Movie Review: Hugo (2011)

Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: John Logan (Based upon the novel "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" by Brian Selznick)
Stars: Sasha Baron Cohen
Ben Kingsley
Chloe Moretz
Asa Butterfield

Where to start with this film, that somehow almost completely escaped the movie-going public last year? I mean, it's a kid's film in 3-D directed by Martin Scorsese and co-starring Sasha Baron Cohen. How the heck was this not a huge runaway hit?

Well to start with, the movie is clever and well-written. I realize that's a problem with modern films, especially kid films, where the height of cleverness seems to be poop jokes. It is refreshingly devoid of potty humor. The cleverness even extends to the title, and the lead character's name, Hugo. Hugo is a boy who is persecuted by a train station security guard. The novel "Les Miserables" by Victor HUGO is about a man named Jean Valjean who is persecuted by a police officer. And there isn't a wasted scene in the film. For instance, early in the film, Hugo and his friend Isabelle (Chloe Moretz, who was wonderful as Hit Girl in "Kick Ass") watch the silent film "Safety Last" where Harold Lloyd dangles above New York City from the hands of a clock, and later Hugo dangles from the hands of a clock over Paris.

And what about the cast? In addition to those listed above (in order that they appeared on the movie poster), it also stars Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jude Law and Richard Griffiths, all of whom turn in outstanding performances. Moretz in particular made me wonder in this film if she's a British girl who gave a heck of an American accent in "Kick Ass" or an American girl who gave a heck of a British accent in "Hugo". Turns out that she's from Texas. Good job, Ms. Moretz. You should have been awarded an oscar for your performance here.

The basic story is about an orphan named Hugo Cabret who lives in a Paris train station early in the 20th century. He spends his life trying to escape the clutches of the train security guard (Sasha Baron Cohen) and a toymaker from whom he has stolen clockworks to rebuild a mechanical man that his father (Jude Law) bought from a museum. The toymaker, to whom we are introduced as "Papa Georges" is played by Ben Kingsley. (Minor spoiler alert!) The toymaker turns out to be filmmaker and magician Georges Melies, and is the godfather and guardian of Isabelle (Moretz).

THE GOOD: Just about everything. The film is amazing. Coming from Scorsese, this shouldn't be a big surprise, but the film also turns out to be a love letter to movies, especially the films of the silent era when the film takes place. The writing, directing (of course), music and special effects are all excellent. It made me want to read the book, which i had never heard of before this.

THE BAD: Only peripherally attached to the film, i would like to see Sasha Baron Cohen do more films like this or Sweeney Todd where he is really able to stretch his legs as an actor and (in Sweeney Todd) a singer. When he gets the reigns of a film, he basically does the same movie over and over. Borat, Bruno and The Dictator are all basically the same film with different lead characters. I enjoyed Borat, couldn't watch all of Bruno and have no interest in The Dictator. Mr. Cohen, you are better than this. PLEASE stop repeating yourself. You're basically turning into the Stephen King of cinema.

THE UGLY: I will never understand why American actors choose to affect a British accent in films about France simply because you are surrounded by British actors. The same thing happened in the excellent film "Quills". The main difference is that the American actor in "Quills", Joachim Phoenix, gave a broad, unbelievably bad British accent, while the American actress in "Hugo", Chloe Moretz, gives an excellent accent. You are supposed to be speaking FRENCH, which, like most languages, has a variety of accents.

The upshot? Watch this movie. Especially if you're a film lover. Watch it with your kids. It's a GREAT movie.

Peace.

Randal

My Two Cents Worth...

Okay, after the Rush Limbaugh nonsense, i feel like i have to weigh in on this health care/contraceptive issue.

First off, let me say that what Limbaugh said didn't shock me. Him calling a girl that he doesn't know a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she supports the mandate for contraceptives for women being covered by employer's health plans. This just sounds like the usual crap that falls out of Limbaugh's mouth. Frankly, it would shock me more if it was reported that he behaved in an at all civilized fashion toward someone. Also, several of his sponsors yanked their sponsorship over this issue, causing Limbaugh to offer an insincere on-air apology. I hope that they don't reinstate their sponsorship on the one hand, but on the other why were they sponsoring his show if they didn't want to sponsor incendiary hate speech? I mean seriously. Did they NOT know what they were getting? It's like a story that Bill Cosby tells about Lenny Bruce. He said that he was at one of Bruce's shows, and about halfway through, apparently offended by Bruce's rough language, a lady stood up and said "Well, i never!" and walked out. Cosby said "I wonder who she thought that she was seeing?" That's what i wonder about these sponsors. Who did you think that you were sponsoring? Mr. Rogers?

Okay, as far as the bill goes...

1) It is not about religious freedom... at least not in the way that you think. The Catholics are trying to say that this is an infringement of their religious liberty. That is not the case. If the government were requiring Catholics to USE birth control, THAT would be an infringement on their religious freedom. Kind of like the Catholics trying to use this denial of health coverage to PREVENT their non-Catholic employees from using birth control. We call that religious persecution. And by the way, the argument that it is their religious right not to cover contraceptive health care is sheer bull. If a Scientologist employer were to say "Well, we disagree with all medical treatment, we think that all illness should be prayed away, so we're not providing ANY health coverage" i think that our national response would be "We can't let those nuts get away with that." Well, we can't let those Catholic nuts get away with this.

2) It's not about sex. There are a number of reasons why a doctor might prescribe "the pill" for a woman, including to shorten a long menstrual cycle, to alleviate a painful menstrual cycle, and to help with inter uterine polyps and cysts.

3) And if it IS about sex, SO WHAT? Last time that i checked, sexual intercourse between consenting adults is legal. And, if i read my Bible correctly, is actually ENCOURAGED between married couples. Doesn't God "consecrate" the marriage bed? So what about married couples that can't afford to have children? Or simply don't want to? When God told Noah and his people to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply", there were EIGHT people on the face of the Earth, if you buy the story literally. According to the US Census bureau, there are now almost a billion times that many people on the Earth today. I don't think that God would mind if we slacked off on the whole "fruitful" thing for a couple of generations. Also, Rick Santorum, who is very vocal on this has only seven children. Does that mean that he and his wife have only had sex seven times? Actually, with his personality, i don't find that all that difficult to believe. I'm amazed that he found ANYONE to marry him. And argue me no arguments about this, okay? My mom and dad DID practice birth control, and there are six of us over a ten year period. A guy that i used to work with had FIFTEEN children, because he and his wife didn't practice birth control. The oldest worked with us and the youngest was in diapers. And he was only in his forties. This nutjob that i saw on TV in Alaska had TWENTY children. That's what happens when you have sex without birth control. And what about the married women for whom it is actually dangerous or fatal to bear children, but struggle to afford birth control without the help of insurance? Are they and their husbands to be denied the God-gift of sexual pleasure because her Catholic employer doesn't want to provide health coverage for it?

So can we PLEASE drop this particular political football? It, like homosexual marriage is a smoke-screen to keep us from seeing (and, therefore, talking about) more important issues.

Peace.

Randal