Notions On "The Dark Knight Rises"

It's pretty obvious. Christopher Nolan's upcoming film, The Dark Knight Rises, the last entry in his monumental Batman trilogy, is without a doubt the most anticipated film of the year. The only films I can think of that come close in terms of excitement and fanbase might be the upcoming The Avengers and The Hunger Games, and maybe The Hobbit. And why shouldn't we be this hopeful? I remember going to watch The Dark Knight on a gigantic IMAX screen the day it came out, and two years later, Inception on IMAX the day it came out. Christopher Nolan has given me, as well as millions of others, some of the most intense theatre-going experiences ever. You could call him a more accessible Kubrick. He makes films that question why art and entertainment cannot be one and the same.

And with a seven-minute prologue released before the screening of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Nolan and company have given fans something to talk about and obsess over until the July 20th release date. Immediately after the prologue was leaked to the Internet (and quickly taken down), bloggers and columnists went online to complain about Bane's voice, or the lack thereof. Why? It sounds perfectly fine to me, a sort of hybrid between Michael Caine and a psychopathic robot (which is as menacing as you can imagine). Then the complaints came pouring in on the sound of Bane's voice. Again, why? It isn't the final cut, obviously, there are still finishing touches to be added. No worries.

To appease the bulk of moviegoers who weren't fortunate enough to have seen the prologue in theatres, a second, full-length trailer was released. Significant parts of the film are shown - the fact that the third installment takes place eight years later, Bruce Wayne and Alfred are much older and weathered, Bane's leadership of an uprising against Gotham, Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, a bombing at a football game and a flying craft! Since this is Christopher Nolan, who hasn't made a film less than a masterpiece, there really is nothing to worry about. All I'm fully certain of is that I'll probably watch this movie multiple times during the summer.

Pedro Almodovar's "The Skin I Live In"

I am quite embarrassed to admit that I have only seen Pedro Almodovar's The Skin I Live In a few weeks ago. The reviews I've read from were very positive, so I thought I'd give it a try. Since my viewing, I haven't talked about it to anyone, or even written about it anywhere, because, well, it's such a hard film to swallow, much less stomach. The plot is difficult to summarize, because, there are so many twists in this film that it would be hard to tell anyone what it's about without accidentally revealing the whole film. One can explain it very sparsely - an enigmatic surgeon and a female captive. One can explain it even more through its themes - identity, obsession, power, destructive relationships. One can even explain the whole film by simply describing it as "a very, very twisted version of a Hitchcock movie."

It is a horror film disturbing in the psychology of its characters rather than in the violence it portrays, which is also quite gruesome. And while the film is not for everyone - Almodovar's films are a sort of acquired taste, you either love them wholeheartedly or vehemently despise them - it is tough to argue against the fact the Almodovar and company have created a film that, although it borrows from films before it, crawls into the viewer's head and stays there. I was drained the first time I watched it, but maybe I'll be adventurous and watch it for a second or third time. Whatever the case, I feel this is a great film, one that deserves all the acclaim and recognition its gotten, and one that also deserves all the hate its been given too.

Has Scorsese's Hugo Flopped?

Scorsese's Hugo is groundbreaking not only because Scorsese departs from his usual themes to something more accessible - an adventure film - but because it sees the legendary filmmaker incorporate 3D technology for the first time. The result is a labor of love for Scorsese - a tribute to one of cinema's earliest pioneers using today's most cutting edge technology. Because of this, Hugo has become one of 2011's most critically acclaimed film - it has already been nominated for, and won, several accolades, mostly for the Best Film and Best Director categories, respectively, but also for its achievements in Writing, Cinematography and Editing.

But since being released in November 23, however, the film has apparently stalled at the box office, earning just a little over 52,000,000 as of December 30th. And while this does sound like a modest success for an adventure film geared towards families, Hugo has an estimated budget of 150,000,000, which is also too excessive for a film of this kind. So what went wrong? Hugo's box office performance can only be blamed on its marketing campaign and time of release.

To start, the film's title has had a rather pathetic journey, originally to be called The Invention of Hugo Cabret after Brian Selznick's novel, then shortened to Hugo Cabret and finally shortened even more to merely Hugo. The dissatisfaction and confusion surrounding the title is a clear indication that Paramount Pictures were oblivious as to how they were going to market this film. Trailers were then released, portraying the film as a "family adventure," while Scorsese's name sang loud and clear in print, also illustrating Hugo as his first foray in 3D.

Granted, Scorsese is more synonymous with violence and melancholic men rather than box office returns. But his last four films - Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed and Shutter Island - were all extremely successful in theaters, giving Scorsese his most highest-grossing films. These four films, on the other hand, featured someone Hugo does not - Leonardo DiCaprio. While it is overreaching to base those films' successes simply because of DiCaprio, those films were not troubling to market. Simply mention DiCaprio and Scorsese, and you have a guaranteed moneymaker. Hugo, while it does feature Ben Kingsley and Jude Law, is ultimately carried by Asa Butterfield, an incredibly gifted young actor but relative unknown.  How can you possibly market a film to children about the late life of filmmaker Georges Melies disguised as a simple action-adventure film? Mentioning Scorsese's name countless time didn't help either.


Hugo's release date was also problematic. Released alongside Happy Feet Two, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Arthur Christmas and The Muppets, it really never had a chance in the first place. The aforementioned films, excluding Arthur Christmas, have such a strong and grounded fanbase that, regardless of marketing strategies or release dates, the films were already box office successes. Is Hugo a great film? Surely, yes, and is already being heralding is not only one of the year's best films, but also one of Scorsese's most triumphant efforts. Does it have a chance to recuperate its budget, much less make profit? If the film is a big winner come Oscars season, then it can make a profit, but at this pace, not likely.

2011: Looking Back

With the recent announcement of the Golden Globes nominations and the inevitable Oscar Awards, critics have been proclaiming that 2011 has been an especially significant year in film. So what exactly set it apart?

Was it Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, the meaning of life questioned through the eyes of a family in the heart of America, juxtaposed with sequences marking the beginning of the universe; a film so ambitious it has been frequently compared to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or was it Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive, an ode to 70's car films and existential protagonists from the French New Wave, starring cemented icon Ryan Gosling, which might be one of the most effortlessly cool movies to come out in recent years. 2011 also saw very well-established directors - Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Wim Wenders - expanding their sensibilities and trying out 3D for the first time (in Hugo, The Adventures of Tintin and Pina respectively). Woody Allen, has also made a significant work this year - Midnight In Paris, his 41st film, might be one of the most instantly likeable and accessible films he's ever done. Even critically acclaimed The Artist might be a reason why 2011 has been a special year - the audacity to release a silent film in the 21st century sounds crazy to many, but why not?

Whatever the case, this year was wholly satisfying and diverse - from Captain America, sex addicts, descendants, Iranian immigrants, Marilyn Monroe and evil cults - all subjects are covered. Independent cinema is extremely prevalent these days, as are foreign films (and that's a good thing). Mainstream action flicks are still fairly exciting, if only mildly. And 2011 also taught us that 3D is just one of many tools filmmakers can use to heighten their film, rather than using it as a novelty technique. So while most moviegoers count down the days until Christopher Nolan's magnum opus comes out next year in July, it's great to look back at the wealth of movies 2011 delivered.