The subject of white male platonic bonding is as far from today’s film trends as you can possibly get. Even with its shortcomings, then, the heart of the matter in Michael Grandage’s star-studded Genius goes refreshingly against the grain. Add to that the look in the life of American author Thomas Wolfe (whom many, I suspect, readily forget in lieu of the William Faulkner’s and Ernest Hemingway’s of his time), and a shiny spotlight on the behind-closed-doors role of the editor, and there’s plenty to bite into here. Of course, with a cast featuring Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney, and Guy Pearce, you walk in confident that if all else fails, at least the performances will keep you glued. And they do, but even beyond the curious choice of a dreary gray monochrome as the film’s primary palette, there’re a number of things that bog Genius down. The source is, as ever, the screenplay; in this case, John Logan’s adaption of A. Scott Berg’s biography Max Perkins: Editor of Genius. That said, Grandage takes the lion’s share of the blame for leaving the autopilot on his director’s chair and not trying something a little more enticing in way of presentation.

As it bizarrely shifts from black-and-white into colour, Genius opens with the famous editor of Charles Scribner’s Sons, Maxwell Perkins (Firth), receiving the bulbous first draft of what will eventually become “Look Homeward, Angel.” “Is it any good?” he asks, to which the deliveryman responds, “Good? No. But it’s unique.” That hooks him in. Of course, it turns out to be more than just good or unique, as we follow Max’ endearing routine of reading the manuscript until he reaches the end and gets that look—the title of Genius appearing to make sure there’s no confusion on our part either. During this routine, we get a passing glance at Max’s household, his wife Louise (Linney) and five daughters. Being surrounded by women all his life ends up playing a big part in the strong connection he develops with the erratic, enigmatic, and entirely insufferable Thomas Wolfe (Law).

Genius packs most of its meat into scenes featuring Wolfe and Perkins, as they bulldoze through Wolfe’s protracted manuscripts, first ‘Angel,’ and then—in a period of over 2 years!—Of Time and The River. Debating over how to cut down the chapter where his character falls in love with a blue-eyed girl is the film’s pinnacle; infinitely charming and richly insightful in the dynamic between ambitious author and economic editor. Threatening to steal the show from the two men, though, is Nicole Kidman, who pulls off a fiery and embittered turn as Aline Bernstein—a woman who left her husband and two children to be Wolfe’s full-time lover. Her whole life, it seems, revolves around this man who is too busy wrestling with his mountainous ego to return the love, and if the role weren’t so utterly thankless, Kidman surely would have soared even higher.

The two men’s flippant attitudes towards their respective other halves is never fully addressed (and, ironically enough, Max seems to care more about how much Mrs. Bernstein is suffering while completely ignoring his patronizing attitude toward his own wife). Among other issues that arise out of Logan’s screenplay are the peppered stings of obviousness throughout. The most articulate example comes when F. Scott Fitzgerald (Pearce) talks of “genius friendship,” and the double meaning of the title is neatly spoon-fed. There’s also Law’s exuberant performance as Wolfe. Showy, and something that must have been a lot of fun for the actor, but with just a bit too much pep in his step. This ultimately works against the film’s final moments.

It’s the prickly characterization of Thomas Wolfe that undoes Genius in the end. Whether by weighing the importance of the female characters (especially Kidman’s Aline, as Linney’s Louise is, sadly, much too minor to even mention) a bit more significantly, keeping Law’s performance in firmer check, or fine-tuning the screenplay so that the author’s moments of clarity have bigger impact; I feel Logan and Grandage could have handled it better. The fact that he’s not the main star leaves the film all the better for it. Firth’s mighty sensitive performance as the heart of the film keeps the strength of friendship resonating throughout, and is more than enough reason for a solid recommendation.

Spy is built on a very cool idea. The Melissa McCarthy vehicle casts the terrific comedienne, at the height of her career, in the last role you’d think to put her in: ass-kicking, globe-trotting super spy (Jean Bond, if you will). For the most part, it succeeds, revitalizing the endlessly revisited 007 parody with some snappy comedy, an extremely compatible ensemble, and some genuine surprises that keep things moving at a speedy clip. Its biggest weakness, unfortunately, is pervading, and is one of the most infuriating clichés in modern comedy. I’ll get to that in a minute. (You’ll just have to wait a little longer and read through the rest of my review to find out what it is, Agent Whatsyername. Don’t look down…unless you enjoy the sight of sharks with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads! Muahahahaha!!!)

Ahem. Anyway, Spy begins with McCarthy playing Susan Cooper, a CIA desk analyst who feeds remote assistance to super-suave field operative Bradley Fine (Jude Law, whose unrealized dreams of playing Bond are semi-realized here). Fine’s on a mission that goes terribly wrong when he accidentally shoots a baddie in the head while interrogating him, a shocking moment that proudly announces the movie as a full-on spoof. The bungled assignment leaves the CIA in a tight spot: the new big bad, an obnoxiously posh Brit named Rayna (Rose Byrne), has revealed that she knows the identities of every active CIA field operative, making she and her flock of henchmen virtually impossible to sneak up on.

Left without any options, CIA boss Elaine Crocker (Allison Janney) sends mousy Susan out into the field to track Rayna (the only person in the world who knows the secret location of a nuclear bomb) from afar and report any activity. Naturally, Susan disregards the “from afar” part and mixes it up with Rayna and her musclebound goons across Paris, Rome, and Budapest. She’s receives help from her very own earpiece analyst, played by an endearingly klutzy Miranda Hart (she and McCarthy’s sizable height difference is a nice visual gag). As a bonus, the agency sends a handsy Italian Lothario named Aldo (Peter Serafinowicz) to aid Susan, though he only seems interested in caressing her bosom.

Susan’s efforts to nab Rayna get dicey when she’s forced to go undercover and act as the bitchy Brit’s personal bodyguard. Making things worse in a hilarious way is Jason Statham, playing a cocky rogue agent with a long list of dubious war stories. He’s all bark and no bite, and his sloppiness only gets in the way of Susan’s mission, as she’s constantly having to save his ass instead of focusing on the mission at hand.

Director Paul Feig is smart to allow McCarthy to explore her range. Her comedic timing and delivery is world-class (she gives Samuel L. Jackson a run for his money when it comes to cursing people out), but she’s got dramatic chops as well, and the movie’s got enough serious beats in it (all of which McCarthy carries on her shoulders) to keep us invested in the story and the characters’ fates.

The ensemble on display perhaps isn’t the most comedically talented when taken on an individual basis, but as a collective they have shockingly effortless chemistry across the board. Statham overachieves in his role as the butterfingered, loudmouth lummox, and is arguably as funny as McCarthy. Bobby Cannavale plays a slick, international mob-boss villain; it’s a small part, but he nevertheless gave me the biggest laugh of the movie in a scene where he’s running towards a helicopter like a frightened school boy, squealing, “Hurry up, hurry up, hurry up!”

The best gags are set up by the inherent humor in the film’s premise. Susan’s rotating undercover identities run the gamut of middle-aged lady archetypes, from “cat lady” to “soccer mom.” In one scene, Susan giggles with excitement as she walks through a test lab full of cool, shiny gadgets she’ll get to use on her mission. To her disappointment, it’s revealed that, due to her being undercover, the only gadgets she’s able to use are disguised as stereotypical “mom products” like tampons and fungal spray.

Okay, time to lay it all out on the table: “You look like” jokes have got to be stopped. Enough already. Literally every mainstream comedy that’s come out in the past 5-7 years is chock full of them, and Spy is no exception. You know what I’m talking about. When Susan’s given a midwest-mom secret identity, she exclaims in disgust, “I look like somebody’s homophobic aunt.” When Rayna sees Susan and her earpiece buddy sitting next to each other, she says “you look like a pair of demented aunts.” When Susan sees Statham’s rogue agent wearing a ridiculous hairpiece and fake mustache as a disguise, she says, “you look like a perverted bus driver.” There are easily 20 or more jokes like this throughout the movie, and I couldn’t help but cringe as they piled up. It’s one of the cheapest trends in comedy today, its creativity level on par with the “yo momma” jokes from that insufferable Wilmer Valderrama MTV show from the mid ’00s.

Aside from only being mildly funny at best, these cheap one-liners actually do real damage to Spy. The movie’s two hours long (which feels pretty bloated for a comedy), and maybe if Feig had cut out a big portion of the mostly disposable schoolyard barbs, the movie maybe could have been cut down to a more appetizing 90-100 minutes. These jokes were a thorn in my side, and I’d be interested to see how the movie would play if Feig would just pluck it out.

Once I calmed down from my “you look like”-induced rage, I was able to clear my head and realize that, in hindsight, I had a really fun time with Spy. While Feig doesn’t reach same level of quality he did with Bridesmaids, he gives McCarthy’s talent the platform it’s deserved for a long time, and she makes the most of it. She’s pretty much irreplaceable in today’s comedy landscape, and this hopefully won’t be the last time we see her excel in a tailor-made starring role.

Wes Anderson’s highest-grossing film to date, The Grand Budapest Hotel, has been officially announced for a Blu-ray & DVD street date of June 17th. The film not only pleased moviegoers, but critics were also enamored with Anderson’s film ever since its premiere in Berlin. And rightfully so. The Grand Budapest Hotel dazzles with plenty of Anderson’s usual visual flair, but the film doesn’t compromise substance for style. As always, each character has their own quirky personality and the cast is full of Anderson regulars including; Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Jude Law, Owen Wilson, and Adrien Brody.

The Grand Budapest Hotel releases on Blu-ray and DVD on June 17th

The Grand Budapest Hotel Special Features

• Bill Murray Tours The Town
• Kunstmuseum Zubrowka Lecture
• The Society of the Crossed Keys
• The Making of the Grand Budapest Hotel
• Mendl’s Secret Recipe
• Promotional Featurettes – “Cast” and “Wes Anderson”
• Stills Gallery
• Theatrical Trailer

The Grand Budapest Hotel Blu-ray + Digital HD

• Street Date: June 17, 2014
• Screen Format: 1.85:1
• Subtitles: English/French/Spanish
• U.S. Rating: R
• Total Run Time: 100 minutes

Trailer

The Grand Budapest Hotel Blu-ray cover

No one likes a comedy that isn’t funny. There is some unspoken law, an unwritten edict, that it is better to make a terrible drama than it is to make a terrible comedy. In the former, you can appreciate the sentiment, commend them for their intent, and pardon some pretty heinous (though not all) acts of bad filmmaking. However, when you’re stuck for 90+ minutes watching one bad joke after another, we all suddenly become far less tolerant. For whatever reason, you don’t get brownie points for not being funny, no matter how hard you try.

But perhaps that is the fatal flaw in Dom Hemingway, Richard Shepard‘s latest indie comedy–it was trying too hard. Allegedly, the movie is a raunchy comedy about a convicted (and socially demented) safecracker, recently released from a twelve year prison stint as he seeks to receive compensation for keeping his mouth shut. Yet from the opening scene, where Jude Law recites an impromptu Song of Solomon to the glory of his penis, the film reveals itself only as a visual record of failing humor–the jokes are offensive, crude, and often blindingly stupid.

One is almost tempted to blame Law for this extended thespian ego-trip, seeming to relish his own personal two dimensional madman. That would be the case, if it weren’t for his self-conscious performance throughout. With every clever insult, every fist fight, and every act of screaming defiance against the world at large, the character seems less and less plausible. Law seems to lose momentum as the film continues, or at least the gaps in his performance become increasingly obvious. The bottom line is that Dom’s character doesn’t suit Law from the beginning, (who otherwise is a pretty good actor), and the role may have been better if played by another actor.

This brings us to the film’s second major problem: its melodramatic, bipolar plot line. The blame can’t be laid entirely on Law when the writing is so poor and the story so contrived. The whole thing is about a no-good scoundrel who sees the error of his ways and reforms, yet his sincerity is never convincing, either before or after the transformation. While some of the jokes were quite funny, and some of the dialogue good (particularly when Dom confronts a former employer), the movie is more concerned with convincing us of Dom’s insanity than developing anything else in the plot, to the point that it all became incredibly awkward.

Dom Hemingway suffers from multiple personality disorder, shifting back and forth between crude, thoughtless comedy and a sentimental morality play (a la John Bunyan). In one scene Dom is on the verge of attacking his former employer, ten minutes later he’s strutting naked through an apple orchard, to express how upset he was over his earlier actions. One scene he’s smashing goons in the face in the midst of a daring escape, the next he’s rolling on the ground in front of his wife’s grave as he indulges in an emotional breakdown. There was little tonal continuity, and the back-and-forth between debauchery and sentimentality was forced and artificial.

Much about the film feels like a crude parody of real life. One of the few enjoyable scenes is when Dom walks out of prison, streamers and toilet paper flying out of the windows behind him (think Zero de Conduit). The costuming is also one of the few positives of the film. Dom’s beautiful suit and crazy pointed elf boots leave a definite impression. Unfortunately, these odd stylistic perks don’t save Dom Hemingway from failure. It’s crude, affected, and worst of all, not funny.

Partway through The Grand Budapest Hotel, there’s an argument between Dmitri (Adrien Brody, looking brilliantly evil) and his deceased mother’s lawyer (Jeff Goldblum). The lawyer refuses to hand the dead woman’s fortune over to her son as the details of her murder haven’t been cleared up. Dmitri angrily leaves, and his henchman (Willem Dafoe) casually tosses the lawyer’s cat out of a window on his way out. It’s a cruel act, and a funny visual gag, until the lawyer peers out his window and the camera cuts to his cat’s splattered body below.

Writer/director Wes Anderson uses these shock moments of sudden violence more than once throughout the film. The dead woman (Tilda Swinton, unrecognizable with pounds of old age makeup) is Madame D., an old rich countess who frequented the titular hotel. Located in the mountains of the Republic of Zubrowka, a made up European nation, the hotel is a gorgeous and highly popular establishment. Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) is the hotel’s concierge, a charming man who was also taking Madame D. to bed during her visits (one of Gustave’s many duties as concierge included sexually satisfying the rich old ladies who visited). When it’s revealed that she put Gustave in her will as the recipient of a priceless painting, Madame D.’s family frames him for her murder.

Gustave receives help from Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), a young lobby boy that Gustave has taken a shine to. The story, taking place in 1932 during some unnamed war ravaging the country, is narrated to us by an older Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham) in the 1960s. He’s telling his tale to a young author (Jude Law) over dinner at the hotel, now well past its glory days. Law narrates the 1960s segments, which are actually from a novel being read to viewers in the 1980s by (presumably) a now much-older author (Tom Wilkinson). The nesting-doll structure may seem frivolous, but Wes Anderson’s films thrive on frivolity.

The multi-layered narrative also establishes Anderson’s attempts to comment on memory and nostalgia. Moustafa’s story in the 1930s, shot gorgeously in 1.33:1, is stylistically Anderson’s best work to date. The set design, meticulous framing, whip pans, quick zooms, and use of animation and miniatures, among Anderson’s other visual trademarks, operate at a level that more than matches his story’s large scale. Anderson and cinematographer Robert D. Yeoman are clearly having a field day, and it shows. The charming style also shows Moustafa’s nostalgia for this period of his life, as if these “good ol’ days” represent something that’s never to return.

Anderson is aware of how dangerous this way of looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses is, which is why he throws in scenes like the one with Goldblum’s cat. He is purposely breaking the spell his film casts, reminding viewers that the time period was still a tumultuous one. The hotel is not so much a shining example of long-lost civility and politeness as it is an escape from the harsh realities of wartime and poverty. These two worlds of fantasy and reality eventually come together, but through Anderson’s lens the stylistic flourishes still remain. The final scene of the ‘30s timeline, also the bleakest part of Moustafa’s story, switches to black and white, showing how Anderson still finds a way to fill his heavier moments with aesthetic quirks.

While Anderson’s toying with memory and nostalgia is interesting, it fails to make any impact to the film overall. The handling of violence makes for an awkward juxtaposition, one that’s more admirable in its intent than execution (I never thought I’d say this, but Anderson should take some tips from Quentin Tarantino in this area). The war going on in the film’s background is wiped of any details, save for some vague allusions to the SS. The obscuring of these elements only muddy the water, and the dense plotting of Anderson’s screenplay make his thematic points get swallowed up by the film’s aesthetics.

Not that the aesthetics are a bad thing; The Grand Budapest Hotel is still a treat to watch. Fiennes is perfect as Gustave, and Anderson’s script is filled with plenty of hilarious moments. The massive ensemble, where seemingly every role is filled with a well-known actor (supporting cast includes Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Saorise Ronan, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson just to name a few), work together perfectly. While The Grand Budapest Hotel works well, it only does up to a certain point. What the film amounts to is nothing more than a well-done and admirable piece of fluff.

The Grand Budapest Hotel trailer

Wes Anderson, known for his distinctive visual and narrative style in such films as Moonrise Kingdom, Fantastic Mr Fox and The Darjeeling Limited, will be releasing his latest quirky comedy The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The adventures of an infamous concierge at a well known and well frequented hotel between the world wars and Zero Moustafa, who becomes his confidant and trusted friend are detailed with this all star cast. Anderson loves to work with familiar faces and The Grand Budapest Hotel is no exception; Jude Law, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson, and Adrien Brody are all listed as cast members. The film looks to be quite the dramatic comedy with the charm and flare we know Wes Anderson films to behold.

The Grand Budapest Hotel trailer

Utilizing the script from Scott Z. Burns, Steven Soderbergh delivers a mostly satisfying thriller that presents several twists and turns along the way to keep the audience guessing until the very end. Side Effects starts off as a film about exposing the unethical sides of the pharmaceutical industry but then changes directions several times just as you begin to think the film is about a singular subject. As long as you do not nitpick on the ways the film purposely uses its misdirection to fool you, Side Effects is, at the very least, an entertaining film from the prominent filmmaker.

The brief opening shot of the film is not in chronological order of the story. It shows blood-stained footsteps that lead to model sail boat and an envelope resting on a chair. The film then jumps back three months earlier to show the events that led up to that scene. Side Effects contains many twists that slowly reveal themselves once layers are peeled back, most of which are spoilers, so for your benefit I will not go into great detail about those.

Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is eagerly awaiting the release of her husband Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum) who spent four years in prison for insider trading. Although she welcomes Martin with open-arms back into her life, you get a sense that Emily has been dealing with depression ever since he was away. Her mental illness is confirmed very quickly when she heads straight for a brick wall with her car without the intention of hitting the brakes or swerving away. The near-death incident lands her in therapy sessions with Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law).

It is revealed that it is not Emily’s first time in therapy and that she has previously not reacted well to the antidepressants that were previously prescribed to her. This prompts her new therapist to write a prescription for a new drug called Ablixa, which does eliminate her suicidal tendencies at first, but as the title suggests, there are side effects of this drug. And anyone who has heard the long-winded disclaimer at the end of medical advertisements knows, the side effects of medicine can potentially be just as dangerous as the symptom it treats.

The major theme found throughout Side Effects is that things are not quite what they seem at first glance. The film deceives the viewer into believing the film is about one thing right before it quickly changes into something different. Side Effects first presents itself as a study about a person who is out of sync with the world, then as a dark look at the pharmaceutical industry, shifting to the unethical practices of psychiatry, all while making the innocent seem guilty and vice versa. The problem is the final twist ends up being more of a gimmicky eye roller than any of the other possible outcomes.

There are a lot of things to admire about the film. Soderbergh uses all the right camera techniques to convey the appropriate message. For example, he uses a lot of angled mirror shots to illustrate the altered perspective of that person, precise focusing and blurring to mimic foggy state of mind, and removing the camera from the steadicam in some scenes to create energy. Then there are the terrific performances from both Mara and Law. Both were at the top of their game which gave the film the validly it needed.

Because Side Effects purposely misleads the audience there is a constant whodunnit mystery that makes for an overall entertaining watch. The first act of the film is deeply engaging as many layers start to unravel. Although the story starts to get a little too procedural in its second act, the final act kicks everything into high gear again by twisting the plot several times before settling (and that is what it felt like) on the final twist. Unfortunately, some of the misdirection ends up feeling more like swindling than intriguing in an otherwise well-made film.

From the highly praised director Fernando Meirelles (City of God) comes 360, a film that shows how decisions in life connect a group of strangers to each other. The film is about forks in the road and how your decision changes not only your path but others as well. In the end the film comes full circle, which is how the film gets its title 360.

360 is set in just about as many places as the amount of characters it contains. The common theme amongst the characters is romantic dilemmas that through one way or another connect the characters together. The first example of this is when a young Slovakian woman begins her work as a prostitute meets her first client Michael (Jude Law) who is cheating on his wife Rose (Rachel Weisz).

However, the best showing of the intersecting storyline is at the Denver airport. We see Laura (Maria Flor) who just broke up with her boyfriend who was cheating on her with Rose sit next to John (Anthony Hopkins) on the airplane. The two get to know each other and plan to meet for some drinks at restaurant in the airport once they find out that all flights have been cancelled due to weather. Waiting for John to get the hotel vouchers, Laura ends up meeting a man named Tyler (Ben Foster).

Tyler is a sex offender who recently had been released from six years in prison. He does not feel he is fit to be on the outside but his counselor believes he has rehabilitated enough to make it. Tyler legitimately wants to do the right thing. He makes a call to his counselor once he gets off the plane saying that he is still worried that his urges may be triggered. But that was before he met Laura, who ends up getting him to drink.

After Tyler’s counselor makes a call to the airport security to inform them of the public danger he imposes, an announcement is made over the airport speakers asking Tyler to report to the front desk. This announcement is heard right as John makes it back to the restaurant where he planned to meet Laura. But because he ended up taking too long Laura already met someone. Laura just wants attention after getting cheated on by her boyfriend but little does she know, the man she decides to flirt with is a sex offender.

I say the airport is the best example of the patchwork storyline because it shows these characters intersect in a small quarters of the airport. Not only that but it also has the most interesting set of characters. The reason why they may be the most interesting set is because we are given backgrounds on each of the three characters, which is something the film did not seem to always do.

From a technical stand point, the film is wonderfully done. The camera work is undeniably great. Shots that can fail if not done properly such as split screen shots or reflections of characters in mirrors were done wonderfully here. Sometimes Fernando Meirelles even combined split screen and mirror shots together.

In fact, there were many scenes where we see the character only from a mirror. Perhaps the meaning behind showing so many mirror shots was to show the duality of the character. The reflections physically show that there are two sides of each character. Much like a fork in the road, there are two separate choices.

In addition to the great composition of camera shots was superb film editing and acting. The editing work was often evident from the liberal use of blending transitions from scene to scene. And the ensemble cast was in top form thanks in part to; Jude Law, Ben Foster, Rachel Weisz, and Anthony Hopkins.

Even though the structure of the story has been done before (and done better such as in Magnolia), slowly revealing how strangers connect to one another, 360 was still enjoyable. The biggest problem with the film is that it goes into too much detail about the characters we do not care about and not enough in the characters we do. Which means at times you may find yourself looking at your watch and other times wishing the film showed more. 360 could not find the right balance between too much detail and not enough detail.

“Come and dream with me,” a character says a one point during Hugo, which would also have been a very appropriate way to begin the film. A story about a young orphan who lives at a train station trying to solve a mystery link to his father is not be a kind of film Martin Scorsese is used to doing, but it does not show. It is a film about dreams and magical realism adventures that is entertaining for both children and adults.

Set in Paris during the 1930’s at a train station where a young orphan boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) keeps the station clocks running. He learned how to fix clocks from his father before he passed away. In a way of honoring his memories, Hugo continues to fix clocks and other gadgets around the station.

One item in particular that reminds him most about his father is an automaton, a mechanical man his father received from a museum. Guided by an old journal of his father’s notes, Hugo tries to complete what his father and he were not able to do which is to get the automaton working again. Standing in his way is a special heart shaped key that Hugo must find in order to unlock a secret message the automaton is believed to have.

In order to get the parts needed for the automaton, Hugo steals gears and other equipment from a local station toy shopkeeper, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). Melies is an old grumpy man who finally catches Hugo stealing from him one day. He takes Hugo’s father’s book of notes from him and threatens to burn them.

Hugo follows Melies home and begs him not to burn his precious notes but the grumpy old man shows no sympathy. Hugo does manage to befriend Melies’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), who agrees to try to stop her godfather’s actions. The two form a friendship full of adventures and discovery as Isabelle shows Hugo the world of literature and he shows her the world of cinema.

They stumble upon a book about the pioneers of cinema such as Lumieres’ Arrival of a Train at the Station and read about how the audience literally jumped out of their seats while watching because they were afraid the train was going to hit them. They soon discover that Georges Melies was actually a legendary filmmaker which begins another discovery in which they find a link between Melies and Hugo’s father.

The second half of Hugo is really about paying respect to the history of cinema. Scorsese educates his viewers on the importance of Georges Melies’ legendary filmmaking career. Starting out as a French illusionist he turned to filmmaking as a way to display his technical special effects in a new medium. Clips from A Trip to the Moon are shown many times throughout the film.

2011 was a year in which the top two Oscar winners shared one major thing in common, they both paid tribute to the lost art of silent cinema. Both Hugo and The Artist showcase the extraordinary power of silent films and both illustrate the important influences from which films today came from. As I said when I reviewed The Artist, if you appreciate and are passionate about films you will appreciate this film.

This is the second Scorsese film in a row that Ben Kingsley stars in (the last one being Shutter Island) and Kingsley certainly does a great job with the role of Melies. The role demanded him to play a stiff old grumpy man whose days at being at the top are long behind him. Asa Butterfield is excellent as the lead in Hugo just as he was for his previous lead role in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. He is definitely a talented young actor as these two films confirm.

It only makes sense that a film that is largely about the preservation of old films was done by Martin Scorsese as he is a huge advocate of such thing in real life. In 1990 he founded a non-profit organization that is dedicated to film preservation called, The Film Foundation.

Hugo starts off more of a kid’s adventure film but ends up being more of a shrine to the beginning of film for adults. There are times were it was fairly predictable but considering it was aimed for all audiences it is not all that surprising. There are love stories mixed in with magical adventures as well as a history lesson in filmmaking all found in Hugo. It is an unconventional film for Martin Scorsese, one that truly shows his range as one of the best American directors of our time and it does not disappoint.