Film History In Paris

Recently, children's movies have not had the best reputation for being the most intelligent films around. But here we are with a children's film nominated for eleven Oscars, including Director, Screenplay, Score, and, of course, Best Picture. Can a children's film really be that good? Can it live up to that hype? Let's have a look at Hugo.

Orphan, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in a train station in 1930s Paris. He winds all the clocks in the building without anyone knowing he's there. But he has a secret. Behind the walls, where he lives, he has a broken automaton that his father (Jude Law) bought at a museum before he died. It is mechanical man who is supposed to be able to write with a pen. Unfortunately, it's broken, but Hugo has been trying to fix it by stealing parts from toy maker Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) and avoiding the watchful eye of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who has a thing for arresting orphans. The automaton is missing one key part. A heart shaped key. On his journey to fix his mechanical friend, he meets Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), Georges' god-daughter. He introduces her to movies, much like his father did for him, and she introduces him to books, with some help from Monsieur Labisse (Christopher Lee). It turns out that she and her god-father have more of a connection with the automaton than was apparent and this leads the two children on an trip of discovery into the history of film making, with Georges as their guide.

Hugo had been fighting for his Hogwarts letter for months.

Another film that requires a young protagonist and Asa Butterfield is great. Admittedly, is far from perfect, but  with a bit of time, he will grow up to be a fine actor. Much like his co-star Chloë Grace Moretz has done. Already her CV has such a solid range in it and Hugo will only add to that. An absolutely wonderful performance from her, as per usual. In fact, all the performances were exactly what should be expected of a multiple Oscar nominated movie. Ben Kingsley was outstanding. He was perfect for his role as a man whose dreams had been ruined by the war, leaving him in a toy booth. Sacha Baron Cohen was brilliant as the antagonist, or the closest thing to an antagonist. He is a perfect mix of hilarious and frightening. Just what is needed for the baddie of a children's film. 

The opening weekend of Hugo had a  massive turnout... 

The film's real stand out element is its art direction. It's rightly nominated for an Oscar. Martin Scorsese and his production team have made an absolutely wonderful world for Hugo. There is nothing particularly magical about the plot but it feels like a magical journey. Probably done to reflect Méliès' logic that making movies was like magic. But the audience go on the journey with Hugo and it's like it is magic. The score was superb and the visual effects were spot on. Both elements are rightly nominated for Oscars. The cinematography is also nominated and it is beautiful. It is the most solid film in terms of surrounding factors.

In a world littered with computer generated chipmunks and dancing penguins, as well as their sequel, it's rare to find a children's film, not made by Disney, that is intelligent and enjoyable for all ages. Hugo is that rare film. A kids film that adults will like, and maybe even more than their kids.

Best Bit? There are so many wonderful bits. Here's two: When the children start reading about films and the audience are treated to a host of clips from early movies (The Great Bank Robbery etc) and when Georges Méliès is filming a movie and we see how his 'magic' was created. As a massive movie person, these were my favourite bits.

It's Hard To Make Up One's Mind.

Let's take a break from all this Oscar milarky. (Mainly because because I have no way to watch Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close yet.) Instead, let's talk about a movie that I had to watch for my university course. I thought since I watched it, I may as well review it. The film we look at today is Closer.

The plot is both simple and complex at the same time. On the surface it is just a your average love triangle situation, or rather, love square. Obituary writer, Dan (Jude Law), meets American stripper, Alice (Natalie Portman) when she is hit by a taxi. After taking her to hospital and then for a quick tour of London, they fall for one another. As Dan tries to move up in the writing world with a book about Alice, he begins to fall for his photographer, Anna, (Juliea Roberts). When rejected by her, he turns to the internet and impersonates her on a chat room to Larry (Clive Owen). After some very explicit suggestions, he convinces Larry to meet 'Anna' at an aquarium. Larry goes and meets the real Anna in the world's most awkward first meeting ever. Despite this initial meeting, they fall for one another and claim Dan is their personal Cupid. But Dan's feelings for Anna are still there and as time passes, our four protagonists cross paths over and over again. Will they all contain their feelings or will they succumb to their desires.

Must... Resist... Fart joke... 

This movie contains one of my favourite actresses (as you probably know), Natalie Portman. She is probably the best performer in this move too. Plus she looks so hot throughout the whole film. That being said, I preferred her fully clothed with short red hair or long brown hair at the beginning and end respectively. But let's look at her acting. A wonderful portrayal of the most dedicated and loving character in the film. You can physically see her fall in love as well as see her heart break. Jude Law and Clive Owen are also fantastic (though you will find yourself arguing with friends over who is more attractive. The answer, of course, is Clive Owen). There is a slight competition between the two of them. It seems, at points, friendly, whilst at other times it seems like a true rivalry with malicious intent. Both do extremely well as egotistical men who can't stand someone being superior to them. To me, the only weak link was Julia Roberts but that might be because she was the most plain character. Though it is far easier to pick a weak link when there's only four primary cast members. That being said, the stand off between Anna and Larry is one of the highlights of the film.

The impossible shot of London. There's one too many monuments. 

My favourite thing about the entire movie, without a shadow of a doubt, is the script. It is very clear that this is a play text rather than an original screenplay. There's something very... Stagey about the dialogue. But it is extremely witty and quick but also heartfelt and dramatic. The arguments that erupt every few scenes are brilliantly written and you really get a sense of what is being felt. It is simply a great script, right down to the conversation in the chat room which perfectly strikes the idea of early internet slang as well as dirty talk; the early Chat Roulette or Omegle. Apart from this, no technical elements were particularly outstanding. In fact, the editing got confusing at points as the plot skips large periods of time and it's very difficult to realise until a character mentions this.

Overall, it is an intriguing movie full of lust and love. It's story line twists and turns more times than you can shake a stick at. It's dialogue is punchy, witty, and beautiful. Some great acting and a cast that is too good looking for its own good. Admittedly, not Mike Nichols best film, but also not his worst. And for those wondering about the title of this blog post, you'll have to watch the movie. Very brutal. Very funny. Very sexual.

Best bit? It'd be too easy to claim Natalie Portman's strip scene... I want to go with.. Dan and Larry's encounter towards the end of the film in Larry's office. Some of the best dialogue in the movie.