Rise of The Guardians (2012)

On occasion, I hit a bit of a wall. I get to a place where I just can't do it. I can't lie to myself. I just can't get excited over a movie sometimes. Despite a fair amount of anticipation from everyone else and generally glowing feedback coming off of "Rise of The Guardians," I was unable to make myself care about it at any point. None. Zero. There was not a single moment in the stretch of time from when I first saw a trailer for this film and when I fired up my Blu-Ray player to reluctantly watch it that I could make myself give the slightest damn about it. Not a single damn was given.

Listen. I don't care if it looks pretty. I don't care if it looks cute. I don't care if it looks like a fun time for the whole family. I don't even care that it's by the makers of "How To Train Your Dragon," a film I legitimately love. It's about Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Toothfairy, Jack Frost, and the Sandman. Only now they're like the freaking Justice League.
 
That's...just stupid. And even if I wound up being surprised by a hidden wealth of mystical wonderment and glee by the whole affair, not a single molecule in my body will be able to accept that concept and roll with it.

This is a movie I was predestined to dislike.

Not that I was expecting it to be bad, necessarily, but I honestly didn't want to waste an hour and a half of my time with it. There's literally hundreds of films sitting on my shelf that I've never seen that I would love to watch, but no. I have to go to Blockbuster and have "Rise of The Guardians" mock me from the shelf saying "What about me? You still haven't watched me! I'm a new release! You should watch it so people stop recommending it for you! And "Skyfall" is still all rented out! What? You'd rather watch that again? NOPE! Bwahahahaha!"

As a grown man, of course I'll watch a movie about the Easter Bunny over James Bond. It's just logical.

So I watched "Rise of The Guardians," against the instincts of every fiber of my being. And unsurprisingly, I didn't like it. It was exactly what I imagined it was going to be - a big steaming pile of cute. And, like I feared, I found it to be an immensely boring endeavor, not due to any kind of poor craftsmanship, but due to my not caring at any point about anything I was seeing. That's the trouble with the whole thing. It's not necessarily a bad movie, although it's no more than okay at best, but "Rise of The Guardians" is such a sizable chunk of nothing.

It's a strange place for me to be in where I don't care about something as opposed to outright dislike it. In fact it's almost worse. Michael Bay I loathe, but I'm more likely to watch a new movie of his as opposed to "Rise of The Guardians," since I know at the very least it will elicit an emotion from me. True it will most likely be anger, but at least I'll get a good rant out of it. The prospect of seeing a Terrence Malick movie may encourage me to drill out my eyes with an auger, but at least it's driving me to do something. I'll be active in some way. Not just sitting on the couch willing time to go by faster so my wasted 90 minutes are over and done with like I'm in a freaking time-out.

At some point I suppose I should talk about this thing. The idea is that...ah hell, I don't know. Not much about "Rise of The Guardians" made that much sense to me. Apparently The Man in The Moon, who we never hear speak but apparently is totally talking to our heroes, is running the whole shebang when it comes to...I guess the happiness of children?  Making sure kids are happy are the Guardians, being Santa and the Easter Bunny and whatnot. The Guardians keep the spirit of happiness alive in children, but they have power only so long as kids believe in them.

It's kind of like Queen Mab in that movie "Merlin" with Sam Neill. And for some reason the happiness of children, which is directly proportional to their belief in occasionally arguably mythical characters, is directly proportional to the fate of the world or something.

Whatever. That works I guess. It's dumb but as far as a movie concept goes it's serviceable. But why in the hell does Santa Claus, oh sorry, his name is North now, have swords?

Seriously with this?

What kind of sense does that make? It's true that's it been a number of years since I believed in Santa, but I can't recall at any point imagining him being a stern, tattooed, Russian version of Conan. Wouldn't the concept of Santa having swords be kind of terrifying to a little kid? I thought the whole concept of Santa was that he was supposed to be a kind, jolly, fat man. And the thought of someone like that visiting your house in the middle of the night was acceptable. But if he's all hardcore and is this hulking brute who duel-wields like a freaking ranger in D&D, that's a little bit more intimidating than I want Santa Claus to come across as!

He has "Naughty" and "Nice" tattooed on his arms. Is...is he going to punch naughty kids?

I would also question the logic of getting Alec Baldwin to voice Santa Claus when he's going to do it in a heavy Russian accent, making it so you can barely tell that it's him. Not that Alec Baldwin is a bad choice for the part or a bad actor, because he's neither one of those, but that's like getting Cindy Crawford to do a photo shoot while wearing a Christie Brinkley mask. What's the damn point?

The scary thing is that Santa isn't the most ridiculous one of the group. What they do to the Easter Bunny is downright laughable. Being the logically least physically imposing member of the group, I guess it's logical that the Easter Bunny was made into this 6-foot tall, steely eyed, Australian Snake Plissken type, but that doesn't mean that him being the tough guy of the group wasn't ridiculous. Although to the film's credit, that is made into the subject of more than a few jokes. So in that sense I guess there's some cheeky self-awareness, but that couldn't help me figure out what in the blue hell this movie was trying to accomplish.

Okay. Fine. You're a badass. That's not what one would usually expect. You know you have eggs in your bandolier, right?

Am I supposed to laugh simply because he's tough when, being the Easter Bunny, you'd imagine him to be otherwise? That's such an obnoxiously lazy form of humor. That's like all the MLP fan-art of Fluttershy being a serial killer. Because she's the quiet and overly-polite one, you see? And it's the juxtaposition of those two extremes that makes it funny. Or boring and way too easy. Take your pick.

At least Hugh Jackman got to speak in his normal voice for a change. But not being used to his normal voice, like Alec Baldwin, I could barely tell it was him. As is probably obvious, that was a pretty consistent problem I had with "Rise of The Guardians," being that the admittedly upper-echelon cast seemed really wasted. Baldwin and Jackman were both okay but were fairly unrecognizable, while Isla Fisher as the Tooth Fairy and Chris Pine as Jack Frost both have such indistinct voices that it really could have been anyone. Again, they didn't do a bad job, but I fail to see the point in getting actors without distinct voices to do voice work for movies.

It also didn't help that the majority of Chris Pine's dialogue is "Whoa!" "Ha Ha!" "Woo!" and "Yeah!"

That's true, by the way. I can only assume that in a cost-cutting measure, to get about 40 pages worth of dialogue out of him, they simply put Chris Pine in a recording booth for 5 minutes and gave him a script which was a single direction written in the middle of the page that read:

JACK FROST

(sounds of boyish laughter and excitement)

And that was probably it. Boom. We've got a movie, you guys. Quick, get the conceptual art team to conjure up some whimsical sequences where we can make the camera go all over the place and follow Jack Frost as he's flying around and causing snow and ice to happen. In fact, have them make a crap ton of that. That can be like 30% of the film. Don't worry about it. The whimsy will make up for the lack of anything significant happening.

The only, I repeat, ONLY character that I gave two craps about was the villain, Pitch. I will admit to really liking this character, who is essentially The Boogie Man. I actually felt more sympathy towards the villain than I did any of the heroes, since he has a far more interesting story which is full of tragic self-fulfilling loneliness, and as a result he feels like a far more fleshed out character than ANY of the Guardians by quite a wide margin. On top of that, Jude Law was the only cast member who stood out with his voice work, and easily turns in the best performance of the cast. And what do you know, I could actually tell it was him.

And for some reason, and I don't know if it was just my imagination here, the animation on Pitch's face was so much better than anyone else. Maybe it was because I knew who I was listening to speak, which made it easier to imagine their face, but I got so much more emotion out of Pitch than the Guardians. I don't want to come out and say that it's because Jude Law is a better voice actor, which while unlikely is honestly a reasonable possibility, but the animation certainly helped him blow everyone else out of the water here.

Wow. A character with complexity. Too bad he's the villain.

But it's a movie. You know the bad guy is going to lose. The bad guy always loses. I knew the character I liked most was going down in the end, which didn't help with my enjoyment of the whole affair. I knew these people I couldn't care less about were going to stop the only character with an interesting story simply on the basis that he was the villain, and I just wanted them to beat him and get it done so the movie could be over, kind of like ripping off a band-aid. Such was my experience with "Rise of The Guardians." I wanted the option of ripping out some of my hair in a quick moment of pain in exchange for it just being done.

But, and this is just a quick question of logic here, but when the fate of the world depends on children believing in the Guardians, why don't they just do this:

Behold. Problem solved.

I don't mean to be overly nitpicky, but that's a legitimate complaint here. The Guardians go around trying to covertly fix things when it's clear that all they would have to do is show themselves, proving they exist without question, and Pitch is instantly defeated. I'm sure an answer may have been given at one point, but I don't recall ever hearing it. Perhaps it was because I was bored.

Can I just watch "Wreck-It Ralph" again?

Here's the trailer for "Rise of The Guardians." Just imagine me rolling my eyes and picking at a hole in the arm of my chair and you've got my general reaction to the entire film.

THE BOTTOM LINE - My negative reaction to "Rise of The Guardians" is directly proportional to my apathy towards it. It's not that it's bad. I just never gave a damn about it. Did you think it looked good? Then you'll like it. I guess it's decent family entertainment, although the message of blind faith in something demonstrably untrue is unsettling to me. But it's supposed to be a fantasy, not an allegory. I hope. Otherwise the message to the target audience is "Hey kids! The Easter Bunny is totally real! And you better believe in him or the world is doomed!" Because that's healthy.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

I like Guy Ritche. While "Revolver" didn't do much for me, I thought that "Snatch" and "Lock Stock N' Two Smokin' Barrels" were two very fun movies, and the first "Sherlock Holmes" was an awesome time. Of course, the first time I saw "Sherlock Holmes" I thought it was a confusing, disjointed mess that I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I slept through what seemed like a good half hour of the film.

This may seem odd, but I do have an excuse: I was ripped off of my freaking gourd. It was Christmas evening, and after I had put forth a long day of heavy drinking my friends called me up and asked if I wanted to see a movie with them. I said "Sure, as long as you drive." So while being so drunk that my back molars were singing "Anchors Away," I saw "Sherlock Holmes." This was a mistake.

"Sherlock Holmes" is not a movie for stupid people. Nor is it a movie for people not paying attention. Nor is it for people who are drunk to the point of reaching a plane of incorporeal existence. And while I don't consider myself part of the first group, the second and third group counted me among its VIP members that evening. So that was that. I did not like "Sherlock Holmes."

Then when it came out on DVD I watched it sober and loved it. Lesson learned: Guy Ritche is one director you don't want to watch drunk. Him and Darren Aronofsky. Ritchie because his plots are really twisty turney, and Aronofsky because if I did I'd probably want to kill myself afterwards due to apocalyptic depression.

Anyways, after waiting an obnoxiously long time for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" to come out for rent (I sadly missed it in theaters) I'm happy to say that the sequel continues the first film's intelligence and entertainment factor. I dare say that it may be a tad more intelligent than its predecessor, in fact. But while the script is smart, and the characters fiendishly so, I can't help but feel that some of the entertainment factor may be ever so slightly lacking. And while the character is great, I have to say that it's due to the fact that the villain, Professor Moriarty, is a bit too obfuscated.

That is actually pretty ironic when you think about it, really. The whole point of Moriarty is that he is this criminal mastermind who is orchestrating Machiavellian plots without ever revealing himself or his true intentions to anyone. Holmes is the only one who can keep up with him, which is why him and Moriarty play so well off each other. These two are locked in a game of mental chess that only they know the true maneuvers of.

Like the game of chess they play which is AMAZING.

And that's why it's a problem for us. It's so tiring at times trying to figure out what exactly it is that Moriarty is up to. This makes sense, of course, and watching Sherlock figuring it out is fun, but as a result I found that I wasn't ever really intimidated by Moriarty. He has the makings of a fantastic villain, and Jared Harris does a phenomenal job playing teh eeeeeeevals, but I couldn't really get scared of him because I had no flipping clue what it was that he was doing. Now, they do explain his master plan, and he is killing people and torturing Sherlock with a meathook (good gravy), but I never picked up "World Shattering Consequences" from his plans even though that's what they amounted to. Perhaps a scene earlier in the film which laid his plans bare would have been helpful.

Now the main reason people see this film, and any film with Robert Downey Jr., is for Robert Downey Jr. And while I wasn't a big fan of how they turned Tony Stark into a mugging chuckle-head in "The Avengers," besides that I can't really think of a single performance he's given which wasn't spot on to the point of running away with the film. "The Avengers" was the only movie I couldn't stand him in. Everything else has been gold. And it's still true for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." He just so completely owns the role of Holmes that, like pretty much all of his characters, it's hard seeing anyone else doing it. So nothing has changed in that regard from the first movie.

If anything, Holmes is a bit more high strung in this movie, which in many ways is a lot more fun to watch, but he is climbing so many walls he should invest in some mountaineering gear. This is due to both meeting his intellectual equal (some would say superior), and Watson getting married, which brings up a facet of the movie which some might consider a tad...unnerving. Since there's no real polite way to say this, it's best to just come out and say it:

Holmes and Watson just need to bang and get it over with.

Now that's not being judgmental or insulting to the characters. I'm not even saying that either Holmes or Watson are gay, but there are some unresolved feelings and issues there that need to be addressed one way or the other on the right-quick, because the fate of the world could literally hang in the balance. I mean think about it. Moriarty is trying to cause a world war, and our only hope can't think straight because he's trying his best to underhandedly and subtly oust the bitch stealing his BFF. Is this really the best thing for the fate of the world?

Come on, Watson. For the sake of all mankind...give Sherlock some sugar.

Ok, ok. That's my little immature wink-wink nudge-nudge moment for this entry. Don't worry, there will surely be more. That whole dynamic between Holmes and Watson just makes it that much more interesting to watch anyways, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law both are having so much fun playing these characters that it's impossible to not like them. It's seriously one of the better on-screen buddy movie pairings I've seen in a very long time.

Also, on a closing note, it's nice to see me liking Noomi Rapace again. She's really growing on me as an actress, and while I wasn't as taken with her as I was in "Prometheus," her Madam Simza was another step in distancing myself from her Lisbeth Salander, which I am grateful for. And any movie where Noomi Rapace takes over for Rachel McAdams is doing at least one thing right.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" may not be as instantly memorable as the first film, but it's a fine addition to what will hopefully become at least a trilogy. Don't expect it to be as surprisingly good as before, but it's well worth the time. Recommended.

Hugo (2011)

OK. You know what? No. Just no. I can't do this.

I can't be fair and balanced and objective with this.

This movie...this movie EATS.

And I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it hadn't won FIVE OSCARS. FIVE?! Are you kidding me? The only thing this movie should have been up for was a Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Award!

The only reason anybody gave two rat turds about this movie was the fact that Martin Scorsese directed it. If this had been ANYONE else, it would haven been written off as whimsical fluff on the same level as "Free Willy" or "Babe." Because that's what it is, and screw all you who tell me different.

This is the movie industry trolling you. I'm serious. They got a kids movie full of do-nothing, pointless characters, a story that walks around in circles while dropping plot thread after plot thread until I'm not quite sure WHAT the whole point of it was, pack it to the brim with bright colors and so many sweeping camera moves that even Spielberg would say "take it easy on the majesty," all so we can have keys jangling in our faces with the OOH-LOOK-SHINY in order to distract us from the fact that it's on the same intellectual level as Thomas The God Damn Tank Engine.

And then they get Scorsese to direct it. Give it ALL THE OSCARS.

Watching "Hugo" is like having some kind of steam-punk flavored cotton candy force-fed under your eyelids until it dissolves and works its way into your brain for 2 hours, and I for one felt condescended to. Or at least, I would have felt manipulated if "Hugo" was the least bit effective. But it's not. It tries hard...so desperately hard to take you on a proverbial journey of wonderment and childlike innocence. Oh, it's so whimsical. Just look at the whimsy. Can't you see the whimsy, children? This is ever such a magical adventure we're having today.

Shut up.

They think I'm a sucker over here, but I know lite, brainless fluff when I see it and I'm not buying it! I don't give a crap about whimsical. I don't give a crap about how "magic" you think your movie is. I don't give a crap about the culture you think the movie has just because it's a period piece. And I don't give a crap whether or not you're Martin Scorsese! I don't give a crap about any of this stuff unless you have a story that is worth telling, and characters that I care about!

News flash, "Hugo!" You don't have that! The story is not worth telling because the characters are completely pointless. And as proof, I'm going to write down the cast list of all the characters in the movie with speaking roles and discuss what, if anything, they contribute to the plot. Ready? Let's go!

Asa Butterfield as Hugo Cabret
Now, one would think that the title character is the main character, yes? WRONG. At the beginning of the film, Hugo is most certainly the main character, but as the movie goes on it becomes clear that Georges Méliès is the person the story is really about. Hugo is just along for the ride. And the ride happens to be free because he's EVER SO LOVEABLE. D'aww. A filthy street urchin/thief. Let's adopt him! What about the other orphan who gets sent to the orphanage while kicking and crying for stealing a half-eaten pastry someone threw away? Was he not charming enough for you? Asshole.

Main Contribution: Giving an old dude a robot.

Ben Kinsley as Georges Méliès
Georges Méliès is who this story is really about. In the movie, the famous filmmaker got super depressed after the industry tanked and became a toy maker in a train station. By the end of the movie, because of seeing a movie of his again and getting back his old robot, he has rediscovered his...pride I guess? Evidently this robot meant so much to him that his life was hollow without it. You know, because his loving wife and god-daughter...they're not really important I guess. Asshole.

Main Contribution: Receiving a robot.

Chloë Grace Moretz as Isabelle
She's along for the ride. She's also Hugo's girlfriend I guess. Saddled with some truly bad dialogue including the "I-refuse-to-believe-someone-who-is-such-a-good-actress-would-say-it-that-way" line: "Don't you LIKE books?!"

Main Contribution: Wears a key around her neck.

Sacha Baron Cohen as The Station Inspector
The bad guy, if this movie actually had an antagonist...which it doesn't. Runs around doing pratfalls and being wacky with that damn dog of his. Nothing he does in the entire movie ends up mattering.

Main Contribution: Saves Hugo's life...which wouldn't have needed saving had the Station Inspector not been there in the first place. Pointless.

Jude Law as Hugo's Father
Hugo's deceased dad appears to be the major lynchpin in Hugo's character and a major aspect of the story before the movie just kind of forgets about him and moves on to other things halfway though.

Main Contribution: He dies.

Christopher Lee as Monsieur Labisse
A librarian who directs Hugo and Isabelle to a book with information...where they immediately meet someone right afterwards who tells them far more information than the book could have told them.

Main Contribution: Gives Hugo a book...which Hugo never reads or talks about once. Pointless.

Michael Stuhlbarg as Rene Tabard
This guy actually does something somewhat useful. He tells the kids what Georges Méliès did...which the book would have told them anyways...but he also has a copy of one of his movies, which he shows to Georges at the beginning of the climax of the film. Hugo could have just as easily stumbled across a copy, though. He didn't need Rene. The movie is already full of coincidences as it is. One more wouldn't have been out of place. Pointless.

Main Contribution: Runs a projector.

Ray Winstone as Uncle Claude
A drunk who dies after 5 lines. He was there and gone so fast I didn't even know it was Ray Winstone.

Main Contribution: Gives Hugo a home...in a place he could have lived had he just been homeless from the start. Pointless.

Emily Mortimer as Lisette
The love interest for the Station Inspector...who was a pointless character to begin with. But hey, she's there to show that the bad guy isn't completely evil. Which of course, might have been a useful character arc if the character mattered to begin with.

Main Contribution: Nothing. Pointless.

Helen McCrory as Mama Jeanne
Wife of Georges Méliès who doesn't do a thing. But hey, Helen McCrory played "Whore #2" in "Interview With The Vampire." So I guess that's something. Pointless.

Main Contribution: A tie between making out with Brad Pitt in 1993 and looking a lot like Signorney Weaver.

Frances de la Tour as Madame Emilie and Richard Griffiths as Monsieur Frick
Two bumbling, slack-jawed wastes who spend the whole damn movie awkwardly flirting. Do they do anything useful? TAKE A GUESS.

Main Contribution: Nothing x2.

I just went through the dozen most prominent characters. Nine of them could have been removed from the movie, and the plot would have stayed the same. The only movie with more banal, purposeless characters I think I've ever seen was "Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen." Hell, even in slasher movies the characters -- walking piles of meat as they admittedly are -- possess more purpose than they do in "Hugo." The characters in slasher flicks exist to be killed. Their purpose is to show how scary the bad guy is! The characters in "Hugo" eat up time. Freaking Paris Hilton in "House of Wax" was a more important character than Christopher Lee was in "Hugo." Oh yeah, that's right. I went there.

I can't tell you how sad that makes me.

The wasting of Christopher Lee aside, "Hugo" also squanders the phenomenal talents of Chloë Grace Moretz, who is one of my favorite actresses working right now. It's really amazing how good she is. I didn't know she was in this, but when she popped up I was like "HOLY CRAP! This might get good now!" Sadly, it didn't, and she and her talents are wasted with a boring character and terrible dialogue that you could tell was just acid on her tongue having to say it. The biggest shame is that this will be the movie that most people will have seen her in at this point. Not enough people saw "Kick-Ass" and freaking nobody saw "Let Me In," both of which she should have gotten Oscar nominations for.

No, "Hugo" will be the crap I'll have to bring up when talking to people about Chloë Grace Moretz now. And I just know some dumb-ass will say, "Wasn't that the girl from Harry Potter?"

I just know it's coming.

I could write a novella about all the crap in "Hugo" that just left me shaking my head and asking "why," not only at the characters and plot but the hype and acclaim that this movie received. I found it insulting, actually, when shiny tripe like this gets farted out by a director whom people are terrified of critiquing or questioning, and it gets more awards than Scorsese could load up in a wheelbarrow to take home to put on his shelf of Oscars that he's getting now because "he's due." Meanwhile movies that are genuinely and objectively powerful and challenging like "Red State" are completely ignored because directors like Kevin Smith don't kiss the Academy's collective ass.

Everyone in Hollywood should be ashamed of themselves for letting them get away with it. At this point why don't you just retroactively give "Jumanji" Best Original Screenplay? Crap like this flies but objectively amazing stories like "The Golden Compass" bomb and the sequels to it get axed? It's pathetic.

Oh and one last thing! Why is there not one single god damn person with a French accent IN PARIS!?!?!?

"Fish n' chips 'oy guv'na?"

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Hugo" is on the same intellectual level as any kid's movie starring Robin Williams or Eddie Murphy. And not good ones like "Ms. Doubtfire" or "The Nutty Professor," either. I'm talking "Flubber" here. I'm talking "Shrek" sequels. Just imagine one of those movies written to be really, really pretentious and full of itself. Piece of garbage. Skip it.