Hugo (*****)

At last, Martin Scorsese has made a film that is both perfect and accessible to every age group. This is Scorsese's first PG movie in almost 20 years, though there is no doubt that with Hugo he is at the top of his game. Yes, he defined the 'gangster' genre and has notoriety in blood and violence, but with Hugo he has possibly made one of the best films of his career.

The premise is simple enough. Based on an intriguing book, Hugo Cabret is a boy who's father died, leaving behind an automaton in a state of repair. Hugo now works in a train station, living in the walls and maintaining the clocks. No one knows he lives there, in fact he is almost like a phantom. The automaton, a human-like robot with an extreme amount of intricacy and the ability to write messages, is the main goal for Hugo. If he could fix this robot, perhaps he would find a message from his late father that could give him some sort of comfort.

The train station is also home to George Melies, an older, mysterious man who runs a toy shop. His granddaughter, Isabelle, befriends Hugo and ultimately helps form a relationship that reveals Melies to be a man tormented by his past. Once a great director of movies, his collection of almost 500 films is believed to have been lost. Through Hugo, Melies is able to rediscover his past and step out of the gloom of his current state.

Scorsese is known to have an eye for discovering new talent (Robert DeNiro, Leonardo Dicaprio), and with Asa Butterfield playing Hugo, he has discovered a star. His performance is equally on-par with any other performer in the film, even Ben Kingsley as Melies, whose performance is beautifully-nuanced and heartbreaking. These two single-handedly carry the film.

Aside from being one of the most regarded directors in history, Scorsese is also widely known to be a well-versed film historian. Here he manages to use his passions to only made Hugo that much more special of a film. Through extended sequences the audience sees actual Melies films, as well as the behind-the-scenes work that went into them. He also references other films from the beginning of this era of cinema. We learn about one of the first movies ever, one that simply shows a train coming towards the screen. Audiences were said to have screamed and ducked out of the way for fear of being hit. Comical by today's standards, but to understand that Scorsese does the same thing with his use of 3D as a train plummets through a busy train station. Briliance. Or to see Harold Lloyd famously hanging from the arms of a clock, only to see Hugo in the same position later in the film. It is this level of craft, layering, and thought that went into Hugo that truly helps it to become a masterpiece.

Yes, I said it. Hugo is a masterpiece. The best film of the year so far and undeniably Martin Scorsese's most personal film to date. The talent and craft presented are all at the top of their game. This is one of those unique movie-going experiences where you leave not only entertained, but invigorated to learn and see more.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Butterfield), Best Supporting Actor (Kingsley), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (****)

After 11 years, the Harry Potter saga has come to an end. Through ups and downs, we have witnessed the maturing of three actors before our very eyes, and finally we must say goodbye. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II may not be the best movie of the series (in my opinion) but it makes up for most flaws with great acting and a sharp narrative which zips forward at lightning speed.

Picking up immediately from the last moments of Part I, Harry, Ron, & Hermione leave the cottage at the beach on a whim to find another horocrux, this time in Bellatrix Lestrange's bank vault. The book records weeks of planning to break in, while the film presents it as though it all happened in an afternoon. While the performance of Helena Bonham Carter is humorous as Hermione, I felt as though enough time was not spent developing the scene for it to reach its full effect. The Gringotts scene, likewise, rolls through and is soon gone, with barely enough time for audiences to ask when the goblins had transformed from the first film into more deformed Hobbits now.

Soon they arrive in Hogwarts, and rightly so, as the bulk of the film is spent on the long-awaited battle, which is deservedly praised and well-filmed. Seeing nearly all the characters from past films, no matter how fleeting, was an incredible treat if only to realize the impressive lineup of accomplished actors these films have had. Among them is Maggie Smith, who steals every scene she is in and delivers applause-worthy one liners.

Severus Snape, as played by Alan Rickman, is perhaps the most talked-about performance of the film. Although it appears Rickman has put on weight and a bit more eyeshadow, his final moments in the film are beautifully-acted and powerful pieces of acting. Any other year, Rickman could potentially be a dark horse for an Oscar nomination, but I believe the early release date and genre will prevent any such upset.

Of course the films are not without their flaws, I for one constantly noting how diluted the original writings of JK Rowling are from book to screen. Of course they can't fit everything in, but to loyal readers, some of the choices of inclusion and exclusion more often than not detract from the final film. For one who has not read a single Harry Potter book, this could potentially be a flawless film, who knows. I personally found Part I to be a more rewarding and better-made film, but that's just me. I know people who think differently. There's no right answer.

Technically the film is great, with the destruction of Hogwarts representing some of the best sets of the year. Alexandre Desplat, film composer, finishes his work with the films, having scored both Part I & II. I believe his score for the first film could have easily been an Oscar contender, but don't expect this score to win. Too much of John William's original score from Sorcerer's Stone is interspersed for it to truly be considered 'original,' though that should not be interpreted as derogatory; Desplat ends the series on a high note

At long last, the film has come and gone, and we can finally look back on one impressive film series - in fact THE most successful film series in history, grossing over $7 billion worldwide. Yes, these figures are impressive, but to readers, the simple joy of seeing the beloved books come to life is amazing enough. While Harry Potter has not fared too well at the Oscars thus far (a combined 9 nominations with no wins so far). I doubt the film has enough credibility to produce an actual win (perhaps in Visual Effects or Art Direction) though there have definitely been times in Oscar's past where Harry Potter was ominously overlooked for gold. Overall a wonderful film and a great conclusion to a truly magical series.

(Awards potential: Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Beginners (****1/2)

Beginners is a movie that caught me off guard. From the brief things I had heard about it prior to seeing it, I understood it to be the story of an elderly man finally coming out of the closet. While that is most true, the film is instead about his son, played by Ewan McGregor, and the effects of his relationship with his parents and his own personal relationships. Told through a non-linear narrative, the film is brilliantly executed and one of the more unique movies of the year.

Ewan McGregor is a graphic designer collecting his life after his father's sudden death from lung cancer. He leads a solitary life, adopting his father's dog and talking to him as though he's a human. At times, the dog's thoughts are even subtitled. The film is in no means a representation of reality, rather the flawed perspective of McGregor. One scene in particular shows the son remembering his father coming out as gay, wearing a purple sweater. However, he soon remembers he was wearing a bathrobe instead. We see flashbacks of his eccentric mother, though what can we believe is true and what are simple fabrications?

Christopher Plummer, fresh off his first Oscar nomination for The Last Station is in top form. After a marriage of 40 years, we see a man finally grasp the self he has long hid away. We see him finding a young boyfriend, joining gay groups and making friends, even learning what 'house music' is. It is not necessarily a 'showy' performance, but Plummer captures every nuance perfectly. I would expect him to garner his second consecutive Supporting Actor nomination, and it would be completely deserved.

Plummer fills a small part of the film, with the rest focusing on McGregor and a choppy relationship with the quirky and dark Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds). I believe the film could have only been stronger had it focused more time on this unique father & son relationship as opposed to a more generic romance. This is not to discredit such a unique screenplay, merely suggest a small flaw.

Yes, Beginners is a film you have probably not heard of, but is is certainly a film that deserves a larger audience. Now out on DVD, I would recommend going out and buying your own. Brilliant movie, brilliant story, brilliant acting.

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actor (Plummer), Best Original Screenplay)

The Ides of March (***1/2)

George Clooney continues to prove himself as an able filmmaker behind the camera. His attention to pacing is subtle and the performances he is able to draw out of his actors (not to mention his own) are astonishing. Yet all the while while watching The Ides of March, I couldn't help but think that maybe this film just barely missed the mark.

George Clooney plays Mike Morris, a Democratic presidential candidate who is battling out a close race for the Ohio primaries. Stephen Meyers is his Junior Campaign Manager, played by Ryan Gosling. Meyers is a determined and unwavering young man who's work is instilled with a sense of pride. Both Morris and the rival candidate are seeking endorsements from an Ohio Senator. Whoever wins the endorsement would essentially win the nomination.

Paul Giamatti, a campaign manager for the other nominee, offers Meyers a job in their campaign, which Meyers insistently refuses. Not wanting to give away much more of the plot, the lead up to the climax is one of complete chaos and misery, for both Meyers as well as his boss, Mike Morris.

The film opens and closes with a concise bookend feel, and the ending note is one of loss and corruption, but the film has a wonderful pull that keeps the audience engaged, even though the majority of the film is simply that of a discussion of politics. The performances are all wonderful, with notable praise going to Ryan Gosling, who explores more darker material than he has in the past. The screenplay is cleverly written and the film is edited fine. But that's just it, it's simply just a 'fine' movie. There is definitely the chance for a few nominations, but to me, this film feels more like a thriller suited for an early Spring release. There, movies don't feel the need to compete to win awards, they simply exist to prove filmmaking can be solid all year round. The Ides of March doesn't strike me as a film that is bound to win a plethora of awards, but that doesn't mean it's any less of a good movie.

(Awards potential: Best Director, Best Actor (Gosling), Best Supporting Actor (Hoffman, Giamatti, Clooney), Best Adapted Screenplay)

J Edgar (****1/2)

Clint Eastwood has been trudging down a questionable road in his recent filmmaking, as such I was hesitant to see J Edgar, his latest film about the late Director of the FBI, but coming out of the theater, I was enthralled and astonished. Here is perhaps not Eastwood's finest achievement behind the camera, but it can surely be ranked right up there with his best.

The film is told in flashbacks, flash forwards, voice over, memories, and other such filmic devices, all working to create the world J Edgar Hoover himself envisioned. Spanning upwards of 6 decades, we see the time from Hoover's initial hiring at the Bureau right up to his sudden death. Written by Dustin Lance Black, Oscar-winning screenwriter of Milk, the film has a slow but meticulous pacing, even though it stretches over 2 hours in length.

Leonardo DiCaprio, one of the world's most accomplished actors, is unsurprisingly excellent in the role. Aside from the shocking makeup work used on all the main actors, DiCaprio disappears in the performance, with his accent and nuances very much thought out and crafted. At times I was distracted by his acting, perhaps it comes across as a bit melodramatic, or even a bit too Oscar-friendly. As we know, Clint Eastwood has a very good friendship with the Academy Awards - this film looks to be no exception.

The stand out performance of the film, though, is Armie Hammer, fresh off last year's The Social Network. Here he plays Clyde Tolson, first-hand man for Hoover and eventual lover. His elegant poise and charm elevate the scenes he is in, and though his aging makeup is potentially overdone, his mannerisms in old age are uncanny and wholly believable. Naomi Watts also gives a beautiful, albeit limited, performance as Hoover's personal secretary. Were she given more screen time, I believe her performance could have been astonishing.

Much controversy surrounded the film's depiction of Hoover's homosexuality. Afterall, it was commonly known that he and Tolson were together, not to mention unspeculated rumors of cross-dressing. The film remains un exploitative and is tasteful in its presentation of their relationship. No more than a kiss or two is shared between the two men on screen, and yet their love is never doubted. Dustin Lance Black has obviously had experience dealing with historically gay men, but this time sexual orientation is not the film's concern. Rather, it is the portrayal of J Edgar Hoover as a power-hungry and flawed individual, slipping closer and closer to the edge in his later years.

Can DiCaprio finally win his long-awaited Oscar for this film? It certainly seems like a possibility. After all, if there's anything Oscar loves it's historical performances of gay individuals with personality flaws and unusual accents. The film stretches on with an epic feel yet is poignant in its subject matter. While the reviews this far have been polarizing, I found J Edgar to be a cinematic marvel.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actor (Hammer), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup)