|Page 8 of 70:||               |
|Index||696 reviews in total|
If you love films you will love this film. It reminds me of another brilliant film "Cinema Paradiso". This film could be seen as a salutation to a child's dream, fantasy and the dare to dream spirit. Watch this film and feel the romance of old Paris. This film is a film for every one. My 10-year-old son likes it as much as me. All the actors are splendid. Please watch it. I can only promise you a wonderful experience both visual and emotional. I like films with young protagonist. Because they often fill me with awe and inspiration. The make me feel young again. Hugo is such a boy. The settings of this film is grand. You have to spend a lot to recreate the old periodic romance. The details are carefully drawn. This film is certainly made with a lot of care and affection.
LOGLINE: Set in 1930's Paris, a young orphan who lives in the walls of
a train station and works maintaining the public clocks within. After
an accident kills his father (a short and memorable performance by Jude
Law), Hugo works to finish rebuilding an automoton found by his father
believing that a mysterious message will be released to him once it is
Hugo is breathtaking, but not because of the over-hyped 3D. Although the 3D is a step above the scores of other movies released in the recent 3D boom, it doesn't rely on the technique to wow the audience. Hugo relies more on heart from John Logan's amazing script and Martin Scorsese's direction rather than on the thrills to be found wearing your cheesy 3D glasses.
Scorcese directing a kids movie seems like a weird move, but the master of telling intense crime dramas handles this challenge with ease. Hugo is not your usual children's tale. In fact, I'm not sure I would even label it as a children's movie. The story may go over the head of the kiddies used to seeing dumbed down garbage such as Alvin in the Chipmunks or Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill. The story line runs parallel to a time when movies were truly a magical escape, and gave the audience a live look into what dreams must look like. With Scorcese behind the wheel, Hugo delivers the same excitement as the first movies ever made.
For more quick reviews check out www.FilmStallion.com
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Hugo is a unique, visually stunning, and beautifully performed fairy tale that weaves together the true story of a cinematic genius with folklore and fantasy. Branded as a children's film but truthfully I believe the young at heart will be the ones who will just have their breath taken away by this adventure. It has a more methodical pace than your usual children's adventure fantasy, and the emotional depth to the film will leave you with tears in your eyes. Scorcese proves his worth as an artistic director with Hugo. Asa Butterfield absolutely shines as the young boy looking for purpose in his world. He is part Oliver Twist, and part Huckleberry Finn and just rivets you to his story. Chloe Moretz is excellent though I think nearly underused in her part. Her and Butterfield are adorable together. And Sir Ben Kingsley gives his best performance in YEARS as Georges Méliès, the depressed film maker with an incredible back story. On top of these three main incredible performances there is a host of truly terrific supporting characters played by Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Winstone, Christopher Lee and Jude Law. Despite a disappointing box office take, I guarantee Hugo will become a cinematic classic in later years. Please see this, and just let the adventure take you!! 9/10
The movie is very nice to look at, let's start from that. I saw the
movie in 3D, and while it didn't add anything significant to the movie
it didn't detract from it like it does in so many other films. Would I
have preferred 2D had it been available? Yes, but mainly because I'm
one of those guys, who gets a headache from 3D glasses. For most of the
people, I think that this movie is finally one of those that are
actually enhanced by the 3D effect. But, no matter the amount of
dimensions, the movie looks great. The costumes, the details, the
backgrounds, the people, they're all wonderful to look at.
Unfortunately the visual effects are the best part of the movie. Nothing in it is bad, far from it, but nothing is as masterful as the visuals. The ensemble cast of high-quality actors all played their parts brilliantly, but I never felt quite connected to the characters. They were all unique, well-rounded and sympathetic, yet that extra little spark was missing. The same can be said about the story. It hit all the right notes, was interesting and had absolutely no plot holes or unnecessary scenes. And yet I don't think that I'll remember any of it after five years.
But movie isn't bad, not at all. The amazing visuals kind of overwhelm the other aspects of it, but it was still enjoyable to watch. I especially liked all those little moments where they replicated a scene from an old black and white film that they had shown within the movie earlier. All in all it's a nice movie and a brilliant love letter to the movie industry in general. Is it Scorsese's strongest work? Not even close, but it's definitely worth a watch for any fan of movies out there.
How so many people didn't enjoy Hugo truly baffles me. It's quite
possible that hype backlash from the rave reviews and award nominations
did Hugo a big disservice. No, it's not a masterpiece; it's not one of
Scorsese's best films, and in most years, it wouldn't have deserved a
best film Oscar nomination. But in the very weak 2011, it certainly
deserved a nomination, and, considering the competition, maybe even the
The number one thing people ought to realize when going into it is that Hugo is not a fantasy movie. Personally, I was happy to find that out, but apparently many were disappointed. So, once again - Hugo is NOT a fantasy story, though a dreamlike atmosphere helps it straddle the line between fantasy and reality while never really crossing over. It's a fanciful adventure story, focused around a child, yes, and definitely fun for children, but by no means a children's film exclusively; most of all it's a love letter to cinema itself, most of all to the pioneers of film, and that love is what makes it so effective. Like another flawed Scorsese film - Gangs of New York - the director's unbridled passion for the subject matter makes all the difference, and it's difficult not to catch his enthusiasm.
Clearly, not everybody enjoyed Hugo, but for the life of me I can't really understand why. I can see how you might find the subject matter tedious, the protagonist annoying, maybe the movie thirty minutes too long; but speaking for myself, it was so much fun and so gorgeous that I didn't want it to end. Even if you didn't like the narrative, the cinematography and the sets are beyond beautiful. This is also the first movie I've seen in which the 3D actually added something to the narrative, as it helps create that feeling of magic, that dreamlike quality of cinema, that sense of wonder that we have lost in the century since the medium was invented, and which Hugo is all about.
"Do you ever wonder where your dreams come from? Look around, this is where they are made." Hugo Caberet spends his days winding clocks and searching for parts for his auto-man. After running into shop owner George Melies (Kingsley) and his daughter he is forced to reveal his secret to them, which sets off a chain of event that changes him and the city. I have to start by saying that this is not a movie for everyone. I really liked it but it is very slow moving and for the casual movie watcher it may seem like nothing happened. That statement may seem strange but after you watch it it will make sense to you. This is a movie that each scene builds on the next (like most Scorses's) and is hard to talk about without giving anything away but I will say that it is a movie that entertained me all the way through. I can see why the movie is up for 11 Oscars, but I will be surprised if it wins any of the major ones. Overall, a movie I really enjoyed, but again not for everyone. I give it a B+.
Why is it that every single American-made "historical" movie that takes
place outside of the English-speaking world is in British English? I
get it that it makes sense for a Roman-era blockbuster like Gladiator
(I'm sure I might fall asleep if I had to listen to Latin in that
But Hugo didn't need to have Brits and Americans with their fake British accents; Hugo could have easily been, for example, the kid of an American or Brit living in Paris and the rest of the cast could have at least spoken in English with French accents (since speaking French would have apparently tuned out too many people), which is just a bit appropriate given that the story takes place in Paris.
As a final thought, the mystery about the automaton was a bit disappointing.
When I first saw the trailer for Hugo I was a bit skeptical. Scorsese
(the incredible director behind some of my favorite films ever,
including the masterful Taxi Driver) had never done film like this
before, not to mention the trailer itself sort of seemed like a
formulaic, run-of-the-mill family film. Boy, was I wrong.
Hugo is a real film lover's film. Many have mentioned this before, but its true. Scorsese's brilliant direction, along with the great script, produce real magic here. Film magic, not often seen even in the greatest of films. The film isn't executed in the usual family-film way. In fact, I can imagine a lot of kids and their parents sort of leaving this film with a 'meh' reaction. It's not a soaring, thrilling adventure that we usually get. It is an adventure, but quite an intimate and personal one. That is where the film succeeds.
I can't really say much more except that the performances are splendid, as are all of the visual and technical aspects of course. This stands out among Scorsese's filmography, and in many ways, that's a very special thing.
Preliminary reviews suggested that this was a masterpiece but upon
seeing the movie I found it fell short of that lofty appraisal. The
story is very good but the movie runs too long and has stretches of
boredom, especially when trying to develop subsidiary characters. The
movie picks up every time Ben Kingsley appears but Asa Buttererfield
disappoints in the lead role as I found that I was watching him act
rather than being caught up in his character. Chloe Grace Moretz and
Emily Mortimer are very good in their roles but Sacha Baron Cohen is
over the top in a uneven performance. I am not a fan of 3D and this
movie could have done without it, although I must admit there are some
incredibly wondrous 3D effects but there are also a number of scenes
where the 3D is a distraction.
I would suggest that this is not a "kids" movie but one for those at least 10 and over. This is not a classic movie but still rates (in my opinion) a 7 out 10.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
3-D movies have been in the mainstream for a few years now but I've
never been compelled to see one in that format. So given the choice
today, I stuck with 2-D and when all was said and done, I was suitably
impressed. The period setting and particularly the workings of young
Hugo Cabret's (Asa Butterfield) clock tower home were visually stunning
to me; all those gears and wheels working together harmoniously
together conveyed a sense of logic and purpose to the unfolding story.
What I wasn't expecting was director Scorsese's unbridled tribute to
cinema as an art form when the picture steers a path toward the life
work of film maker George Melies (Ben Kingsley). Reaching all the way
back to the silent film era, Scorsese makes a connection with all those
great directors of a time gone by - Chaplin, Keaton, Griffith - and I
found myself enjoying snippets of their own pictures interspersed
throughout the story.
As for the principals, I found the youngsters Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz providing the heart for this picture, aiding the Kingsley character Papa George to cast off the despondency of his current life to relive the glory of an earlier time. Now had I known Sacha Baron Cohen was in this film, I might have stayed away from it altogether as I'm no fan of Borat. But he gives an interesting and amusing performance here as the train station inspector attempting to make a connection of his own with the fetching flower girl Lisette (Emily Mortimer). He provides a nuance to the character that I wasn't expecting given the absurdity of some of his previous work.
Virtually every other review I've read about the film on this board mentions it's relevance as a kids' movie, but somehow I didn't get that sense while I was watching it. It doesn't present a childish theme or approach it's subject matter in a juvenile way; in fact my impression was that a real young child might have to have a fair amount of the story explained to him or her. Certainly the areas of the picture dealing with the silent film era, including the recovered Melies reels would be almost boring for a young viewer. However considering my overall impression with the picture coming out of the theater today, I'd have to say that I'm ready to make that mental leap of faith by seeing my first 3-D film, and it very well may be "Hugo".
|Page 8 of 70:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|