Customer Reviews
By
Whitt Patrick Pond "Whitt" (Cambridge, MA United States) (TOP 1000 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
Different people go to the movies for different reasons. Some of us want to be entertained. Some of us want to be dazzled. Some of us want to be engaged by a story, or by characters that stick in the mind after the film is done. Some of us want to be transported to a different time or place. And some of us want to see talented actors create a bit of magic in the hands of a masterful director. Martin Scorsese's Hugo does all of these things. It is, more than any other film I've seen this year, _why_ we go to the movies.The film is based on the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. If you've read the book, then you know the story already, but for everyone else I am going to be careful here and not reveal anything that might spoil the film. I will say that Hugo is about many things, but at its heart, it is about obsession, discovery and how one person's story can lead to - and become entwined with - another's. The film is set in Paris in the 1930's, in a railway station where an orphan boy named Hugo (engagingly played by Asa Butterfield) lives in the workspaces in the station walls and in the station's central clocktower. He spends most of his time keeping the station's clocks running (so that no one will come into the walls or the tower and discover his hiding places) and pursuing his obsession - fixing a man-shaped automaton designed to write with a pen which his father (Jude Law) had found in a museum and was trying to repair when he was killed in a fire. To feed h imself, Hugo scrounges and pilfers food from the various food shops in the station, which draws the attention of the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). To feed his efforts to repair the automaton, Hugo steals parts from a toy shop in the station, run by the elderly Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who finally catches him in the act. He is befriended though by Papa Georges' god-daughter, a girl his age named Isabelle (Chlo� Grace Moretz), who ends up helping Hugo pursue his obsession of fixing the automaton. Which, Hugo is convinced, has some secret message for him left by his late father. Where this ultimately leads... you'll have to see the film. Telling you here would only ruin the film's joy of discovery.There are so many good things about Hugo as a film that it's hard to know where to begin. I can at least start by saying that the look of the film itself is dazzling. Scorsese creates worlds within worlds, taking you first back to Paris in the 1930's and from there into H ugo's hidden world within the walls and clock tower of the train station. And from there, other places that are equally wondrous. The 3D is not wasted here and truly adds to the feel of Hugo's world of narrow passages and massive time-keeping mechanisms with their enormous but intricate gears, springs and pendulums all in motion. And Howard Shore's beautifully crafted musical score evokes the period throughout the film, adding to the feeling of being transported to a different time and place.Another thing that makes Hugo so worth seeing is that Scorsese is one of those directors who can bring out the best performance an actor has in them, which he does a magnificent job of here, from veteran actors like Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee to comparative newcomers like Asa Butterfield and Chlo� Grace Moretz. And just as the look of the sets shows his attention to detail, the populating of the world with characters shows it as well as he makes the train station come alive with it s regular denizens, from Sacha Boren Cohen's officious station inspector with his leg brace and the pretty young flower seller Lisette (Emily Mortimer) he secretly yearns for, to the comic attempts at romance between Monsieur Frick (Richard Griffiths), an elderly newspaper seller who keeps attempting to woo Madame Emile (Frances de la Tour), a cafe owner who dotes on her dog who unfortunately attacks Monsieur Frick every time he comes near. Scorsese also works in some famous historical Parisian residents of the period into the background, like jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt (Emil Lager), artist Salvador Dali (Ben Addis) and writer James Joyce (Robert Gill).Highly, highly recommended for anyone who enjoys movies, and an absolute must-see for anyone who loves movies and what they mean to us.
By
Ehkzu (Palo Alto, CA United States)
Few read reviews to find out whether the reviewer liked the film. They want to know whether THEY will like the film--to decide whether to see the movie or not, and whether to see it in the theater or wait and see the DVD (or the download). That's the task I'll take on here.As the Rottentomato website has already shown (it assembles and correlates scads of reviews from the press and the web, along with reader responses), the critics adore this film, the audience somewhat less so.Part of this has to do with managing expectations. The marketing presents Hugo as an Avatar-ish 3D fantasy with a C3P0 (StarWars)-type flying robot. this is actively misleading, though that's not the director's fault.What Hugo is, is a fable--not a fantasy--that's part tween adventure and part infomercial for the preservation and viewing of old silent movies. Most importantly--and this is a point that hasn't been mad e by most reviewers here and elsewhere--it's a film about ex-magician/early filmmaker Georges Meliés that Scorsese made, to a degree, IN THE STYLE of a Georges Meliés movie. That's part of the homage.Thus "Hugo" contains a lot of adventurous running-around, a brilliant exploitation of the best 3D filmmaking technology extant, and a leavening of slapstick elements--particularly from the surprisingly restrained Sascha Baron Cohen. It's a fable based on real events in the early history of movies. "Sleepless in Seattle" was a fable with no fantasy elements other than its happy-ending-inevitability, which you feel from beginning to end. That's the essence of a fable, not whether it has fantasy elements or not. A fable is a kind of ritual that reaffirms the tribe's values and faith in its vision of life. Hugo reaffirms faith in goodness--that even in many apparently hard-hearted people there's an ember that can be fanned into life by the right person. The movie's vib e from its first seconds tells you that you are riding towards a happy ending. Two Russian intellectuals that I saw the movie with hated that fact. They think a movie is unrealistic unless everyone's doomed, and if you'd grown up in the Soviet Union that was probably realistic. Especially since Soviet-era fable-movies did guarantee a happy ending--"happy" as defined by Soviet ideology at least. So for my friends. fables aren't just false, but evil State Propaganda. And a lot of Americans who fancy themselves intellectual have a similarly jaundiced perspective about Hollywood's addiction to guaranteed by hook or by crook happy endings.I think this issue stems from not understanding the ritual validity of fable. I love realistic movies without this guarantee of happy outcomes, but I also love a good fable. I'm certain of my spouse's love for me and of my love for her. I'm certain of our relationship with our closest friends, as they are of us reciprocally. I'm certain of the l aw-abidingness of my society (especially compared to the third-world countries we've traveled in). Predictable good outcomes are, within reasonable constraints, reasonable to believe in, in many ways.So "Hugo"'s ultimate predictability is a valid artistic choice. It's not a spoiler to say this because you know it from the start and you should know so you don't confuse this with a Sundance-type art film where everyone is confused and faces an uncertain future, usually alone. I apologize for "Hugo" not being a slit-your-wristsathon. I also like such films, and they usually set your expectations from the start as well, for that matter.So who will enjoy "Hugo" ? 1. Bright tweens. It stars a pair of bright tweens, so this is a natural. Many younger kids will like it as well--it's visually a treat, and it is based on a kids' story. But duller/much younger/Disneyfied kids who want nonstop action and/or the relentless cheerful action of a Disney film will probably find their attenti on wandering in places.2. Everyone who's interested in the history of filmmaking--particularly right at the beginning.3. Everyone who's interested in modern filmmaking. This does represent the absolute state of the art in 3D cinematography--where its 3Dness is integral and almost taken for granted, not tacked on, not poke-you-in-the-eye, not several layers of 2D images. 4. Everyone who's interested in good fable direction/screenwriting/acting. This is not to say anyone involved in this project can't do naturalistic films or fantasy films, or, in the case of Chloe Grace Moretz, naturalistic fantasy films ("Let me in"). So no negatives are proven here. That said, I believe the casting was spot on for the major and minor roles. This is one area where Scorsese didn't copy the stagy mugging of Meliés' films (except during re recreations of those films). The large, intent close-ups of the major characters really exposed their acting chops, and all came through. The boy, who I'd never seen before, kept it subtle, as well as the other juvenile character, Isabelle (played by Moretz). The young actors in many youth-oriented films tend to mug--again, Disney movie style--and kids who expect that need to be prepped by their parents to look for more lifelike acting here.Who won't love it?1. It's not a Selena Gomez/Demi Lovato/Disney vehicle. It's nothing like Lindsay Lohan's wonderful "Parent Trap," one of the best of the normal good-quality kids' film. It too is a fable, but it isn't overlaid with all the stuff about film history and suchlike. "Hugo"'s ideal kid audience is going to be like Isabelle in the move--sweet, bookish, curious, and not locked into peer culture as the source of everything that could possibly be of interest to one.2. People who don't like the fable genre. The film embeds pretty naturalistic performances and note-perfect sets showing a Paris train station circa 1931, where most of the action takes place within a non-naturalisti c film fable. There are lots of non-fable films. See one of those unless you really do want to see state of the art 3D cinematography and want to ratchet up your suspension of disbelief in order to watch this. 3. People with zero interest in film history. This is where a lot of movie critics err. Of course nearly all of them are fascinated by early film history. But this film verges on being a high quality 2 hour infomercial for film preservation, and you know, reading this, whether such prolonged self-regard on the part of the filmmaker towards his medium will fascinate or annoy you.4. Adults who don't like films starring children. I detect this bias in people who criticize the performances of "Hugo"'s two junior leads, who are both exemplary. Also, I hadn't seen the boy before, but I have seen Moretz costarring in the grim, critically acclaimed "Let Me In," in which she portrays--with almost no dialogue and almost no special effects--a bloodthirsty (literally) yet profound ly conflicted child vampire, and in which those averse to sunny endings will get their wishes more than satisfied. And in which her appearance and performance have been compared favorably to a very young Ingrid Bergman. That is, she has gravitas. Of people in her age bracket, the only other actor I can think of who has that is Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).My point here is that Moretz's acting chops are now an established fact. She has a far less complex character to portray in "Hugo," yet even in Isabelle's wide-eyed pre-ingenue role she infuses her character with a kind of luminosity that holds its own even when she's sharing the screen with great adult actors like Ben Kingsley. 5. Adults who only want to see heavily plot-driven films. It's not like "Hugo" is one of those kaleidoscopic non-narrative films. It tells a story, to be sure. But besides the child-centered narrative there's a biopic about Georges Meliés (and his wife) here, told in flashback, along with exc ursions into film history. Some people will find that as rich as a multicourse meal; others will be annoyed by "Hugo" not being propelled by a singular narrative drive. Such people will sit there saying "All right, Scorsese--get to the point!"6. Those who are really reluctant to pay to see the film in a theater, even if they're eager to see it on DVD. I agree with this feeling nearly all of the time. However, some films are so visually huge--and, especially, if they're 3D and do that well--you need to bite the bullet and see it in a theater, if only to compare what it's like in a theater in 3D with what it's like on your flat screen TV at home in 2D. Hey, you can always see it in a bargain matinee, as we did. But we'll probably get the DVD when it comes out as well, because it both makes and recalls film history.
By
James Mulholland "calvin crack" (irvine) (REAL NAME)
Hopefully "Hugo" finds the new life on Blu-Ray (and 3D Blu-Ray) that it deserves. For some reason, the masses haven't flocked to this film in theaters, but don't let that fool you into thinking it is second tier in any way. "Hugo" is actually one of the best films of 2011 and one of the best family films ever (that adults will enjoy even more). Most importantly, this is one of the best LOOKING films I've ever seen. James Cameron himself called the film a masterpiece and praised it's use of 3D. As of my writing this I can say that "Hugo" and "Avatar" are easily the two best uses of 3D yet seen.
By
John Kw ok (New York, NY USA) (VINE VOICE) (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
Martin Scorsese offers audiences a film absolutely like none of his others, a truly heart-felt valentine to the early history of cinema and of a young boy's indefatigable search for a hidden message from his deceased father in 1920s Paris; "Hugo", based on Brian Selznick's bestselling children's tale "The Invention of Hugo Cabret". It is Scorsese's most personal, and most poignant, film, and is certainly among those destined to be remembered as his finest in long, quite distinguished, star-studded cinematic career. Working with a talented team of actors led by Sir Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee, and a technical crew led by visual effects guru Rob Legato ("Star Trek: The Next Generation", "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Avatar") and film composer Howard Shore ("The Lord of The Rings"), Scorsese has rendered a cinematic vision of Paris as vividly magical as the futuristic worlds of "Star Trek" or the fantasy realm of "Middle Earth"; a vision that is still most apt even in the two-dimensional version that I saw recently.The young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) runs afoul of toy store owner Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) in the main Parisian railroad station, as he tries repairing an automaton found by his late father (played with utmost warmth and sincerity by Jude Law), believing it may disclose his father's hidden message. Winning the sympathy and friendship of Méliès' goddaughter Isabelle (Chlo� Grace Moretz), and Monsieur Labisse (Christopher Lee), the train station's book seller, young Hugo soon makes an electrifying discovery of Méliès' almost f orgotten past as one of the world's greatest film directors in the early infancy of cinema. Moretz's warm, radiant, performance nearly steals every scene she is in, though there are great performances too from Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee, Jude Law, Michael Stuhlbarg (as the fictional film historian Rene Tabard), Helen McCrory (as Méliès' wife Mama Jeanne), Emily Mortimer (Lisette, the train station's flower shop owner) and Sacha Baron Cohen (as the World War I-injured Station Inspector, with whom Hugo has problems with too). This is an emotionally riveting tearjerker of a film that will leave audiences spellbound, especially pre-adolescent children and adults; whose visual and musical styles are more similar to Hollywood classics from the 1930s and early 1940s than any contemporary family-oriented film in recent memory.
**Originally posted on "#1 Hits From Another Planet" - 11/30/11**I'm an enormous fan of well-made "kid movies," or as I like to think of them, movies for the uncynical and young at heart. I think one of the biggest reasons they appeal to me so much is that they cut to the core of things. Oftentimes, a coming-of-age or childlike film gets right down to who a filmmaker is at their essence. This happens more often when great writers and directors are at the helm of these movies. They feel very personal. That's one of the reasons why I consider this and JJ Abram's Super 8 to be my favorite movies of the year.Based on a children's book by Brian Selznick (which, it kills me to say, I actually haven't read), Hugo is a completely unique, almost dream-like fable. I went in with little knowledge of the story and no expectations, which I think is the best possible frame of min d to be in before you watch this movie. After about the first fifteen minutes (more of an introduction to the title character's world... which ends with a stunning reveal of 1930s Paris) I found myself utterly engrossed. Riveted, even. This feeling lasted through the entire movie and the weird thing is, it's not a wham bang action thriller with huge plot twists and explosions. It's not the kind of thing I'd expect to be riveted by... yet there I was.Now that I've given it some thought, I can put it down to several factors. First, the world of Hugo is utterly immersive. The color palette, the cinematography (the angles used to shoot inside the station are just thrilling to watch) and the side stories of the different goings on inside the station all add up to create a sense of place that's absolutely transportive. It's like a classic painting come to life. Story and character aside, it's beautiful to look at. But that's selling the story short. After awhile, you do know where it's going, but the journey to get there had me guessing. What's up with this strange boy's salvaged automaton? Or the mysterious toy seller, or the secrets his dead father seemed to know? I love a good mystery, especially when it pays off as well as this one did. I didn't expect the rich taste of history and filmmaking we get in the film's latter half. This is that deep, personal connection I was talking about earlier. It definitely feels like this is Scorsese's core. You almost expect the movie to head in a fantasy direction. What you get is quite different, and far more affecting.Finally, I'd be leaving a gaping hole if I didn't at least mention the acting. It's uniformly excellent... "kid movie" or not. I've loved everything that Chlo� Grace Moretz's done, so it's no surprise that she's amazing here (and it's nice to see her playing against the Let Me In/Kick-Ass type). Sacha Baron Cohen hams it up a little much here and there, but turns in a performance that ends up to be much more layered than it first seems. Ben Kingsley has one of the tougher performances and plays a critical role in the central mystery. He carries it off brilliantly, of course. And Asa Butterfield, the youngest of the bunch, carries the movie on his shoulders with a pair of ultra-expressive blue eyes that often speak louder than any line he's been given. He's the heart of Hugo, and wouldn't be a total shocker come Oscar nomination time.The vague marketing isn't doing Hugo any favors, but if you like intelligent, engrossing, character driven movies (that just happen to star a child), you've got to check this out. Hell, if you're a fan of movies and moviemaking in general, I don't see how you could miss it!
No comments:
Post a Comment