Hugo (2011) - M6.9/E6

One reason I was looking forward to seeing this film was the fact that there was quite a bipolar response to it.  Uncle Orson nay-said it, while other notable critics found it entertaining.  These types of responses are usually fairer to read beforehand, as they don't tend to bias one's opinion, therefore providing a more genuine response.  Though Card does have a negative review of the film, his points are well-made and I even agree with most of them, but still found a way to enjoy the movie overall.

In short, Card summarizes, "So the movie we were promised -- Hugo the orphan repairs a mechanical man to receive a message from his father -- turns into a movie we would never have paid to see: sad old forgotten movie director gets a round of applause."

The one character I actually hated and cringed at every time he came on screen was Sacha Baron Cohen playing a crippled policeman.  I probably won't choose to watch the movie again solely for him, though the fact that the movie was very slow might  also be cause enough.

The style of the movie reminded me a lot of Finding Neverland, and you might enjoy this film if you enjoyed Finding Neverland.  The music and scenery are amazing, and the story not terribly deep, but endearing.

We're shown the importance of family and the fruits of hard work as we see Hugo lose his father and then take us with him on his quest to remain connected to his father.  We also see him work tirelessly (without pay) to keep the clocks running in the train station, which keeps him out of more trouble than he already gets into, and allows him to stay a little closer to his deceased father.   Through Hugo's courage and intellect, he brings hope to a man who's dreams had been crushed and in turn gains the friendship and love for which he'd been longing.

Watch it if you're in the mood for something easy going, but I wouldn't recommend buying it; go for RedBox or you check it out from your local library.

The Hunger Games (2012) - M6.0/E7

I had been wanting to read the book, and had even checked out the audio book from the library, but it ended up being badly scratched about 20 minutes into the book, and I never got a chance to give it another go; and now, having seen it, I probably won't be reading it. I dislike it when good movies are made about good books. Reading one or watching the other will always make it less desirable to watch or read it after having done the other.

I really enjoyed the movie. It was suspenseful, had decent character development, and the choices the characters made and the situations the characters were placed in were realistic (serious injuries actually hurt and debilitated the victims instead of being played off as "merely flesh wounds").

One particularly interesting and thought provoking part of the movie was a short dialog on how hope was the reason that the orchestrators of the Hunger Games needed to produce a winner. Basically, a very small amount of hope was necessary to keep the people in the various districts in submission; no hope or abounding hope would give cause for rebellion. The irony in this thought is that hope can only be diminished or controlled if the people submit to fear. So, weak people would be affected by imposed fear, but the strong ones (the ones that need watching) will let their hope drown out their fears.

We also see Katniss and a few other competitors as compassionate human beings, while other competitors were more selfish and animal-like in their quest for survival. Even though the selfish group banded together and hunted the others, in the end it was the more compassionate competitors that won. While not always the case in real life, where compassion doesn't always win, it does show that compassion brings happiness, while selfishness brings sadness and destruction.

There is quite a bit of violence, some language, and little to no sex/nudity. Being how violence is one of the main themes of the movie, they do an excellent job of filming violent scenes without overwhelming the audience with blood and gore (which would have resulted in a more severe MPAA rating). There are some instances where the filming could cause some strain on eyes (particularly when there should be no extraneous camera motion).

Rashomon (1950) - M9.7/E7

I'm sure I had read the name of this movie before, with it being part of the Criterion Collection, on the IMDb top 250, and other top movie lists, but for some reason it seems the first time I had paid any attention to it was when it showed up on my Leonard Maltin day-to-day calendar sometime this past year. My brother-in-law mentioned he had seen it and enjoyed it, so I put it on reserve at the library. After sitting by the TV for almost 6 weeks, we finally sat down to watch Rashomon so that we could turn it back in without being fined. I'm glad we did.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was the first Asian foreign film I had seen and loved it along with Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, and others. This film will be added to that list of enjoyed movies. While a simple storyline (basically an event and then witnesses reporting what was seen), the way that the story unfolds from the various witnesses is very thought provoking. In addition to a good story, the filming was very impressive (even to someone who doesn't know a whole lot about filming)! It was helpful to watch an intro to the film after having watched it, where the speaker talks about the talent of Kurosawa's filming direction.

I was particularly moved by one of the end scenes where the woodcutter and commoner are arguing over stealing from a baby that has oddly appeared out of nowhere. The woodcutter reprimands the commoner for taking the amulet and kimono from the baby, but is in turn chastised for stealing the dagger from the scene of the crime that he was a witness for, "a bandit calling another a bandit." It's very enlightening to realize that many times what we despise in others is nothing more than traits we have ourselves and resent ourselves for having.

This scene brings up another interesting question with regards to when stealing might be considered OK. It might be considered OK (though not lawful) to steal when your family is starving and you find a valuable dagger to sell to obtain food. The thief should not be excused from the demands of the law, justice must be satisfied (to keep order in society). Stealing from a baby, just because it won’t miss what is taken or know any better, is wrong if it’s only for greed. There are a million different circumstances where this logic is probably flawed or doesn’t work. Laws exist to protect society, and imperfect as they maybe, there may be appropriate times to break the law, so long as you are not putting your soul in danger. This is far from a lesson in ethics, any additional discussion is welcome in the comments.

Wikipedia does a decent job summarizing the last scene of the movie that was equally poignant and more hopeful:

"These deceptions and lies shake the priest's faith in humanity. He is brought back to his senses when the woodcutter reaches for the baby in the priest's arms. The priest is suspicious at first, but the woodcutter explains that he intends to take care of the baby along with his own children, of whom he already has six. This simple revelation recasts the woodcutter's story and the subsequent theft of the dagger in a new light. The priest gives the baby to the woodcutter, saying that the woodcutter has given him reason to continue having hope in humanity. The film closes on the woodcutter, walking home with the baby. The rain has stopped and the clouds have opened revealing the sun in contrast to the beginning where it was overcast."

If you're not biased against black and white films or films that have subtitles (unless you speak Japanese), this is a good movie to watch if you're not in the mood to be solely entertained.