My February 2012 in Review: Movies

Although I did not get to see all the movies I wanted to see in the month of February, I did get to the theater three times and have mixed reviews for my experiences there. Oscar time is always a scramble to try to see the movies that are nominated before the big show so I am able to fairly agree or disagree with the Academy's choices. It was for this reason I had to see Hugo and The Descendants last month. The third movie I went to see, well, that one wasn't my choice. I should've been going to Arrietty  that night. (Someone owes me a movie night!) So let's get to it, these are the three movies I saw in the order in which I saw them.

Hugo

My in-laws were the first to tell us about this film when they saw it back in December. "You must see it!" they lauded, "You will love it!" My husband's friend took a date to see the movie the week following and showered us with the same pleas. Anyone and everyone who saw us who had seen the movie would talk to us about it, since they know we are major cinephiles. I think the fact that they had seen the "great film of 2011" before the Riveras was something that amazed them each equally.

In fact, when we went to see The Artist and would tell them all they must see this film because there was none other like it, our suggestion went unheeded, unheard, even because we had not yet seen Hugo. So, I knew that beyond any other film, Hugo  was one that I had better go see before the Oscars as it seemed the runaway favorite to upset my heart's win The Artist. We shelled out the extra bucks for 3D and prepared to see the movie of the year.

Hugo was a good movie. It was another movie about movies, which Hollywood loves. Ben Kingsley is awesome, and I loved his character. The story was endearing, and I wondered how good the book behind the movie must be. The characters were each richly their own - from the main character Hugo, to his father who has a very little part in the film, all the way to the regulars in the train station. I can understand why the film garnered so much attention. However, it did not do enough to shift my vote. Perhaps in some other year, up against some other competition I would see it differently, but you would have to read my review of The Artist to understand how completely that film consumed me to understand how I can complement Hugo on so many fronts and still say it was not worth of Oscar.

Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance

As I left the theater, I got on Twitter and typed one simple question: "What. The. Hell. Was. That?" In five words, those are my feelings about this film. It was boys choice. I went to the movies with my husband and his friend. I almost stayed home, but I thought, "Hey, this might be amusing!" so, I insisted we swing by CostCo first to get our discount tickets (thank goodness - I would not feel comfortable paying full price for this movie!) and headed to the theater. 

Lord help me, but for some reason I feel incredibly bad that this movie was not better. I feel bad for Nicholas Cage and Idris Elba (who was part of the reason we thought this movie might be a step up from its predecessor). On the ride home as we analyzed what went wrong with this film (after we dropped off my husband's friend who liked the movie ?!?!), we came up with one glaring issue - Roarke.

Last month I wrote a review for Sherlock Holmes discussing how much I loved the idea of arch nemeses and the great stories they tend to draw out. Well, Roarke, evidently is THE REASON why Johnny Blaze is stuck being the Ghost Rider. He's THE GUY who tricked him into signing his soul away and turning him into this monster. Johny Blaze is a tortured character who wants to do good, but is stuck with the Rider inside of him. In Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, Roarke is our main antagonist. I think, on paper, this must've looked like a blockbuster hit. It is, once again a great tale of an arch nemeses! I should've loved it.

But I really, really didn't. Roarke didn't come off as all that bad. He seemed more like an evil businessman - slimy dude, but just don't make any deals with him and you're OK. Since he didn't come off as the real root of all evil in the film, the motivation for Johnny Blaze, and all of the characters for that matter, just didn't feel legit. I'm not sure how this could've been fixed. I don't know if it was the actor, or decisions made before he even made it to the film, but the first step in the "What the...?" about that film comes from his character.

I laughed in this movie, as I believe one is supposed to do in most Nicholas Cage films (he always likes to sneak in corny little jokes here and there that I believe are intended for the audience to laugh with him), but sometimes I think it was at the wrong parts. Let me say this, I do enjoy bad movies when you can laugh with friends about the ridiculousness of what happens on the screen and in the story. There is something entertaining in that alone. Sadly, Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, for me, is so bad that it doesn't even reach that level of entertainment.

The Descendants

Clooney had a real shot at taking home Oscar last weekend, but it wasn't just for the tears, it was for his running! Who runs like that? It was such a gawky, bumbly run that spoke volumes about his character that was one of those little nuances I really appreciate.

Another movie I wish I read the book for before seeing the movie. There were so many characters and overlaying story lines that were masterly woven together on the screen, but my curiosity is piqued about what further information a book may hold about each and every one of them. There is the story of Clooney's wife, who is in a coma from a boating accident. He wasn't around when it happened, and we begin to learn, that wasn't out of the ordinary. Next up is he fact that she was cheating on him and she finds out while she is in a coma, unable to defend herself. Their children - two girls - seem to each be dealing with their separate family in reckless ways even before mom's accident and George, the absent father has little knowledge of this. Add to all of this, where the name of the film comes from, that George's character is a trustee for a large portion of Hawaiian land that was left to him and the fellow descendant who are in the process of deciding which developer to sell it to. That is a lot of story. It seems like too much when I write it all down, but in the film it magically comes together to tell a story of a man, his family and his journey to learning what truly matters to him.

This was a great movie. The category for Best Actor in the Academy Awards was stacked this year, but I would have been happy if Clooney took the little gold man home with him. If you have not seen The Descendants, I recommend you do and, if you are anything like me, you might want to have a couple of tissues by your side.

Just before you go, here's George's clompy running:

What movies did you see last month?

Which are you looking forward to this upcoming month?

Did you see any of these three films? What were your thoughts about them?