The movie unveils its heartwarming story little by little in a captivating way and delivered in gorgeous beautiful visuals. Strong performance by its cast, in particular the heartfelt innocence portrayed by Asa Butterfield. Every characters are likeable thanks to their unique charm, and the movie acts as an astounding tribute to the history of cinema.
Many times it's too obvious the movie is highly focused on the 3D gimmicks, thus the movie kind of lost its beauty in 2D viewing. The slow build up might not work well with every audience, in fact some might find it without any actual climax.
do anything new or take me anywhere particularly magical. Yes, "Hugo" did have surprise plot twists that took the story to a far different place in the end than I was expecting... but where it took me was a far less interesting place than I hoped for. When it all boils down, "Hugo" is just a two-hour-long pep talk to an old man who lost his confidence in old cinema, and regains this spark of desire by seeing his work plastered on the big screen again. No major revelations. No real sacrifice. Just a lot of fancy special effects baiting audiences to sit through a story-lite bore, as if Paramount had extra money to burn in a furnace. The early 20-Century world of France looked nice with its CG backgrounds and hyper-realistic dream sequences.... but quite frankly, I didn't give a damn when everything else felt un-motivating.
The second half of the movie spends a great deal of time praising old silent filmmakers, and instead of being whisked away by these sentiments, I felt annoyed for two reasons. First, I was annoyed that Scorsese couldn't reference anyone else but Melies, whose poke-the-moon-in-the-eye film has been tiredly referenced in past films and television to an exhaustible degree. Second, I was left slightly puzzled when instead of praising the technical ingenuity of Hugo the common man, (or boy,) Scorsese pats himself on the back for the Oscar committee through his comparing filmmakers to magicians. One may argue that it is the acting and characters that make a film immortal, not the silly eye-tricks on celluloid.
And as far as characters go, none within "Hugo" were very convincing. Hugo himself seemed well-developed and sympathetic, but his bravery and mechanical brilliance was swept under the rug in favor of focusing on Ben Kingsley's character who, let's face it, never really changed by the end of the movie... he simply changed BACK to the character he once was. I don't mind the fact that Kingsley's character was, ultimately, the main focus; what I did mind was that his side of the story was far less memorable than Hugo's adventure-filled life. Chloe Moetz' awesome talent was completely squandered as she played an unmemorable role nearly identical to that of the little girl in last year's "Boxtrolls," and she tried too hard to deliver that wannabe-Hermione-Granger persona.
This movie could have been told much more effectively if it had been produced with no special effects, 50 million dollars cut from its budget, and 30 minutes cut from the overall running time. I couldn't decide whether I thought the automaton or the wind-up-mouse was my favorite character in the entire movie.
The film follows the story of a young boy named Hugo Cabret (Butterfield). Hugo is a young clockmaker living in Paris. His father (Jude Law), passed away not to many years before. His ghastly drunken uncle (Winstone), raises him, and teaches him how to work the clocks of the train station. When said uncle goes missing, Hugo is left to manage the clocks on his own. Hugo has been working on a special machine he and his father found in an abandoned theater years ago. It is called an automaton.
Young Asa Butterfield does a fantastic job in this film. His performance is believable and sincere. As a character, his story is very sad. Hugo's character arc is very emotional. The cast assembled around him is superb. Ben Kingsley plays a callused and hurting man. His journey and story is very moving, and it contrasts beautifully with Hugo's. Christopher Lee and Jude Law get some lovely cameos, in which they shine immensely. ChloŽ Grace Moretz plays Hugo's friend and companion, Isabelle in his adventure.
The story and script are absolutely beautiful. It's about a young boy trying to mend the hurt of losing his father. The characters and dialogue are so strong and elegantly written. Ultimately, this is Scorsese's tribute to cinema. The film is not only a story about Hugo, but a story about film. Woven through Hugo's adventure is the underlying message about the power of movies. The ability to dream and imagine. The passion and effort put into such films as The Man in the Moon. It was a simple little movie, but it was creatively superb. This film shows what it was like making these old movies. The sets, the costumes, and the magic of it all are all shown. It's an incredible tribute to cinema.Hugo-hugo-movie-28047324-1152-814
Much like these old movies, this film shows the magic of movie making. The visuals here are stupendous. Everything from the CGI, costumes, set pieces, and cinematography are gorgeous. The CGI looks so real. The costumes are well tailored, colorful, and creatively unique. Every set piece looks real, authentic, and made with care. The film won an award for Best Visual Effects. It also won for it's superb sound editing. Robert Richardson does a fantastic job behind the camera, winning himself an Oscar for Best Cinematography. Finally, Howard Shore's score-while very familiar-is very beautiful.
"Hugo" may be slightly held back by it's two hour running time, but nevertheless it's a great film. With a beautiful story that matches it's beautiful visuals, it succeeds on every level of filmmaking. Scorsese directs with mastery, the script is perfect, the costumes are wonderful, and the score is magical. Anyone who loves the art of cinema with greatly appreciate this film. It's perfect for families as well. Your children will be captivated, and adults with shed a tear. It captures the heart of a child and the heart of cinema itself.