DVD Review: Hugo

Directed by Martin Scorsese. Starring Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jude Law, Christopher Lee and Emily Mortimer. 126 minutes. PG

For a while, I didn't really know what Hugo was about. I knew it was a Scorsese movie, I was pretty sure it was kid-friendly and I kept hearing praise about its visuals. But when I heard that it was a movie about movies, I had to see it.

The eponymously-titled Hugo follows the story of a young orphan boy and his journey to finding a purpose. Set in Paris, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is sent to live with his uncle after this father dies. His alcoholic uncle, who works fixing clocks in a train station, pulls Hugo out of school and sends him to work, also fixing clocks. While working full-time, Hugo's also continuing a project he'd begun with his father before he died, fixing an old, broken automaton, a robot of sorts. It's almost working, save for a heart-shaped key he needs to get it started. Hugo eventually runs into trouble with Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) who works in a toyshop in the station and befriends his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), who joins him in uncovering a mystery greater than he ever expected. This movie is one of the most charming I've seen all year (actually, only in competition with the other France-set blockbusters of the year: Midnight in Paris and The Artist).

There's no way to talk about this movie without mentioning its stunning visuals. It's got a seamless, surreal blend of CGI and live action. Costumes are pay homage to their era though are still interestingly anachronistic. The sets are finely detailed and gorgeous to look at. It's just a beautiful movie. Even the peculiar films within the movie are fun to look at, reminiscent of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, though this time done right.

The cast is perfect. Butterfield and Moretz are sweet, naive and innocent. The ageless Kingsley (can you believe Gandhi was 30 years ago?!) is more than convincing, whether playing the grumpy, old toyshop owner or his young self, the excited, exuberant filmmaker. However, the most surprising performance comes from Sacha Baron Cohen as the stern station inspector always on Hugo's tail for loitering around. I'm a big Cohen fan and I think that he's brilliant, so it's even more impressive to see him a role that doesn't require him to be one of his absurd politcally-challenging characters and still be funny and captivating.

If I haven't sold you yet, let me just say one more thing: cute dogs. As if Uggie in The Artist and Arthur in Beginners weren't doggy cuteness overload, there are several more in this film. Seriously, the two that become friends in the station, so cute.

Believe me, none of what I'm saying is because of Hugo's Oscars sweep. I saw this movie and I fell in love. It's just so magical. A+

Immortals

Photo: Jan Thijs

Starring Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Freida Pinto, Stephen Dorff and Kellan Lutz. Directed by Tarsem Singh. 110 minutes. 18A

Before Immortals started, my boyfriend asked me what I thought the film would be out of 10. "Six," I said, "But I'm hoping it's an eight." When I think about it, that's a strange answer. Why would I see a movie I think will be a six? I guess I thought it had the potential to be as brazen as 300, as visually stunning as The Cell and as epic as the battle in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Tower. But it was none of those. How not-so-surprising.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Photo: Warner Bros.

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman. Directed by David Yates. 130 minutes. 14A

We all knew there would come a day when the books about the Boy That Lived would come to die. And when that day arrived, we threw our Hermione bookmarks aside and cried into our Gryffindor scarves. Then, once we composed ourselves, we started counting down to the days until the movies based on the books about the Boy That Lived would come to die.

Now that that fateful day has arrived, with the release of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Potterheads around the world, including myself, are collapsing faster than a horcrux in the presence of a basilisk fang. Some might attribute this to them having to say their last goodbyes to J.K. Rowling's endlessly bewitching characters. However, the real reason lies in the film itself, which manages to conjure up the same irresistibly bittersweet feelings the books did so perfectly in the final stages.

Don’t get me wrong. Part 2 isn't a spot-on rendering of the second half of the final instalment in the best-selling boy wizard saga. Some of the most memorable lines from the book (including one from Mrs. Weasley) are lost, either through too-quick editing and or delivery. But what surrounds these minor script-to-screen disappointments is so engaging even Muggles will leave feeling totally enchanted.

If you take it simply as a film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:Part 2 is a lightning bolt to your head. It comes at you swiftly and suddenly and  stays with you long after it's over. The fantastical drama, which picks up right from the end of Part 1 and never takes a breather, is overflowing with both action and emotion. In spell speak, it’s not hard to accio laughs, tears or squeals. Often times, they come at you simultaneously. Just wait until you see Harry’s lifelong nemesis, the dark, noseless lord of all things evil, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) attempt to give someone a hug. As HP’s best friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) say repeatedly to one another in an adorable mini-moment, “Brilliant!”

The film follows Harry, Ron and Hermione as they search for, and attempt to destroy the remaining horcruxes (a.k.a. those pesky pieces of Voldy's soul which have been transferred to everyday objects.) This battle is not only intense but meaningful, taking us back to places we grew fond of in previous instalments including Diagon Alley, Gringotts Bank and finally, Hogwarts, where Voldemort’s assistant and notorious Harry hater, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) has taken over as headmaster.

While Harry and his BFFs obviously have a major hand in this particular defence against the dark arts, they are not the only heroes of the film. Everyone from their old professors to school statues get in on the fight, giving many of our favourite minor characters, such as the timid but totally kind Neville Longbottom (a trim and triumphant Matthew Lewis) and his crush, the loopy Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), the screen time they deserve.

Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are as stellar as always, standing strong from the beginning to slightly laughable end. But it's the elder witches and wizards who really cast a spell. Maggie Smith, who played Professor McGongall with both grace and spunk in the seven previous films, turns into a deadly assassin this time around, capable of demolishing Death Eater with just her stare. (At least, metaphorically.) And Alan Rickman deserves serious award consideration for his moving take on Snape. He not only shows us the secret side of Voldemort’s right-hand man, he makes us believe it so hard we can’t help but shed a bucket of salty ones.

I wish I could say the same about the 3D effects. The extra dimension does nothing to add to the already multi-layered story. Although you do some pretty sweet, Harry-sized specs to watch it with, you’re better off spending your spare change on some chocolate frogs.

3D and overpriced visual effects may be in right now, but when it comes to truly magnificent film, it’s well-thought out words (spoken or written) and stories that are, to paraphrase Harry's mentor and former Hogwarts head, Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), “our most inexhaustible form of magic." And thanks to Rowling’s words and director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves' inspired interpretation of them, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is all that– and a bag of booger-free Every Flavour Beans. A-

Stay Classy: Alice in Wonderland (1903)

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. In Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Year released: 1903

How it fared back then: The film was originally 12 minutes long. At a time when cinema itself was still very young, a night out at the movies meant viewing a collection of shorts, and a 12-minute film was considered too long. (HA!) So scenes from the film were instead sold separately and thus aired separately.

The making of the film was actually much like you'd imagine the production of a very, very small indie film, so small that the lead actress, Mabel Clark, also doubled as the studio secretary. The film also starred director Cecil Hepworth himself, his wife, his cat and his dog (who would later move onto bigger and better things, i.e. 1905's Rescued by Rover). Based on Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Hepworth tried to keep the film as tried to keep as much as possible to the likeness of John Tenniel's original illustrations and ended up spending a much longer time than usual pre-production preparing costumes and sets (which was probably a lot of work considering the main set was a small wooden stage). Though I can't say as much attention was paid to the actual story (but maybe more than later adaptations did).

Why it's lasted: It was the first adaptation of the popular children's book, released 38 years after the book. The book itself is a classic in children's literature, which has also developed a devoted cult following of adaptations, the first of which was this version. The film was also noted for its state-of-the-art special effects (see: when Alice shrinks and, in a later scene, disappears). Almost lost forever, film archivists at the BFI National Archive were able to restore 8 minutes of the film and its original colours for the first time in 100 years. So, technically, it hasn't "lasted" but was deemed historically significant enough to be restored and revered.

Classic moment: When Alice shrinks. Then grows. Then shrinks. As I mentioned, it was also very advanced for its time in terms of effects. On a more literary note, it plays a big role in the story's theme as a symbolic entry into a world where nothing really makes sense.

Does it still hold up? For those aforementioned followers of Alice adaptations, this film is a rare gem. For anyone who doesn't fit that description, probably not. Considering the original intended audience of Alice was children, this is definitely not one for them. It's actually kind of creepy. And doesn't stick to the story very well. Though since the film was originally sold by scenes, maybe no one ever cared for the story anyway. But if you're looking for something for the kids, I'd go for Disney. If you're looking for something for yourself, I'd say try Burton's. Both are really good. But if you love the adaptations like I do, go for this one.

DVD: Red Riding Hood

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Billy Burke and Virginia Madsen. Directed by Catherine Hardwicke. 100 minutes. PG

This was one of the most anticipated films of the year for me, which was tough to justify at first. I mean, it's by the original Twilight (a series I despise, though mind you haven't seen any of) director Catherine Hardwicke and aimed at a similar (if not the same) teen, vampire-loving, Pattinson-obsessing audience. Why should this film appeal to me? Maybe it had to do with my love of Little Red Riding Hood adaptations (may I recommend Angela Carter's The Bloody Chamber?). But besides that, it's not really aimed at people like me, or adults in general. So it should come as no surprise that I wasn't very impressed with the film. Though not much disappointed either.

It's a twist on the old Perrault fairy tale and, as evident by the trailer, a much darker one at that. Valerie (Amanda Seyfried), our Little Red, lives in a small isolated village under threat of a wolf who terrorizes at night. Usually animal sacrifice would suffice as a decoy, but lately, the wolf has been taking on human victims. After surviving a personal encounter from the wolf, Valerie is determined to uncover the man behind the beast and begins reconsidering who the townies truly are, even those close to home.

Another reason I was drawn to this film was Seyfried, who's been killing it in some of her most recent work (Chloe, Jennifer's Body). But although Seyfried did take the titular role, it didn't demand enough of her to bring out her capabilities. As far as her performance goes, it might as well be lumped among her rom-coms. And we know she's really so much more.

Although this was a darker rendition of the children's tale, it could have been even more so to reach out to adult audiences. But we have to keep in mind, this film wasn't intended for us. And I can't speak for the Twihard kind. B

Stay Classy: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. In Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

WILLY WONKA & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY 

Year released: 1971

How it fared back then: In terms of audience turnout, the film did fairly. It did even better as far as critical reception. As Ebert put it, "It provides a first-rate cast (Gene Wilder as the compulsively distrustful chocolate manufacturer, Jack Albertson as the game old grandfather), a first-rate production, and--I keep coming back to this--genuine imagination." And even more well-deserved praise went to Wilder with his Golden Globe nom for the role.

Why it's lasted: It's a childhood (and sweets-lover) fantasy come true. Have you ever stopped dreaming of the three-course-dinner gum? But this film is actually more revered as a cult classic. It's been parodied by pop culture countless times (see: Futurama, Family Guy, Dexter's Laboratory, My Name is Earl, Chuck, SNL... need I really go on?). And while it's often mocked at expense of its silliness, it's almost as frequently noted for it's creepiness. There's just something surreal and sinister about it all.

Classic moment: Can I say every Oompa Loompa song? "Oompa Loopma doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for you..." Even if you haven't seen it (and I doubt that), you've heard a rendition of this song and likely seen the bobbing orange-faced Oompas as they chanted it.

Does it still hold up? The cast recently reunited on the Today show as the film nears it's fortieth anniversary (in two weeks), but an anniversary DVD hasn't been promised. I mean, the film still airs on television sometimes, but since 2005, Willy Wonka conjures up a far less spectacular, far less commendable version of the story (hint: Johnny Depp and false teeth). Perhaps this film is better left in the memories of its selected true fans.

Never Seen It! Sunday: Big Fish

You know when you're talking to someone you think is like totally happening in a far out way and they ask if you've seen their favourite movie and you lie and say you seen "parts of it" because you don't want to seem like a total pop culture pariah? Yeah, we do too - and we hate ourselves for it! That's why we're vowing to watch at least one movie we've put off, ignored, rejected or just plain-out forgot about every week from now on. Join us as recount the popping of our cinematic cherries, complete with awkward, over-analytical details!

Photo: impawards.com

BIG FISH

DATE RELEASED: December 10, 2003

DATE ACTUALLY WATCHED: February 5, 2011

WHY NOW?: After Boardwalk Empire won two Golden Globe awards and a SAG, I decided to find out a bit more about the show and maybe start watching it, so logically, I looked it up on Wikipedia. And you know what that means: about an hour lost of my life spent clicking on pointless page after pointless page. Except this time via Steve Buscemi's bio, I remembered how badly I wanted to see Big Fish.

WHY NOT THEN?: Although I've wanted to see the movie since it came out, no one else really cared to see it with me. So I waited. Then when it was out on DVD, still, no one wanted to watch it with me. So I waited. Then it was on TV one day, so taped it. The next day I rewound it a put it away for a day when I had more time. But then I got caught up in other films and forgot about the tape until I lost it, then forgot about it. Sad, right?

EXPECTATIONS:

• Gorgeously surreal sets.
• Gorgeously surreal story.
• That creepy, curious Burton directing touch.
• A fairytale for adults.
• A film that I'd fall in love with a rewatch countless times.

WHAT I ACTUALLY GOT...

Never Seen It! Sunday: Pan's Labyrinth

You know when you're talking to someone you think is like totally happening in a far out way and they ask if you've seen their favourite movie and you lie and say you seen "parts of it" because you don't want to seem like a total pop culture pariah? Yeah, we do too - and we hate ourselves for it! That's why we're vowing to watch at least one movie we've put off, ignored, rejected or just plain-out forgot about every week from now on. Join us as recount the popping of our cinematic cherries, complete with awkward, over-analytical details!

Photo: impawards.com

PAN'S LABYRINTH

(Or the more lyrical, actual title, El laberinto del fauno)

DATE RELEASED: January 19, 2007

DATE ACTUALLY WATCHED: December 13, 2010

WHY NOW?: I've decided to learn Spanish. So, aside from taking courses in Spanish, downloading Spanish iPhone apps, and speaking Spanish to my friends and family who are completely oblivious to what I'm saying, it's also the perfect excuse to watch award-winning Spanish films and call it "studying."

WHY NOT THEN?: I shied away from foreign films, which is the completely opposite today. The problem was, I never wanted to give them a chance, but once my obsession to learn new languages began to grow, I realized that it's a really helpful way to learn how the tongue is spoken conversationally, and also open yourself to a variety of completely different and refreshing film mentalities and styles.

EXPECTATIONS:

• Creepy, though life-like, monsters.
• Stunning, surreal sets.
• A creative and novel depiction of the imagination.
• A shocking, devastating ending.

WHAT I ACTUALLY GOT...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

Photo: Allmoviephoto.com
(When Harry Met...Harrys?)

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Directed by David Yates. 146 minutes. PG.

I've read too many pessimistic Harry Potter reviews. And all of them seem to have one main punny punchline - that the series that need not be named to inspire 20-something nostalgia has lost it's "magic." These movie critics must be muggles because, from what I saw, that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

While many Potterheads will tell you it's just a the lead-up to what is sure to be one hell of a finale (well, if the last 200 pages of J.K. Rowling's last ode to the boy who lived tell us anything), I'm here to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is much more than some sort of pandering preamble. It's like a fresh bag of Bernie Botts Every Flavoured Beans. There is so much awesome going on, you just don't even know where to start.

The film picks up where The Half-Blood Prince left off. Dumbledore, Harry's mentor and former Hogwarts headmaster, is (SPOILER ALERT!) dead and gone. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are plotting their biggest attack on Harry and the muggle world, ever. And Harry and his meant-to-be BFFs, Ron and Hermoine are searching for the remaining pieces of Voldy's soul which have been transferred into various, seemingly random objects (also called Horcruxes). But stuff starts to get really serious this time around. Important lives are lost. Friendships are broken (albeit, momentarily). Families are ripped apart. This ain't the Yule Ball. Or any old year-end party at Hufflepuff. This is real life. With a few new wizardy gadgets and some sexy cinematography (hello, gorgeous abandoned beach background!) thrown in.

This darker tone of the Deathly Hallows (even the name sounds scary!) may turn off many parents and their young children, but if you've been following the series through the last three films, you should be anticipating it. What you may not be anticipating is the numerous over-the-top sexy scenes between Harry and Hermoine. You'll want to throw your invisiblity cloak in their faces and run. Far away. Well, before you recover from busting a gut and a half.

Although the film can be way serious (or should I say, Sirius? RIP Mr. Black...), you'll be happy to hear the wicked wit that has made the other films so, er, enchanting, is not lost. In the slightest. Sometimes it's obviously not intentional (see: Harry and Hermoine's random dance party, Harry's crushed velvet wedding vest) but usually it's in the vein of Fred and George's best tricks - perfectly planned out (see: Harry, Hermoine and Ron's transformative trip to the Ministry of Magic, the always poignant wand jokes).

Speaking of perfect, get ready for a new and improved Ronald Weasley. If you weren't already in love with red-headed hottie and his positively sexy portrayer, Rupert Grint, prepare to have your hand-me-down socks charmed right off. Grint has obviously been working his Brit bum off - both on the set and in the gym. DanRad's starting to look like the winsome sidekick. Even when there's a dozen of him (SEE ABOVE).

But I digress - and fangirl out far too much. For those of us who grew up waiting for our Owl from Hogwarts, The Deathly Hallows is the month before the last month of high school. Or what I imagine a warm pint of Butterbeer might taste like. Bittersweet as all hell.

Although we're pumped to see how the it all ends - who ends up with who, who comes out on top, who gets lost in the shuffle - we're also totally afraid of it. We know that once it's over, we can never go back. But thankfully, we've still got some time to prepare (Part II comes out in July). Mainly, stock up on themed tissues. Cause unlike most high schools, this graduation ceremony is gearing up to be pretty damn, yeah I'm gonna say it, magical. A

Freaky Fortnight!: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Photo: amazon.ca

THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS (1993)

THE GIST: Somewhere, there is a forest where trees are doorways to towns where holidays reside. Jack Skellington (Chris Sarandon) is the king of Halloween Town where it's always Halloween. (Mind you, he's not the mayor; that's a plump, little bi-polar man.) One gloomy day, Jack goes off wondering with his ghost dog Zero in search of inspiration for the upcoming Halloween when he comes to the forest with the holiday portals. Curious about the door the shaped like a pine tree, he peeks inside and stumbles in, landing in Christmas Town. Enchanted, but bewildered, he has a eureka moment: Halloween Town should run Christmas this year! Thus follows the most bizarre, Halloween-infused Christmas ever.

TRICK OR TREAT?: Trick-ridden treat. Although it's a family film, any peek into Tim Burton's mind is always a little dark and eerie.

WHY IT GETS US IN THE SPIRIT: For those who love Halloween, who wouldn't want to visit a Halloween town? It's so grimy and slimey and crawly, just as Halloween should be, but it also takes a spin on the tradition in strange mix of family wholesomeness and almost-disturbing gloominess.

SCENE TO DIE FOR: The opening scene of "This is Halloween" where we meet the clown with the tear away face, the man under the stairs, the shadow on the moon at night and all the ghouls of Halloween town in the array of voices and odd garb. Not to mention, it marks the start to the amazing soundtrack by Danny Elfman.

BEST COSTUMES: Lock, Shock, and Barrel. Not because they might be the only costumes in the film (unless you count Jack in the body of a snowman) but because their marks are just slightly creepier versions of their actual faces.

SUGGESTED SWEET: Candy canes. (I mean, right?)

Stay Classy: The Wizard of Oz

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. Every Friday in Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

Photo: source unknown

Believe it not, some people haven't seen The Wizard of Oz, and to those dozen people in the entire world who haven't seen it, I have no idea how you deal with the pop culture references. "I'll get you, my pretty"? "No place like home"? Anything about Kansas or Toto or ruby slippers?

So for those of you from Mars, The Wizard of Oz is about a supposedly 12-year-old girl played by a 17-year-old Judy Garland who looks like she's 25 years old. Anyway, one day little Dorothy, who lives with Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Kansas, decides to run away from home with her dog Toto, only to change her mind with help from a fortune teller. But on her way back home, a tornado kicks up and when she reaches the house, Aunt Em and Uncle Henry have already locked up and are taking shelter in the storm cellar, leaving Dorothy to fend the storm alone from inside the house. Nice, huh? 

Dorothy falls asleep in the hurling wind only to wake up to find that her house has uprooted and flew through the sky, landing in a place called Oz and killing the Wicked Witch of the East under it. That's when Glinda the Good Witch shows up in a magical bubble, using her magic to place the dead Wicked Witch of the East's ruby slippers onto Dorothy's feet. Then the Wicked Witch of the West appears, angry that Dorothy has killed her sister and jealous that she now wears the red slippers. Dorothy, meanwhile, is only concerned about getting home and on advice of the munchkins, begins to follow the yellow brick road toward the wizard of Oz who can tell her how to get home. Complex much? Now enter the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Lion, flying monkies, Winkie guards, impolite trees and the wizard.

It's actually not that difficult to get but is sprinkled with countless themes, from friendship to faith to home to confidence. Dorothy learned many lessons that day, the first of which began with not to run away from home. Sadly though, she never learned not to trust phony fortune tellers.

Oz is actually a beautiful place. It's clearly set up with a bunch of flimsy props  - but what did you expect from 1939? It was released in Technicolor and made very clever use of that with the yellow, brick road, Emerald City and the ruby slippers. Technicolor was probably the reason Dorothy's silver slippers in the book were changed to ruby for the film, and wow were they ever stunning. I own a pair of red pumps right now for that very reason.

Characters in the film were also vivid. Although they appear flat at first--the clumsy Scarecrow, the cowardly Lion, the, um, rusty Tin Man--the film takes their personalities a bit deeper through dialogue and story, even though their instantaneous turnarounds at the end aren't very believable. One irreplaceable performance is clearly that of Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow. He tumbles his way down the road and really does come across as clueless without his brain. No one could do it like he did.

Dorothy also comes off as a bit clueless, but I guess who wouldn't be after a tornado whipped your house into an imaginary land where you're greeted by the Lollipop Guild in song, only one of the many catchy songs in this film. Oh how I wish I could sing like Judy Garland.

But not all is rosy in Oz. There are the terrifying flying monkeys and the Winkie guards. The monkeys have blue faces and dress in uniforms, yelping as they swoop you up and deliver you to the Wicked Witch of the West. The Winkie guards, on the other hand, are green men who chant and encircle the witch's castle. They don't sound too bad but their chanting is haunting.

Although the story is being adapted again for Dorothy of Oz, due out in 2012, as an animated 3D film starring the voices of Lea Michele, Jim Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Stewart, Oliver Platt, Kelsey Grammer and Martin Short, it could have very well been done live action, with nearly the same cast and been a potential hit. But Hollywood is still very 3D-happy and it still sounds like it'll be awesome. Of course though, nothing will ever come close to the original.

And a little something for the fans...

Hit YouTube for more. You know you want to.

Mr. Nobody

Photo: mrnobody-lefilm.com

(Nobody, really.)

Starring Jared Leto, Diane Kruger and Sarah Polley. Directed by Jaco Van Dormael. 138 minutes. 14A

Imagine a life where you never had to make choices. What do you want for breakfast? What film will you watch this evening? Or who will you marry five years from now? Instead, you could have it all at once. It also sounds too excessive to be fulfilling. Would you ever really savour anything? Would you ever even want anything anymore? But it at least sounds like a life a lot less worrying. It's the life Mr. Nobody lives. Or doesn't live. If he even exists at all.

In Mr. Nobody, Nemo Nobody (Jared Leto) is a 117-year-old man living in 2092, when he will be the last man to die of natural causes. It's an odd world. Many objects float, no one has sex anymore and people take vacations to Mars. Nemo stars in a reality show, seemingly unknowingly, where the world watches the last days of his life while doctors and scientists and journalists try to figure out who this old man once was. Meanwhile, Nemo has flashbacks of his youthful life.

Leto doesn't say much as a young Nemo, instead his wide-eyes and heavy breathing carry scenes. However, as an old man, he shouts in passionate anger and revels in memories. His voice is withered and wispy. He blinks solemnly. It's almost as if Leto is an old man and his younger scenes are the ones under heavy makeup. Hey, who knows. It seems anything is possible in this film.

Mr. Nobody is a film for the thinker, but not in the Matrix-y way where the story is told and it's up to you to understand it. Instead, Mr. Nobody melds life and death; reality and fiction; past, present and future; and alternate plot lines. It's not about trying to figure out what's actually going on, but rather gets you to think about the what ifs, both in the film and your own life.

Aside from beautiful ideas, the cinematography is also interesting. It's very artsy and simple. It almost feels like stepping into a modern art gallery. It perfectly compliments the quirky, thoughtful narrative.

It's a great film to get lost in, whether you're tracing story lines or entranced by composition or tangled somewhere else in your own thoughts. A

DVD: Clash of the Titans (2010)

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Directed by Louis Leterrier. 106 minutes. PG

Judging from the trailer, Clash of the Titans seemed like epic-done-right: the confidence of 300, a thoughtful story like The Lord of the Rings and villains that were actually scary (glow-in-the-dark Liam Neeson excluded). I saw something else though,when I saw the film in theatres. Watching it again, I realized, 3D does make a difference, and in this case, for the worse.

Clash of the Titans is a remake of the 1981 film of the same name, an adaptation of the Greek myth of Perseus (Sam Worthington). Mortals have given up on the gods and therefore, Zeus (Neeson) has given up on mortals, allowing his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to go ahead with destroying their city of Argos, with help from some CGI-fied monsters. Perseus, a demi-god and son of Zeus, declines life as a deity and enlists to help the king in defeating Hades and saving kraken-bait princess, Andromeda.

The movie seemed to whoosh by in theatres, which isn't necessarily a good thing. It ran then it was gone and life indifferently trudged on. Watching it on non-3D DVD later, I realized how unnecessarily distracting 3D can be. I guess that's what happens when at last minute, filmmakers decide to cash in on the craze and self-destroy their own film.

Sadly though, 2D Clash of the Titans still isn't much to marvel at. The story is very basic: destroy all evil to save humanity. You can probably break most epics down to the same premise but it's just boring to meet the hero, find out the task and believe that he will succeed against all. That's why 300 was so awesome for defying this.

Acting was also very formulaic and over-the-top. Of course this is one of the few genres where over-the-top-ness can work to fuel triumph but in this case, it just felt trite. We expected this kind of acting. We expected dirtied, straight faces delivering clichés in their testosteroned righteousness.

Also thanks to some of the preceding epic film brilliance, we expected gruesomely horrifying monsters. At least in this area, the film didn't disappoint (but didn't wow either). Yes, the harpies are scarier than The Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys and the kraken is more frightening, well, than the Pirates of the Caribbean kraken, but Orcs and Uruk-hai remain untouchable.

I cannot recommend Clash of the Titans for any logical reason other than to put your faves that much more on a pedestal. It is mediocre at both best and worst. If you're still dying to see it though, the good news is, you can't watch it in 3D. C

EXTRAS: Behind-the-scenes, interviews, deleted scenes and an alternate ending.

The Last Airbender

Photo: allmoviephoto.com

(Not much to see here.)

Starring Noah Ringer, Dev Patel and Nicola Peltz. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan. 103 minutes. PG

You're probably wondering what the hell an airbender is. But don't watch the film to find out; it'll leave you wondering a whole lot more, namely, what the point of it all is.

In The Last Airbender, races are categorized by elements: Air, Water, Earth and Fire. The film begins with brother and sister Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz), members of the Southern Water Tribe, trekking through an icy passage. Katara is a waterbender, meaning she can manipulate water for use as a weapon. She's practicing her "bending" when she melts a patch of ice, revealing a massive marble-like iceberg. She smashes it, it melts and inside is Aang and his six-legged flying bison.

Aang is the last airbender, but since there are no more existing airbenders, he must be the reincarnation of the Avatar, able to bend all elements. There's also Zuko (Dev Patel), a Fire Nation prince banished by his father and ordered to capture the Avatar. His father, Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) is also out to catch the Avatar so that he does not have to redeem his son. Nothing really makes much sense or seems to have a point before the halfway mark.

Patel aside, most of the acting seems out of a low-budget, local television show, adults and children alike. Of course, it is a kids film so they probably didn't pay any attention to it but if you aren't nine years old, it's unbearable at times. On the other hand, Patel plays the role of evil well. Maybe a bit too much in scenes of anger, but his anguish seems genuine. You almost want cold-hearted papa Ozai to ask for forgiveness and hug his poor, abandoned son.

The only other captivating part of this film would have to be the visuals. A glossy, floating orb of water, spilling in small lashes as Katara bends it through the air seems all too real. And creatures like Aang's bison are interesting enough to steal the entire scene. Then again, there's not much to steal from.

If feels as if there's much more the story that we aren't being told, yet at the same time, we are being told so much. Although nothing seems to fit together. It bogs the entire film down. You're too busy trying to piece together the back story that the hollow plot floats on by. D

DVD: Alice in Wonderland

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway. Directed by Tim Burton. 108 minutes. PG

When Lewis Carroll's Wonderland works are adapted, we hope to be thrown into a world that's a wild and extravagant as his stories made us imagine. We also hope to be thrown a surprising jolt every so often on the ride. Disney's newest rendition of Alice in Wonderland surpasses these hopes and sends expectations exploding.

Most of us know the gist of the story. Alice (Mia Wasikowska) chases a white rabbit into a rabbit hole, tumbling head-first miles down to Wonderland where she meets a slew of curious and curiouser characters, all the while trying to get back home. In this version, Alice's journey revolves around a feud between sisters (the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter)) and Alice is plunked right into the dramatic mess.

For those of us who've grown up with Disney's original 1951 take on the Carroll stories, there are certain characterizations that we may already be familiar with. The Mad Hatter has a lisp, the caterpillar words are always painted in colourful smoke and the White Rabbit is always frazzled. It's tough to come into Burton's film with these pre-conceptions, but it's even more astonishing when Burton's new characters completely blow them away and create memorable, believable personalities anew.

Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter is not as scene-hogging and annoying as the trailers and DVD cover stage him to be. He's a sweet and likable aid to Alice. He could be a bit madder though, rather than let his bright eyeshadow and frizzy hair play the madness for him.

Carter as the Red Queen is terrifying, and she should be. Hathaway as the White Queen seems to be inspired by Glinda the Good Witch and is a little awkward, but in Burton's world, it works. However, it was Wasikowska who stole the spotlight.

Wasikowska makes Alice real. When her mind runs, she sends your mind running. When she believes, you believe. As the thread throughout the film, her commitment brings the story to life as she tugs the audience along on her trippy adventure through Underland.

Yes, Underland. It's Burton, what did you expect? It's much darker than Disney's original Wonderland, but not so much that it's frightening. Characters are literally blown out of proportion (Red Queen's bulbous noggin, the Tweedles' egg-like bodies), scenes are hazier, surrounded by fog and smoke, and evil is eviler. But it's all kid-friendly; there is no gore and no sexual innuendo. Can't say much for the drugs though, the film is littered with pot, hash and shrooms, but we already knew that.

Alice in Wonderland is an entertaining, nutty thrill ride that impresses with loops and curves when you're least expecting it. 'Rents and kiddies can both enjoy the whirlwind. A-

EXTRAS: Featurettes with the cast

Don't You Forget About: FernGully: The Last Rainforest

Sure, it's fun to catch the latest flick at the multiplex, or grab the newest release at a video store, but sometimes you just gotta say, "Out with the new, and in with the unknown." There are plenty of older flicks out there that are worth a rental, but never registered on your radar. In Don't You Forget About, we remember the long-gone gems, so you don't have to.

Photo: source unknown

Remember that movie about the natives who lived in sacred trees whose lives were interrupted by a human intruder, working with a team to destroy their home forest for their own financial benefit? I mean, 17 years before Avatar hit the box office. This was even before Pocahontas showed us how to paint with all the colours of the wind. In 1992, FernGully: The Last Rainforest beat both these films to deliver its enviro-message.

This was exactly what made this film so ahead of its time. We all heard the dissenters following Al Gore's pleas in An Inconvenient Truth. More than a decade earlier, you can imagine how much tougher it was to get the message across. But speaking to little children with hungry minds to feed was a clever approach, especially when most children's films at the time were about princesses. Ok, so this film didn't steer clear from of romance either, at least this relationship was somewhat bi-racial. Y'know, fairy-human love.

In the last existing rain forest in the world lives a community of fairies, who believe that humans have become extinct. Of course, they aren't. And they're about to deforest the fairy world. But when fairy Crysta (Samantha Mathis) test her magic out on human Zak (Jonathan Ward) and shrinks him down to fairy size, there's a glimmer of hope (there kind of needs to be in a kids' movie).

What helps making this film enchanting is its use of light and colour, creating interesting shadows and beams, much like Avatar, but far less advanced. Fairies flicker through the forest with glowing blue and green trails, the sun shoots through branches and leaves and the forest is vibrant with flowers.

There's also darkness in a purely evil, slithery force. Years ago, elder Magi Lune (Grace Zabriskie) trapped Hexxus (Tim Curry) in a tree but when deforesters slice the tree down, his gooey, dark being is brought back to life. And as a dark, billowing creature with hollow white eyes, he's almost as frightening as The Nightmare Before Christmas' Oogie Boogie. Curry's rich voice is the perfect compliment.

Curry's big name isn't the only one selling the film either. Christian Slater, Robin Williams, Cheech Marin, Tommy Chong and Tone Loc all also lend their voices. And a few of them sing too.

The soundtrack is a mix of very bland and very interesting, absolutely nothing in between. One of the high points of the film is William's rap as Batty the bat. Ok, it sounds really awkward but it's actually kind of funny and you'll wish it lasted longer. Wilson Pickett's Land of 1000 Dances is also a great touch to the film. You'll probably find yourself singing it days later.

You also probably won't be able to help yourself from making totally legitimate Avatar comparisons. To get you started: theme, lighting, plot. While they're both aimed at very different audiences, the common threads are undeniable. And with Avatar's colossal success, there's even more reason to re-watch FernGully.

With a wide range of appeal and relevance to this day, it's a film for parents, children and children at heart. It's also a reminder that not all children's films have to be subliminally sexualized.

Naa, na-na na-naa...

DVD: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Courtesy: AllMoviePhoto.com

(Step into the not-so-spectacular Imaginarium)

Starring Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer and Andrew Garfield. Directed by Terry Gilliam. 123 Minutes. PG-13

Alice’s Wonderland, Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and Dr. Parnassus’ Imaginarium. One of these worlds just doesn’t belong. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is so strongly founded on creating a spectacular, imaginary universe, that when it fails to enchant and intrigue, the rest of the film tumbles too.

Set in modern day London, the film follows Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) and his travelling theatre troupe. As part of a deal with the devil Mr. Nick (Tom Waits), they buggy around the city, inviting onlookers to step into The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The trouble is, audience members only consist of a drunk or two, on a good night. That is, until the troupe happens upon Tony (Heath Ledger). Just as the situation becomes dire, Tony has a few ideas of his own in hopes of turning the show around.

Dark and colourful is the best way to sum this film up, both in visuals and theme. In the blue and gloomy night, the theatre unfolds, beaming warm, bright lights with floral and ancient accents decorating the stage. The cast prances around in ruffles, masks, wigs and glitter.

While the “real-world” set may be stunning, it’s the imaginary universe that fails to invite. Various wide-shots into the dream-like world present it as something to explore, but when characters enter, it becomes a mural in the background: flat and fake. Sure, it’s supposed to be a window into the imagination but the purpose of the Imaginarium is to make imagination tangible.

But what is believable is Tony and his incarnations. Originally cast as the sole Tony, Ledger introduces us to a charismatic, secretive character whose true self only unfolds at the end. When Ledger died partway through filming, his role was completed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, who each played one of Tony’s incarnations. What could have spoiled the point of the film (it didn't, the Imaginarium did), turned out to mesh seamlessly with Ledger’s role.

Perhaps the most painful part of the film is seeing Ledger deliver another captivating performance, with what should have been the launching point for an even more brilliant career ahead. Bringing quirk and charm to his role, Ledger was one of the few highlights of the film.

However, Ledger alone was unable to pull the weight of a thin storyline. Attempting to illustrate the heavy weight of chance decisions through a bet with the devil, the story drives down a very linear road and ultimately lacks depth.

With such a distractingly weak universe and barren storyline, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus doesn’t swoop us into a magical realm like it should. C