I went to see
Hugo
today, and I liked it very much indeed. If you've read the book, some of the details of how things play out have changed, but the overall arc is the same.
One thing that was different, that I liked very much,
was they way they fleshed out the role of the Station Inspector. Sascha Baron Cohen was absolutely wonderful. There were also some other background characters in the station who got their own little arcs that played out gracefully (and almost wordlessly) almost in between breaths.
Do be sure to keep an eye out for an uncredited,
non-speaking appearance by Johnny Depp.
She's been getting some great reviews.
She surprised the hell out of me. I'd written her off as a lightweight.
Like all Lars von Trier films, I suspect there will be a big part of the audience who'll hate it. It's overlong and self-indulgent, and I can't think too hard on what von Trier is saying thematically because it'll probably wig me out. But honestly, the movie was so sumptuous to look at and listen to, I didn't really care.
Anne, I'm glad to hear that the changes to the
Station Inspector's role
are good because I have been frankly dreading that a bit. I was certain they'd go
stereotypical kid's film bad guy since he's kinda written that way already
and just couldn't see how more would be better.
I still haven't see Hugo but plan on taking the kids this week.
Burrell, with regards to
the Station Inspector, things start off as one might expect, but then it branches out in a couple of surprising ways.
I'll be interested to hear what you think.
So most of Dunst's acting talent had been sitting forgotten in a box somewhere since she finished filming Interview with the Vampire, and she recently rediscovered it during a move or something?
Despite how odious I think von Trier is, perhaps he is a good director who can coax excellent performances out of his actors?
I've always liked Kirsten Dunst, starting with The Virgin Suicides. She's been in some clunkers, and been just as bad as the movies, sure, but I've always seen more there. Her character in Eternal Sunshine tends to be ignored, and she certainly isn't as memorable in it as Kate Winslet, but I've always thought she was under-appreciated in that movie - her character is a bit vapid and annoying, but the heartbreaking parts of her role always worked for me. Really, I think she's one of the best parts of that storyline, meaning I think she out-acts more respected actors in the forms of Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood (though not Tom Wilkinson, who is wonderful).
Sure, she didn't do much in Spider-Man, but only the villains ever got to do much there. And Marie Antoinette was a crazy movie, though I actually thought her performance was good there too. But it doesn't surprise me she can transcend, given a movie that allows her to do so.
Plus, Bring It On is awesome.
perhaps he is a good director who can coax excellent performances out of his actors?
Yes, but "coax" is not the right word for how he does it. Most actresses refuse to work with him more than once.
I, too, thought Kirsten Dunst did some lovely nuanced work in Eternal Sunshine -- I'd forgotten about that.
From all accounts, Lars von Trier is a thoroughly unpleasant human being with a crushingly nihilistic world view. Basically, the whole thesis of Melancholia is that
the world is a horrible place beyond salvation and embracing death is the only noble course left to us.
It's just that he decided to present his thesis in this particular movie in a series of beautiful tableaux full of rapturous images. So instead of coming across as bleak, the death wish of the heroine takes on... a kind of voluptuous longing that's quite seductive. It sucked me in for the duration of the movie anyway, and my mind keeps going back to those images, even though I'm more disturbed at what the movie is saying, the longer I have the time to think on it.
