace of the film tends to be less crazy than other films with the same release date (Arthur Christmas, The Muppets), and therefore, less entertaining for younger viewers. However, there’s enough visual and emotional material here to distract them.

The film is based on Brian Seiznick’s bestseller ‘The Invention of Hugo Cabret’ and it focuses on Hugo (Asa Butterfield) an orphan child from the thirties that lives hidden in a station in Paris and is in charge of watches. The kid will find himself involved in a mysterious adventure when he tries to repair a broken robot that his father left unfinished. One day he meets a girl (Chloë Moretz) that seems to have the key to solving the mystery of the robot.  

‘Hugo’ in reality is a love letter to silent film and the importance of preserving movies for posterity. Whoever knows Scorsese’s life, will know that the film was made for his biggest passion in life – cinema. This reminds me of how Quentin Tarantino had a similar message in Inglorious Basterds. The style is not what we have come to expect from the master. First, the work is done in 3D and takes place in Paris. Secondly, the concept of the film is family oriented: he’s never done anything like it. The result is a spectacular experience, it is in itself, a dream come true. 

The characters in the film are colorful and the cast’s acting seems sincere, but the one that stands out is Sir Ben Kingsley known for his masterpiece ‘Ghandi’ from 1982. The youngsters Asa Butterfield (The Boy in the Striped Pajamas) and Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass) do a good job although it is obvious that the boy lacks acting chops. The cast includes Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) who shows a dramatic side for the first time, Emily Mortimer and Richard Griffiths, Ray Winstone as Hugo’s drunken uncle, Jude Law as Hugo’s father, and Christopher Lee, as a librarian.  

The 3D experience is one of this year’s best. You only have to see the opening scene to understand how wonderfully Scorsese presented it.

‘Hugo’ is one of my favorite movies of the year because it is visually impressive, it uses 3D technology perfectly, the story is original and it connects me with my passion for movies, I like its adventurous plot and the characters are memorable. And of course, it is yet another chance to delight ourselves seeing a Scorsese film, one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. What a luxury!  

My Week With Marilyn
Jack Rico
0

By

2011/11/21 at 12:00am

Reviews

My Week With Marilyn

11.21.2011 | By |

My Week With Marilyn

The mere thought of another movie based on Marilyn Monroe (‘Marilyn and Me’, ‘Marilyn & Bobby: Her Final Affair’, ‘Norma Jean & Marilyn’) might send shivers down the spine of many admirers and cinephiles who chide at the feeble attempts from Hollywood to recreate The Blonde Bombshell’s essence on screen. But ‘My Week with Marilyn’ should be the elixir to any and all types of derision. It is by far the best film of Monroe to ever be put on celluloid, mainly, due to the performance of Michelle Williams. She is Marilyn Monroe for all intents and purposes, and her performance will most assuredly be recognized by the Oscars with a nomination.

The movie is based on Colin Clark’s two memoirs – ‘The Prince, The Showgirl and Me’ and ‘My Week with Marilyn’. He was the third assistant director on the set of ‘The Prince and the Showgirl’, Marilyn Monroe’s first film as both producer and star in which she played opposite Sir Laurence Olivier, who also directed. The book recounts the production’s myriad problems, fueled almost exclusively by the lack of communication and understanding between the two stars: Monroe’s erratic behavior and tardiness were exacerbated by her addiction to alcohol and prescription medication; while Olivier, a staunch traditionalist, refused to accommodate Monroe‟s idiosyncrasies or her devotion to Method acting, which she practiced under the guidance of Paula Strasberg. In the second memoir, Clark affectionately remembers one enchanted week he spent leading the troubled Monroe on a tour of the English countryside. It offers an all-too-rare glimpse of the real woman beneath the carefully cultivated image, unencumbered by the busy machinery of stardom.

At its core, the film’s best attribute is its plotline. It is one of the most appealing and interesting stories of the year in film. I mean, how did a world-famous movie superstar at the height of her fame end up spending an intimate week traveling across England with a gopher from her film set? This is the stuff that men dream of everyday. Monroe’s clashes with Olivier, her anxiety about her marriage to Arthur Miller and her own insecurities about her talent made her deeply vulnerable. She was in need of a friend and through a series of incidents, she became very close and intimate in a platonic way with Colin Clark. He was always there and was non-threatening.

What also is undebatable is Michelle Williams performance. One of the toughest tasks asked by any director of his actresses is to embody Ms. Monroe. No one has been able to do it without evading some level of scorn, except Williams. She’s so good that the talk amongst many film critics, including myself, is that only Meryl Streep in ‘The Iron Lady’, can depose her of a Best Actress award at next year’s Oscar ceremony. Williams success lies in her ability to bring Marilyn to life by extracting all her complexities such as her mannerisms, vulnerabilities, diffidence, sexiness and vocal nuances. She did this while never raching the levels of impersonation.

Director Simon Curtis and scribe Adrian Hodges have done an excellent job in deftly capturing “the real Monroe” in her heyday, the backstage controversies of a movie shoot and an innocent love story. ‘My Week with Marilyn’ is one of my favorite movies of 2011. It awoke a dormant curiosity in me to know more about the surroundings of her death, what she really meant to the world and give her acting career another look. Was she really a great actress and not just a blonde bimbo? Fortunately for many of you, this film does a stupendous job in getting closer to that answer. If you love the 50’s, glamour and romance, and of course, curious about Marilyn Monroe herself, then don’t hesitate to watch this delightful and intriguing piece of film.

Follow SBC

Select a Page