Hugo
Movie Review
"Hugo"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG
Released: Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Directed by:
Cast:
So here's Martin Scorsese, almost 70 years old, one of the best directors in the history of cinema, and what does he do? He makes the first family film of his career. Why? For fun. For a change. Oh, and he does it in 3D, and not just in 3D, but in some of the most vivid and engaging 3D we've seen so far. There are directors who ONLY make family films who've never made one as good as this, Scorsese's first.
This is "Hugo," based on Brian Selznick's book "The Invention of Hugo Cabret," being the splendidly charming story of a young orphan boy who lives in a train station and has peculiar adventures, as young orphan boys in splendidly charming stories often do. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) came to live in the hidden passages of the ornate train station as apprentice to his boozy uncle Claude (Ray Winstone), who maintained the building's many large clocks before wandering off. A born tinkerer, Hugo now passes the lonely hours repairing a small mechanical man that his late father (Jude Law) found among a museum's discarded possessions.
Hugo generally keeps out of sight of the station's employees, which include a humorously humorless policeman (Sacha Baron Cohen), a winsome flower girl (Emily Mortimer), an older cafe owner (Frances de la Tour), and a rotund newspaper seller (Richard Griffiths). But the lad can't resist sneaking up to the toy booth, operated by a man named Georges (Ben Kingsley), to swipe mechanical playthings from which to salvage parts for his automaton. When he's caught at it, and subsequently meets the stern Georges' young goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), and wife (Helen McCrory), he discovers that the family is mysteriously connected to his past. They're also connected to something else Hugo loves: movies.
As it turns out, "Hugo" is specifically about the love of cinema, but it's more broadly about the importance of remembering your history, even the painful parts. The station policeman, wounded in the Great War, is reminded of it whenever the metal brace on his leg seizes up, usually to comical effect. Hugo longs to unlock the mystery of the automaton because it's his last connection to his father. Georges, on the other hand, resists his memories, and only reluctantly reveals them to us in a few extended flashbacks. These vignettes, like everything else in the film, are sumptuously photographed (by cinematographer Robert Richardson, a favorite of Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino) and presented with a sense of wonder and curiosity. They also happen to be laden with many true facts about the early days of film -- nuggets of joy for budding cinephiles.
Ever an enthusiastic cinephile himself, Scorsese frolics through "Hugo" like a kid in a candy shop. All the skills he has exhibited elsewhere, including his mastery of camera movement and shot composition, are on display here, applied to a new genre but no less appealing than they were in, say, "Taxi Driver" or "Goodfellas." He uses 3D to take us buzzing in and out of the train station's nooks and crannies, into the mechanisms of clocks, back in time to Georges' previous career, even into Hugo's dreams. I don't think I've seen a movie this year that was more visually delightful.
The only significant problem I have with it is that despite perfectly good performances by everyone involved, and despite a story that seems like it should tug the ol' heartstrings, the film doesn't strike an emotional chord with me at all. It isn't cold or mechanical, but it's not as warm and human as it ought to be, either. Even with all the genuine whimsy and imagination and colorful details being presented, there's something almost perfunctory about the way the orphan-looks-for-his-place-in-the-world story comes together. Still, I'm excited to see where Scorsese will go next, now that he's gotten back in touch with his inner child.
Grade: B+
Rated PG, thematic material and some perilous moments
2 hrs., 6 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.



This item has 2 comments
December 9, 2011 at 7:13 pm
I agree with you Eric, that there was no emotional tug on the heartstrings in this movie. I loved the book, read it twice, and even met the author at a book signing. So I was really excited to see the movie, but left feeling disappointed that it had not met my expectations. The story felt a little choppy in places,or that it didn't flow quite right for my expectations. Of course, I was expecting the movie to be very true to the book, and as with any movie adapted from a book, they had to add some things to the storyline to stretch it out to two hours. I kept saying - "that wasn't in the book" throughout the whole movie. But overall, it was an enjoyable movie and I thought Ben Kingsley did an outstanding job. I did find it interesting to learn more about the beginnings of cinema, and there was no better director than Scorcese to do this film.
March 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Agree with Auntie Beth and the last paragraph of the review as well. I saw the film, and it was a visual fest, but it was too pretty for its own good. The visual effects shadowed everything else, acting and storytelling included, and at the end I came out of the whole thing quite disappointed. The acting wasn't bad, but there was something off about it, something I can't put my finger on (and I did enjoy the two leads' performances in Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Kick Ass respectively). I'd much rather watch something less beautiful visually that I could connect emotionally with, since I find that most important, so I think B+ is being a little too generous.