I don't understand.

I saw Hugo again last week, as well as the Descendants. I have previously said that I would write about both of them. But I've sat down and tried on several occasions, and I just can't seem to write anything close to a useful review on either of them.

I can at least understand my trepidation regarding The Descendants; to me it was kind of a listless film, only gaining any sort of shape or interest in the last twenty or thirty minutes. I can't say that it's a bad movie, but it just seemed...there, without anything for the viewer to latch onto. I try not to dismiss slow movies as boring, but...I found most of it boring, and the worst part is I can't express why. The characters just don't break out of the familiar character types (Dad who doesn't know what to do with daughters, The Troublesome Daughter, The Innocent Daughter, Hippie Family Friends, Derpy Boyfriend, Girl that is every fear about tweens today personified) enough to be interesting, although the actors try hard. Combined with some truly uninspired plot points (the whole issue of the Hawaiian land doesn't mesh well with the rest of the narrative, and why does Sid hang around for the entire movie again?), I honestly can't figure out how to talk about this film in a constructive manner. The bottom line is that I found a cat playing with string more engaging than most of the film, I don't understand all the praise for this film, and my apathy regarding it makes me feel unqualified to write something useful on it.

And then we have Hugo. I saw it in 2D back in December. I definitely enjoyed it more than The Descendants, and it's a film I would recommend to literally anyone, but both times I saw it, I had a baffling absence of feeling about it. Sometimes I think I'm disappointed with it, but there's no line of thinking to back that theory up. Sometimes I think I just wasn't in a great mood when I watched it, but I saw it twice, what more should I need? I don't think I've ever had so much trouble saying something useful on a film, and I'm at an utter loss.

I can't even say this is a symptom of some sort of general film apathy or even a general mood problem; I certainly had something to say about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which I also saw recently. As I said, Hugo is definitely worth watching, if for nothing else, for the parallel between the celebration of the birth of the moving image and Scorsese's exploration into 3D cinematography. But something is missing, either in the film or in me, and I can't figure out what.

So what is an amateur reviewer to do?