Movies: 19854 | TV Series: 3309 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 74862 GB
|IMDB Rating:||7.9 out of 10 (69354 votes)|
|Hugo (iPod)||Resolution: 480x320 px||Total Size: 354 Mb||
|Hugo (DivX)||Resolution: 640x480 px||Total Size: 655 Mb|
Hugo is an orphan boy living in the walls of a train station in 1930s Paris. He learned to fix clocks and other gadgets from his father and uncle which he puts to use keeping the train station clocks running. The only thing that he has left that connects him to his dead father is an automaton (mechanical man) that doesnt work without a special key which Hugo needs to find to unlock the secret he believes it contains. On his adventures, he meets with a shopkeeper, George Melies, who works in the train station and his adventure-seeking god-daughter. Hugo finds that they have a surprising connection to his father and the automaton, and he discovers it unlocks some memories the old man has buried inside regarding his past.
This year a blossoming homage to the genesis of the film industry hasprogressed into raptures for film aficionados and filmmakers (twofront-runners of the imminent Oscar, THE ARTIST, which I have yet towatch, and HUGO have aimed at B&W silent film and innovator GeorgesMÃ©liÃ¨s respectively). Martin Scorsese stews this $170,000,000 budgeted1930s Paris Gare Montparnasse train station adventure feature in analmost immaculate way, and for the generation which may not bestupefied by Georges MÃ©liÃ¨s' A TRIP TO THE MOON (Le voyage dans la lune1902), for sure they will worship Hugo as a pristine monumentalmilestone for the new era of film business. I saw it in a 2D versionand plan to watch the 3D version inconveniently double-bespectacledly. Don't be deceived by its fairytale sphere, a PG rating for Scorsese isa soft ball and none like any other adult-prone masterpieces. But thethrill and tension is still copious and similar to another gem of my2011 9-out-of-10 league THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, both represent theparamount expectation from a true film master to bake a nutritious mealwhich is able to assuage everyone's appetite, and both Scorsese andSpielberg have done that this year!Juxtaposing with fellow New Yorker Woody Allen's love letter to Paris(MIDNIGHT IN Paris 2011). Scorsese has accomplished a more imposing oneto the witchcraft of the whole film system at its very beginning, whichembodies in the up-and-down career of Georges MÃ©liÃ¨s, and itaccompanies Hugo and us to the journey of the pure magic. The retro-setting of the train station is majestic and jaw-dropping,and Howard Shore's fluently enchanting score is the cream of 2011, buta colossal budget has impeded its Oscar's path since its lackluster boxoffice, $61,911,429 so far (which I cannot figure out the reason why? Amishap of a Christmas season decision?) signifies that it will never beprofitable and even impractical to make ends meet. And another Achillesheel is it bears zero acting nomination, which I put Asa Butterfield inmy leading actor category (2nd to George Clooney so far) and hedelivers his grit magnificently in his feeble appearance, as for BenKingsley, not as splendid as I hoped, at least he sits comfortablyabove Jonah Hill from MONEYBALL in my supporting actor list.
Scorsese's exuberant, magical odyssey transports audiences to the dawn of cinema.
One of the year's very best, Hugo is a rousing, moving, poignant tale being told on many more levels than what is seen on screen.
This is one of the most amazingly filmed movies I've seen in a whilebut lacked story in certain parts. I enjoyed watching the boy Hugo run,jump, and slide is way around that train station were he grew up butthey seemed to focus on that rather than the story at times. i would'veloved to seen a little more of the boy and is father too rather thanBorat limping around the train station after little boys which wasfunny at times. I absolutely loved the old films in the movie how theypainted the film to make it color and the moon it was awesome! Overallother than the negative things I said I enjoyed the movie definitelywouldn't buy it but a fun watch nun the less.
This is a VERY pretty film with a lovely little story. Unfortunatelythat story does not start until about half an hour into the film. Weare treated to one spectacular visual effect after another until Ibegan to wonder whether there was actually going to be a story at all.There are some lovely little cameos from the likes of Christopher Lee,Richard Griffiths & Frances de la Tour. However, Maximillian stole theshow for me and the kids.It's feel is deliberately old fashioned, with an old fashioned simplestory, character studies and gentle moral message.Re-make the first half an hour into 5 minutes and this could have beena great film.
story: Hugo is an orphan boy living in the walls of a train station inthe 1930s in Paris. He fixes clocks and other gadgets as he learned tofrom his father and uncle. The only thing that he has left thatconnects him to his father is an automaton that doesn't work. Now hereis the kind of film that divides the audience into two equal halves.The decision weather the film is good or bad depends completely onone's point of view. On one hand, it is something more than just avisual treat. It is film making at a whole new level (cinematography nvfx wise). this film is a craft that only an artist can understand.Whereas, on the other hand, it is an empty candy wrapper. It is void,null, blank, hollow and similar adjectives. Both are right according totheir point of view !Unfortunately, i fall in the 2nd category......the adventure which themovie screams about is non existent. Movie just goes on at a constantpace without an iota of fluctuation. film is catastrophic in the sensethat almost entire film is shot in a train station(only a part ofstation), repeated loops of same imagery makes one feel nauseated. Mainstoryline is hardly of any interest. Its just plain dull. the characterof HUGO and Isabella are unlikable and underdeveloped. they just lacksthe punch. Its like gazing into an A4. In simple words 'it is boring ashell' ! For the storyline part, it is in 2 parts. (spoilers) 1st partis the first three lines of this review. 2nd part is about a depressedand broke film maker who want to forget about his past. Had the film isabout only the 2nd part, i would have given it a 10/10 and maybeentitle it as a masterpiece. Trust me It was that good ! Apart fromthat, probably the best ever looking film i'v seen in last 3- 4 years.Visuals, art direction, cinematography -> every single frame isspeechless stuff. It is beautiful! like an imagery which forms in yourmind when you read a novel or a story book....something that can't beexpressed practically. I can go on and on about it but that would onlymake this review long. best characters: station inspector and Georgesmelies(film maker). For me, it is epitome of beauty and i can't imaginea more beautiful movie than this one. I Bow before you Sir. Scorsese,you will always be the greatest director ever born on earth.Apart fromthat, as i said, It is an empty candy wrapper ! ps: went in with noexpectations and presumptions. Unadulterated review !
Movie magic hangs in the air of Martin Scorsese's Hugo, much like the steam and dust that fills almost every frame.
Spoilers ahead.Ben Kingsley's character is supposed to be Georges MÃ©liÃ¨s, movie makerof ancient times. Orphan child is orphan child. And the automatonorphan child inherited from his father belongs to MÃ©liÃ¨s, thusproviding the glue for those two story lines. A potential third storyline - that of the father - isn't developed at all and ends in nirvana.And that's all there is.Now, I'm sure everybody agrees that Scorcese's turned clown and lostall street creds since he and de Niro stopped working together. Thelast debacle of his I'm recalling right now being "Shutter Island". Butwith this lifeless junk piece he's sure hitting a new - and rare - low.Rare across all of movie history, as I'm aware of.If you're into this kind of film rather stick to Polanski's "OliverTwist". THAT film bears signs of the hand of a "maestro", plus it'shaving an actual, entertaining story line.Just threw my "Taxi Driver" DVD into the bin, after trampling it tobits and giving it a good shower. Feeling kind of ashamed for everthinking that this fraud could have had some talent.Strongly hope that this has been the last we've seen of Scorcese.Farewell, loser. And before you do, please give me my money back.
I like the movies because the tribute to Georges MÃ©liÃ¨s and thecinematographic museum in Paris. Henri Langlois is rescuer of theirprofile and promote the french movies.Be possible to have images lives in him and their automate, likesomething symbolic, so in the pictures and come back to their illusionafter disillusions. Hugo, is not a master piece, but is fantasy and magic movie make senseto the movie.Martin Scorsese is good in this film, so many times have bloody andviolent, and in this fantasy is good and being studied.a greeting
If you're reading my review, either you know of Carlos Zafon's booksand you are compelled by my reference or you haven't got a clue of whatam i talking about and so you're curious to see why i posted a titlelike that.If you know of Carlos Zafon's books and you're still here reading this,chances are that you absolutely loved his novels such as "The Shadow ofthe Wind"',"Angel's Game" and "Marina", at the most.So...if just by me mentioning Zafon's "The Shadow of the Wind" isenough for you to recall that haunted, poetic and beautiful atmospherefrom his books, well strangely enough it's all here exactly like thatin this Scorcese movie !Â Because...Watching Hugo is like reading theCarlos Ruiz Zafon book he never wrote but could have written and thisis very hard to explain to people who haven't experienced this filmknowing about novels like "The Shadow of the Wind".Â The way the plot feels almost non existent if you're expecting it to belike a typical Hollywood movie where everything has to be explained ,defined and mixed with action scenes every ten minutes. The way itcreates a magical world based on real places as Scorcese does withParis in the movie what Zafon does it with Barcelona in his novels. Theway characters are all weaved into the atmosphere of the place andalthough their stories don't need to touch they are all part of thesame magical universe, which has magic without the need to havetraditional fairytale or fantasy stuff in. Christopher Lee in thismovie plays exactly the same character you can find in Zafons novel ,The Shadow of the Wind as the secret library book keeper!!Â So what does this all mean if you're just a casual movie goer, don'tlike to read and you're expecting Hugo to be like a typical actionpacked fantasy movie for kids ?... Well , it isn't, you've been fooledby the trailer and Hugo is not the new Harry Potter. Deal with it ! Bysaying this i really cannot believe that so many people attack Hugohere in IMDb, mostly because they though the trailer mislead them.You're fooled, so what ? Why throw your anger at the movie because somewise guy at the marketing department sold it as something that is not ?Why cant these angry reviewers just try to enjoy this movie for what itis ?! A fantastic but most of all - a different (!!) Hollywood moviecoming out of studios that usually just throw another brainlessTransformer (or clone) at you every other weekend.There's nothing wrong with the plot in Hugo. It's simple but itsincredibly well done and contrary to what some bad reviews said, it wasa joy to follow the (obvious) mystery, because the magic in this moviewas not in th mystery or in he suspense scenes (much less in the actionscenes) , but in the general ensemble final atmosphere that everylittle piece of the visual puzzle created. Sets, characters, world andlove for the cinema. Also, i didn't think this is a movie for kids, orat least its not a kids movie for sure. Its just a movie with kids init ! And probably one of the best and most beautiful looking movies iever seen. If you like illustration or you're an illustrator you'lllove this film to death. Its a visual steam-punk masterpiece.Contrary to what some other reviewers felt, personally, i cannotcompare it to Cinema Paradiso because for me the real footage fromMeliÃ©s movies didn't affected me at all with the same dramatic punchTornatore's movie did at the end and so to me if there was somethingmissing from Hugo was a bit of emotion and also character developmentbecause in some parts of the movie i wanted to see more of the manycharacters and little stories but they're never fully developed.Â But iliked the little touches, i was captivated by the small glimpses oflove-stories and really liked Sacha Baron Choen character which to meis really the heart of the movie in a strange kind of way that maybeshouldn't have been like that.Overall i think this is a fantastic and unique movie and one of thebest American love letters to cinema I've ever seen. I wished it couldbe as emotional as Cinema Paradiso but it isn't and that is the onlyreason i don't give it ten stars. Otherwise its brilliant, poetic andbeautiful in more than one way.Â Although i agree a little bit with people who said the documentarystyle stuff stalls the plot and makes some parts of Hugo seem like theybelong in a different movie. I agree that was not a good choice byScorcese and to me th repetition of those bits in the second half ofthe story really toned down the dramatic effect and shouldn't have beendone like that at all.Â Â The way the real footage was inserted felt toointrusive and split the movie in pieces for too many seconds severaltimes when it needed to create more empathy with the audience and thecharacters. Anyway... If you don't go into it expecting the usualHollywood crap blockbuster you'll enjoy the way the story is weaved.Above all if you like books and have a passion for cinema you wontforget Hugo so soon.
Hugo is a beautifully made movie with great 3D effects. Yet with themisleading advertising, the story that goes nowhere, and with over 2hour runtime it is one hell of a boring movie.Please do not believe 8.3 IMDb and 94% RT ratings, this movie one ofthe most overrated movies in the history of the film, the word'history' is the key one here. When everything is said and done Hugoreveals itself as nothing but a cleverly disguised homage to one of theFrench pioneering movie directors, a subject interesting primarily forthe movie history buffs.As I said Hugo is hugely misrepresented in advertising. Every postertells you that some Narnia type adventure is awaiting you. All thetrailers were masterfully crafted to leave you with expectation ofmagical miracle. The words like 'quest' and 'mystery' are a part ofHugo's brief description on each and every site, just read what it sayson IMDb. Furthermore the word "adventure" is lavishly sprinkledthroughout the Hugo's first part. And yes, great Martin Scorsese isbehind all of it, so what should you expect but a magical adventure ona grandeur scale ? Sorry, you will get none of that. Yes, Hugo is like a charming 3DFrench postcard, but its not worth looking at for over 2 hours. 3Deffects are well done, yet absolutely not required for this story thatnever leaves the setting of Paris train station.While plot has some holes, the elephant in the room is that pretty muchnothing happens in the movie with all these mechanical dolls, goldenkeys, and the visually rich Dickensian atmosphere. And be sure, thereis absolutely no magic, or any type of adventure hidden here.I am giving Hugo just one star to counter misleading ads and all thosehypists that ether work for the studio, or easily hypnotized by bigdirector's name. Please have few good games on your smartphone andbring a thermos with coffee if you decide to go see this snoozefest,you will need it.
This movie is astonishingly beautiful.No wonder it won 5 Academy awardsincluding best cinematography n best visual effects.It was evennominated for best motion picture of the year.Set in Paris,this movie is much more of a fantasy tour with all thetrains,steam,clocks,gears,mechanical robot and what not!!!!For thecomplete 2 hours,I didn't feel for a sec that this was going off-track.This movie has been adopted from one of the Brian Selznick's novel. Thechild actors did a promising role.I loved the movie for it's detailsand minute specs.The movie very clearly delivers the idea of the"golden age of modern cinema".It takes us through the production ofvery first motion pictures,use of cameras,theater,cultural art etc.The movie shows excellent work of an artist who built his fortune incinema,illusions,theater n magic and how he was forced to destroy allhis work due to the war.The war showed people the reality,so they nolonger seemed interested in his fantasy world.A cinema fan would definitely love it.It is a simple,beautiful carvedout children movie with poignant story.The visuals n innocence of childactors will indeed touch your heart.Don't miss it.It wouldn't disappoint you for sure!!!!
Even to say that "Hugo" is visually stunning is a tremendousunderstatement. It would be so anyway but with the beautiful 3D effectit really is an outstanding accomplishment. The city of Paris is shownin lovely sweeping shots as snow flakes drift toward the ground. Thetrain station itself is an architectural masterpiece and takes on alife of its own as Hugo navigates its deep recesses with an easyfinesse. The shopkeepers, passengers, and police who traverse thestation daily make for excellent people watching for Hugo, who managesto find sustenance one way or another during their distractions. Theseefforts finally land him in trouble with the somewhat comical, somewhatvillainous child hating gendarme who patrols the station. Hugo is thekind of boy who makes a normal human being want to give him areassuring hug and take him under their wing. As you watch hisstruggle, you can't help but hope for a happy ending.
Once again this school holidays we have another family film pesteringserious moviegoers to be seen because of its impressive line-up oftalent on both sides of the camera, its dazzlingly positive reviews,its boastful incorporation of weighty concepts and its self-professedwidespread appeal. People eventually discard their misgivings and hopand board because they feel that they would otherwise be missing out onsomething important. Unfortunately, the film usually disappoints assoon as the audience begins critically examine this critically-laudedfilm and finds its story to rife with revolting clichÃ©s, its themesplucked from easy and overused targets, such as World War 2, and itsuniversality entirely dependent on the younger viewers misunderstandingthe true substance of the piece.For these deficiencies, the critics always make the excuse that onemust re-enter that state of childlike acceptance of the preposterous inorder to fully appreciate the film. However, they condemn those that dowatch films in this same mindset when writing about the way they flockheedlessly to summer blockbusters. It often seems that reviewers justarbitrarily pick out one of the many hackneyed and saccharine familyfilms and refer to them as "heart-warming".Hugo, however, doesn't ask forgiveness for anything. All it requires ofus is two hours of our time to show all the spectacular tricks it canperform. Adapted from Brian Selznick's book The Adventures of HugoCabret is a film in two indistinct halves: one simple, slow andenigmatic, elevated by astonishing visuals, the other more pacey andfascinatingly complex, with more of a focus on story; one exploring thewonders of machinery, the other delving into the rich world of earlycinema.Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is one of the many orphans left in theaftermath of the Great War, now scraping out an existence stealing foodfrom the shops of a Parisian train station and dwelling inside andsecretly operating the intricate workings of the enormous clock towerthat overlooks the busy swarm of passengers boarding the trains to workeach day. He is constantly dodging and living in fear of the ruthlessstation insepctor (Sacha Baron Cohen), a hardened war veteran whohobbles about in a troublesome, squeaky peg leg. However, it is not theinspector who eventually catches him but the equally humourless andworld-weary owner of a toy repair shop (Ben Kingsley) who catches himstealing parts for a mysterious project. He seizes searches andharasses the poor boy, who he sees as a worthless thief, finding aneerily familiar notebook of mechanical calculations and sketches in hispockets, which he confiscates. Hugo insists on having it returned tohim, no matter how many times the man refuses or threatens him, andgoes to the point of enlisting the help of the man's sympathetic wardIsabelle (ChloÃ« Grace Moretz).It takes quite a while for any light to be shed on the subject of thisall-important notebook, or indeed anything else surrounding the boy orthe old man, but it would be terrible of me to reveal anything as theaudience is very deliberately kept in the dark for much of the movie.As I've said before, the breathtaking 3D imagery of the vague earlypassages prevents the audience from drifting off or becoming impatient.Details such as the camera's swift turns and dips in a fast-pacednavigation through stylistically designed cascading snow-coveredrooftops, jungles of clockwork and fast-moving steam trains make everyscene utterly captivating.Then, as secrets are uncovered, characters fleshed out, relationshipscemented and dramatic events start to occur, the eye candy is eitherpacked away so as not be distracting, or the audience becomesaccustomed the stunning aesthetic Â I'm not sure which Â and the filmtakes flight in a very different way. As describing these climacticsections is impossible to do without ruining its effect Â this is themost prevalent flaw in the concept of film reviews Â let me simply sayfor all its teetering on the edge of toxic contrivances, it pullsthrough with believability and purpose. In fact, it is on these lattertwo qualities where it finds the common ground between the twoaforementioned fields. At least in its early stages, motion pictureswere among the other stupendous carnival attractions that impressedeveryone with its innovative creation of a seamless illusion.Finally, as for the ensemble of accomplished cinematic practitioners,due credit must go to Martin Scorcese, who directs without losing hisartistic integrity or his maturity, but still ensuring that youngeraudiences will have something to marvel at, and some element of thefilm's meaning to hold onto. His cast has been impressively assembled,and do a fine job in their roles. It is a pleasure to see HelenMcCrory, Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour (all who are now bestknown for their involvement in the Harry Potter films), the lovelyEmily Mortimer, the charming Jude Law, the irrepressibly robust RayWinstone and the monstrously prolific, now 89-year-old Christopher Leetaking on colourful supporting roles. However, deserving of particularmention are Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohenand Kingsley give terrifically sympathetic and multi-layered portrayalsof two of the war's most miserable victims, and while Kingsley has puthis abilities to good use, Cohen sadly often wastes his lively comiccharisma trying to offend as many people as possible instead of makingthem appreciated in films like Sweeney Todd and Madagascar. Mostimportantly, our young star Master Butterfield has finally found someworthy exposure for his remarkable portrayals of troubled boys who havelong lived in very difficult circumstances, but have hardly grownespecially stealthy or adept at coping with their environment, andstill retain an internal emotional delicacy.So, believe me when I say that Hugo is a must-see remarkable cinematicachievement for the entire family, and, best of all, you can criticallyanalyse all you like, it can take it!
This movie is visually stunning, even in 2D. The problem with it isthat it can't make up its mind about what it is. This project seemslike it was rushed. They really did not know whether this would be amovie about an orphan kid, about the history of cinema, about anautomaton, or a character movie set in a train station. It tries to beall of these things, and it ends up being none of them. There are otherproblems as well. As others have commented, the British accent used bythe actors makes no sense and ruins the suspension of disbelief. Whatis supposed to be the biggest enigma of the movie, the automaton, turnsout to be entirely unnecessary and superfluous. The only redeeming partof the movie was its last 30 minutes, on the history of early movies,despite the fact that it came out of nowhere, being totallydisconnected from the previous one hour and a half. In the end, it feltlike a movie without a purpose.
The movie is visually beautiful. But was dragging all along until thelast 30 minutes. There was an overbearing effort to make the viewerfeel very sentimental. The background score was very monotonous andboring. The intent of the story and the idea behind is good and BenKingsley and the kids have done a good job. But somehow the viewerdoesn't feel the despair the boy feels, Not because of his acting, butbecause the dialogues were not convincing. The relationship between itscharacters are not well developed. Only in the last 30 minutes there were some pace to the story. Watch itif you are a Scorsese fan or nothing else to do.
My interest in this movie was stoked by reading something here aboutthe ending being like the ending of Cinema Paradiso except 20 minutesof that same magic.Alas, for me it cannot live up to that lofty praise.It unfolded like a love story to the cinema true, a bit selfconsciously though and for me there were too many wild coincidences inthe story for me to get completely taken away by it.Also, flaring of the nostrils is generally a good technique youngactors can employ to seem really serious however young Hugo flares hisso often he's like a hummingbird beating it's wings. I'm kidding, itwasn't that noticeable for me but after reading a humorous post on ithere in the message boards I could remember his little nostrilsa-quivering. The story seemed a tad bit contrived to me, but the execution was goodand there were some good actors. Overall not a bad way to spend anevening. I watched it with my 7 year old and it wasn't too scary forhim either.
Martin Scorsese would like to preemptively thank the Academy for whatwill likely be at least four nominations including Best Picture, BestDirector, Best Actor (Ben Kingsley), and Best Supporting Actress (HelenMcCrory). Given most of the movie serves as a celebration ofmovie-making as an art and movie directors as artists, they don't havemuch choice. Also it gives the Academy a chance to dole out a lifetimeachievement award to Scorsese and Kingsley (although he has done a fairbit of schlock such as "Species"). Wrapped around the brief history ofthe earliest beginnings of movie-making and the self-reverentialcelebration of film-making is the plot from the book "The Invention ofHugo Cabret". In this story, an orphan subsists in the Paris trainstation by stealing and spends most of his time running from thestation's dedicated constable. Somehow we are lead to believe this ispreferable to be sent to the local orphanage. In an interesting castingmove lunatic Sasha Baron Cohen plays the socially awkward policeman.Unlike most prior roles we don't see him naked but we are invited tolaugh at a physical deformity resulting from an injury sustained inWorld War II so he does retain some of his trademark offense. While thecasting decision mixed things up in what is a very staid and statelyfilm, Cohen's maniacal vibe is largely wasted here and the part couldhave been played by any number of actors. Certainly a gorgeous film anda good use of 3-D; however, even here the 3-D medium feels gimmicky.Scorsese swings for the fences with the technology and it is itsbreadth and Merchant Ivory grand, sweeping feel that leads to some ofthe problems with the movie. The chief among these lies with the slow,stately pacing which is simply dull in a number of particularly slowspots. The intrusive soundtrack often offers some bouncing bit oforchestral shenanigans during these times when not much is happening onthe screen further highlighting the yawn-worthy scenes. A second majorproblem comes from a jarring break between the main Hugo plot and theacademic salute to movie-making which starts about three-fifths intothe film. By the time the history lesson ends, the return to the Hugo'sbattle against Cohen almost could use a recap for those who hadforgotten the earlier story. In short, not a great film but with toomany of the elements needed to a Best Picture nom and probably winunless the Weinsteins come up with another historical period drama.
*Spoiler/plot- 2011, A young orphan boy has tragic beginnings with hiswatchmaker father's accidental death and his uncle's alcoholism at thetrain station. The boy ends up living & working winding up the Paristrain station clocks for his drunken uncle. The boy is a genius infixing most clockwork mechanisms. Hugo meets a bitter toyshop ownerthat takes an interest in him and his interests. Later the boy finds afriend in the toy merchant's daughter who helps the boy to explore hismemories of his troubled childhood and clockwork hobbies. We find outthat the boy and the merchant are linked in a very interesting waythrough common interests in dream & story telling and vintage motionpicture interests.*Special Stars- Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Jude Law, Sacha BaronCohen, Christopher Lee. DIR: Martin Scorsesse *Theme- Artists areseldom appreciated in their own times and origins.*Trivia/location/goofs- An multi Oscar nominated and one award winningfilm. Scorsesse appears in this film in a cameo as the portraitphotographer of George Milies & wife in front of their new motionpicture glass walled studio. The Paris train station police inspectorwounded WW1 veteran with a steel leg brace heavy Cockney English accentworking selected by the actor Sacha "Borat" Cohen was a questionablechoice and why not a French accent. The portable film screen used toshow Mrs. Milies her husband's film remaining film by the museumprofessor was not available during the time period of this film, ananachronism.*Emotion- An enjoyable but rather preachy film on the origins andscarcity of early 'Flickers" one reel films from the 1890's by GeorgeMilies encased in a family drama. While the narrative plot of this filmis thin by charming, the rest of the film is a bio-pic of George Miliesand tediously showcased his life and his works. The acting in this filmwas pedestrian but the biographic matter was of some note to hardcorefilm students and historians. Mainstream audience will find this filmslow and boring with little human pathos. There were too many boringdigital dolly tracking shots, disgusting digital 'dust in the air'shots and infinity digital sets shots that detracted greatly from theenjoyment of the dramatic scenes. The character development was lackingin many of the more colorful characters. I found myself wanting &watching them and not the lead actors. A pretentious film of aoverbearing point of view which was not very entertaining.
Wow. I don't usually review films that I consider to "mediocre" (I'mlazy so I review films that I love and ones that I hate--in-betweenersI tend to ignore). But "Hugo" was such a disappointment that I have todrop in and post a review. It's a crying shame that so much talentresulted in such a boring movie.Where to begin? It's a kid's film, certainly, but that doesn't mean itshould be stupid and unfortunately that's where we end up. The dialoguein this film reminded me of that line from (the vastly underrated JamieKennedy film) "Starstruck"--"Real people don't talk like that!""Of course real people don't talk like that! It's called DIALOGUE!!"Yeah... IT'S CALLED DIALOGUE.Not one conversation in this film makes sense. The entire structure ofthe movie depends upon everyone being secretive when there is no needto be. It's nuts. It's just bad scriptwriting. Want suspense? Keepsomebody in the dark! How simple! Especially if it's the audiencethat's being kept in the dark! Roger Ebert complains that he hates it when the audience can seesomething that is obvious but the characters are so dense that theycan't see it. Here is a similar situation. All the characters knowsomething that the audience does not, but the director assumes that theaudience (children) are so dumb they won't be able to figure it out.It's tedious.Martin Scorsese, meet George Lucas. You two guys have perfected the artof making bad, expensive films that are supposed to please children butjust annoy me.