Hugo

[acsc1312]

I'm going to see this again this week (this time in 2D). It's 5 bucks at my local theater.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Immersive, beautiful, touching, exciting. The best movie of 2011.

[rockNrollaDIM]

Well just came back....A-

I've cooled on this in recent days. That's my best yardstick for judging a film, how long after it stays with me. Despite being very well done, touching and sentimental, it simply didn't resonate with me in a big way. Maybe the 3D ruined it for me. Revising down to a B+. Edited December 17, 2011 by rockNrollaDIM

[Water Bottle]

A-

It has quite a few of flaws, but still their all minor flaws. A pretty great film-visually stunning and frankly got better as it went along.

[ladyevenstar22]

i just came back from theatre where i saw "hugo" i give it an A in the poll, but to me it was an A-nobody told me , ok i didnt read anywhere what it was exactly about except some kinda biographical film of scorsese childhoodi had no idea this film and the artist have so much in common, both are celebrations or ode to the beginnings of the movie industry, both are french to a degree, one's american but setting in paris , the other french but set in hollywood ,both ground zero for movie making magic!i liked it , but not as much as the artist, i found it a bit didactic, like i was listening to a history lesson(i love history lessons BTW) the kids acting was not terrible except for ben kingsley who gives an impressive performance, for some reason the trailer gave me impression that the kid was going to go through this magical door opened by the mechanical automate which i kept looking for silly me!i think its all in the angle each director chose to tell his storyall in all both are excellent films, i'm glad i've seen both and that it hasnt changed my mind about artist as BP!one thing i have to say is you cannot deny scorsese love of movie-making ,its history and the process

[glassfairy]

B.Maybe my heart is too icy because I felt nothing. Technically I can find little fault. The movie was well directed, the cinematography was excellent and the 3D was very well done. But the only character I cared anything for was Sacha Baron Cohen's. I only wish he had caught Hugo and sent him to the orphanage because that kid annoyed the hell out of me (and that little boy's acting was so uneven, sometimes he nailed the scenes and sometimes he was so bad even Disney Channel wouldn't hire him). I will say I also very much enjoyed the silent movie clips even though that part of the storyline had me rolling my eyes. Golly gee, the ~magic~ of the movies! Gag me with a spoon.And that automaton... that was some creepy shit

[IndustriousAngel]

ABeautifully realised, in a kind of hyper-realism reminding me of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The acting was uneven, as already mentioned (the best parts were the dogs) but the imagery, light and sets were brilliant and I found the story touching. Much as "The Artist", it's also a love declaration to the medium film. The only question is why they wanted to do this as a children's film? This is adult fare; the bitter taste and death theme won't please most kids. If the goal was to present the beginnings of filmmaking to children, the straight approach would have served much better (see the scene with Tabard as a child - that's what I mean).I really liked S.B.Cohen here; hope he does more work in "classical" cinema, he's got an impressive presence on the screen. Ben Kingsley is ok; sadly, his role is very limited. If this was an "adult" film, Meliès could have been a much more present and tragic character; as it is, Kingsley is a bit wasted here. Christopher Lee commands the screen whenever he looks into the camera - I expected his character to have a bigger role.Wholehearted recommendation for everyone in love with cinema! We'll buy this one on Bluray.

[TheMovieman]

Watched this the other day and while it's well made, I don't know, I just didn't have any kind of emotional response to it. The story is fine and the acting is good especially from the always reliable Ben Kingsley but otherwise it's kind of forgettable. Anyway, while not nearly a home run for Scorsese, still at least a good movie.

***¾ / *****, (B+, 7.5/10, 3/4)

[Webslinger]

One of my favorites from 2011. Absolutely magical.

A

[Noctis]

It's definitely beautiful to look at; the cinematography and production design are top-notch. I have a certain fondness for films that take place in the nineteen hundreds. I'm not sure why, but whenever I think of that time period, I always envision young people taking on the world and following their dreams.

.

So, Hugo, a fantasy film following the journey of two children in an incredibly romantic time and place that deals with the history of film should have been something I thoroughly enjoyed, right? No, that wasn't the case, unfortunately. There was never a moment of urgency in the film, and I could not feel much connection to the kids. While I wouldn't say I was bored, I can definitely say that I would not have cared if it had just stopped playing.

You can feel Martin's passion in this film, there is no denying that, but the story and execution carried very little weight despite a lot going on (a part of this has to do with the main lead's performance which was occasionally pretty bad). There were definitely scenes that were enjoyable, though (particularly the last fifteen minutes where we saw the films being played), and Helen McCrory was a delight.

It's a fine film, and manages to keep you relatively interested due to mostly the visuals and the last fifteen minutes, but it didn't have that "oomph" I was hoping for.

B-

Edited April 23, 2012 by Noctis

[Bond Bug]

Is this the most stupid movie review ever?

I have read that Hugo is a 3D family movie suitable for all age groups. I am not sure why some people are saying it is unlike other movies made by Martin Scorsese. So with that in mind I am taking my notepad with me tonight when I see it, and will give feedback tomorrow when I update my blog.

Blog Update –

Okay, so I saw Hugo in 3D last night and I can report the differences between this Martin Scorsese movie and his previous work. I am going to compare it to Taxi Driver, Mean Streets and The Departed.

If I had to choose one difference, I would have to say that Hugo has the inconvenience of having to wear special 3D glasses to see it, but with the other films you can wear regular glasses. The glasses they provided weren't even stylish! Also the other films are available on DVD, but Hugo isn’t. So that is two things about Hugo that are not as good as Scorsese’s earlier work. Another big difference is Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and The Departed all have two words in their titles and Hugo has only one. Also Mean Streets is 112 minutes long, Taxi Driver is 113 minutes long, The Departed is 151 minutes long and Hugo is 128 minutes long.

To sum up, if you are anyone from a small child to an ancient and you enjoyed Hugo, and would like to a similar movie by the same director without the inconvenience of having to wear special glasses or the inconvenience of it not being available on DVD, I would recommend you see Taxi Driver, The Departed or Mean Streets. Next time I give a talk to film students at a local college I will be discussing this with them.

A large bucket of popcorn.

http://popcornwithca...first-post.html

Edited April 2, 2012 by Bond Bug

[Ezen Baklattan]

I think (well, I certainly hope) that that critic is being sarcastic.

[lab276]

How could they possibly be not sarcastic?

[BK007]

It's definitely beautiful to look at; the cinematography and production design are top-notch. I have a certain fondness for films that take place in the nineteen hundreds. I'm not sure why, but whenever I think of that time period, I always envision young people taking on the world and following their dreams.

.

So, Hugo, a fantasy film following the journey of two children in an incredibly romantic time and place that deals with the history of film should have been something I thoroughly enjoyed, right? No, that wasn't the case, unfortunately. There was never a moment of urgency in the film, and I could not feel any connection to the kids. While I wouldn't say I was bored, I can definitely say that I would not have cared if it had just stopped playing.

You can feel Martin's passion in this film, there is no denying that, but the story and execution carried very little weight despite a lot going on (a part of this has to do with the main lead's performance which was occasionally pretty bad). There were definitely scenes that were enjoyable, though (particularly the last fifteen minutes where we saw the films being played), and Helen McCrory was a delight.

It's a fine film, and manages to keep you relatively interested due to mostly the visuals, but it didn't have that "oomph" I was hoping for.

B/B-

Although I wouldn't say 1900s since I'm not sure I've actually watched many films taking place in the time period, I also seem to really love seeing settings at least 50 years old. You're right, I have the impression that people out to see the world or try live their dreams back then would have been so rewarding. It seems like a great time to live honestly, yeah excluding the obvious World Wars and such. Maybe it's culture that the world has been steadily losing.

I also love Paris and I absolutely adored the scenes in this film where they pan over the city or have Hugo in his humble abode.

But, this really is highly overrated. It's not really an ode to filmmaking as it is an ode to Melies, and it isn't very interesting at that being fictionalized into a pretend children's story, which it is not, because Hugo's storyline is uninvolving and forgettable. The tonal shift should have been worked in and not thrown like a wrench.

[lab276]

Ordinary. The film history stuff in it is fascinating, but the rest of the film falls flat. It felt kind of disjointed overall. It's also very orange and blue which I thought everyone hated, and yet it won for Best Cinematography.B

[Jack Nevada]

Not a fan. Gorgeous but flat2,5/5

[BiffMan]

Best use of 3D as a story-enhancement device rather than just for yucks.  I was sort of just along for the ride on this one until near the end when Michael Stuhlbarg stole the show (much as he did in MiB3) with his appreciation for Melies and that completely hooked me.  Ending is sappy but incredibly satisfying and a great payoff.

 

A-

Edited February 18, 2013 by BiffMan

[Noctis]

The story only comes alive in the last fifteen minutes. It's a technically brilliant film but emotionally hollow. 

[luna]

a glorious, fantastical celebration of cinema that is hammed up a little by a bit of (probably intentional) overwrought schmaltz that i think perhaps removes from the emotional impact. lovely steampunk aesthetic. 

B

Edited August 23, 2013 by lisa

[Goffe]

Overrated. Good visuals, good music, good 3D, good acting, but unfortunately boring story. B-