Martin Scorsese's Hugo (2011) [Archive]

Ezee E

06-14-2010, 07:33 PM

“It’s a whole new kind of film for us,” she says. “It’s very visual, very little dialogue, lots of opportunities for wonderful 3D shots, because the boy’s job is to keep the clocks wound, so you can imagine the giant wheels being built. Everyone’s very excited about it. It will have a broad appeal, it won’t just be Scorsese fans going to this, it will be kids and families and Scorsese fans.”

…She says Scorsese is excited about the 3D work. “Scorsese is in love with [3D]. He looked at Avatar and Alice [in Wonderland] and Scorsese didn’t feel that the 3D he saw was as interesting as in the old ones like Dial M for Murder and House of Wax. He’s decided he wants to be stronger with 3D to make it jump out at you. He’s going to go a little bit further with it.”

Haven't read many Schoonmaker quotes, but she's worked enough with Scorsese that I feel like this is legit.

Grouchy

06-14-2010, 08:49 PM

That's great. Scorsese is right - Cameron was actually kind of shy and classy in how he used 3D. If you watch Dial M for Murder (most likely in 2D, but you can pretty much always imagine where did the 3D go) you can see Hitchcock having a lot of extravagant fun with objects and composition.

B-side

07-08-2011, 12:01 PM

This is now just called Hugo, and the trailer will premiere ahead of Deathly Hallows Pt. II.

EyesWideOpen

07-08-2011, 01:40 PM

Terrible idea to change the name especially since it's a hugely popular children's book. I hate when they dumb down titles like that.

Ezee E

07-08-2011, 03:17 PM

Terrible idea to change the name especially since it's a hugely popular children's book. I hate when they dumb down titles like that.
I still think the full title sounds the best.

But shorter titles tend to work better, so I guess it makes sense marketing wise.

D_Davis

07-08-2011, 07:46 PM

Terrible idea to change the name especially since it's a hugely popular children's book. I hate when they dumb down titles like that.

Me, too.

John Carter says hi.

So lame!

I mean what if The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?, was retitled as Zombies? That would be so stupid.

DavidSeven

07-14-2011, 11:16 PM

Trailer is up on Apple (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/hugo/) or here (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=79835).

I don't know what the heck that is, but it's not for me. Maybe it will be pleasant enough for those with young ones.

Boner M

07-15-2011, 02:53 AM

Looks like an ageing auteur's impression of 'what those kiddie flicks I don't watch are like'.

Henry Gale

07-15-2011, 03:11 AM

I honestly don't know what to make of that.

There's some impressive visuals briefly shoved in there, but I could've just as easily been told Andrew Adamson or someone directed that and I would've had no problem believing it. And it may look just fine on the big screen in 3D, but in standard quality in 2D, it just has too much of cheap-looking, blue and orange look to it for my tastes, along with that blurry texture so many digitally-shot movies have. The trailer also makes it seem like half of the movie is just going to be Sacha Baron Cohen chasing the kids through the same train station, which, just seemed like awkward slapstick.

But then again, I didn't even like The Departed.

Melville

07-15-2011, 03:15 AM

Looks like my impression of 'what those kiddie flicks I don't watch are like'.

B-side

07-15-2011, 04:21 AM

The Melies stuff looks awesome, but the rest was terrible. So disappointing.

Ezee E

07-15-2011, 05:09 AM

Looks like an ageing auteur's impression of 'what those kiddie flicks I don't watch are like'.
Strange criticism. I'm also wondering what these kids movies are. As mentioned in another thread, there really aren't many. Even though it has Harry Potter titles, it's certainly no Harry Potter or Narnia.

And this is something that's basically meant to be seen in 3D, like Avatar and Tron: Legacy were. This will probably alter Scorsese's flashy editing style since that doesn't work as well on 3D. Instead, I expect lots of his customary dolly shots. But the trailer definitely wouldn't make me think Scorsese was behind this.

With that, Cohen's scenes are pretty cheesy looking, albeit very kid-friendly. This movie is for kids, and I have no doubt they'll eat it up based off the book material. I think this will be good, just a case of a so-so trailer.

Watashi

07-15-2011, 07:15 AM

What the fuck did I just watch?

Ivan Drago

07-15-2011, 08:32 AM

What the fuck did I just watch?

A disappointing trailer attached to a disappointing movie?

dreamdead

07-15-2011, 01:52 PM

Looks decidedly average. I don't know how well this well translate, as so much of what is special about the story is the way the narrative jumps between pictures, prose, and Melies' images.

The Cohen scenes look awful.

Dukefrukem

07-15-2011, 01:58 PM

Ezee E

07-15-2011, 03:22 PM

Never would have ever imagined I'd see Sacha Baron Cohen in a Scorsese film.

The trailer even has that cheap, cheesy music playing that's in every commercial and sentimental video made in the last year. What are you doing Scorsese? They captured Whitey! Make the Departed 2: Depart Harder not this crap.
Or much less have a cop slip into a fullsize cake.

I don't mind that he's going outside of his comfort zone really. The Melies stuff from the book is reason enough for me to think it'll come out fine.

Sven

07-15-2011, 03:44 PM

Got bored and stopped watching.

Dukefrukem

07-15-2011, 07:00 PM

Or much less have a cop slip into a fullsize cake.

Haha. Yeh that was a bit too shtick, even for Cohen

Spinal

07-15-2011, 10:15 PM

You guys are funny. Writing off a Scorsese film based on a trailer? Come on now.

Ezee E

07-15-2011, 10:44 PM

Got bored and stopped watching.
:lol:

Couldn't make it past the WB logo eh?

D_Davis

07-15-2011, 10:45 PM

DUDE! I can totally tell, even when watching in 2D, that those titles are totally popping out of the screen! So awesome. It was like BAM!! I was in the titles.

Spinal

07-15-2011, 10:54 PM

Chac Mool

07-16-2011, 12:07 AM

You guys are funny. Writing off a Scorsese film based on a trailer? Come on now.

Boom.

Ezee E

07-16-2011, 01:49 AM

Like all those goofy Youtube re-cut trailers, you can make a film look like basically whatever you want. If the film looks like palatable, mainstream fare, perhaps it is. Or perhaps it looks like that because the film is being marketed to a broad, mainstream audience. They're trying to sell the film they think those people want to see. They're not trying to sell a film that appeals to hip movie buffs.

Again, maybe the film will be good, maybe it won't. But the pedigree should matter more than the trailer.
A lot of Match Cut doesn't like Scorsese though either.

DavidSeven

07-16-2011, 02:57 AM

I still got love for Scorsese, but as Walter Sobchak might say, Marty looks to be totally out of his element. I'd be thrilled if this was just a marketing flub, but man, that trailer was straight up inexplicable.

Sasha Baron Cohen walked into a cake. And there was a sound effect. What.

B-side

07-16-2011, 04:23 AM

Like all those goofy Youtube re-cut trailers, you can make a film look like basically whatever you want. If the film looks like palatable, mainstream fare, perhaps it is. Or perhaps it looks like that because the film is being marketed to a broad, mainstream audience. They're trying to sell the film they think those people want to see. They're not trying to sell a film that appeals to hip movie buffs.

Again, maybe the film will be good, maybe it won't. But the pedigree should matter more than the trailer.

We know all that. That doesn't excuse Sacha Baron Cohen chasing the kid through the train station like a bad Christmas comedy and running into a cake. It doesn't excuse the lame dialogue about super cool secrets and adventures.

Qrazy

07-16-2011, 04:45 AM

You guys are funny. Writing off a Scorsese film based on a trailer? Come on now.

Ehh personally I have a fairly high trailer to film quality ratio. I can usually tell how good a film will be based on the trailer. And Scorsese has made his fair share of mediocre to bad films imo. Still I'll probably see this just to be completiest.

Morris Schæffer

07-16-2011, 08:02 AM

What is with trailers these days? Cohen walks into a cake. Commissioner Gordon is lying in a bed. What's next? Barney Ross sits in a chair while the Stath is mowing the lawn?

Pop Trash

07-18-2011, 09:08 PM

A lot of Match Cut doesn't like Scorsese though either.

He definitely fell behind his fellow 70s movie brats Malick and Spielberg in his 2000-2010 output. Still doing better than DePalma and Lucas. I still haven't seen Coppola's latest output so I can't comment on him.

Ezee E

07-19-2011, 01:27 AM

Malick had one movie in that time period......

Dead & Messed Up

07-19-2011, 01:32 AM

Question: will you guys see this in 3D? Will you trust that Scorsese plans to use the form in creative ways?

Qrazy

07-19-2011, 01:35 AM

Question: will you guys see this in 3D? Will you trust that Scorsese plans to use the form in creative ways?

It basically sounds like he just wants to have more shit coming at the viewers face.

number8

07-19-2011, 01:56 AM

It basically sounds like he just wants to have more shit coming at the viewers face.

If that's how he views 3D, I'm more worried than ever at his comment that Precious should have been in 3D.

Qrazy

07-19-2011, 02:17 AM

If that's how he views 3D, I'm more worried than ever at his comment that Precious should have been in 3D.

Haha but yeah I don't know, I just remember reading a comment that basically said he wanted 3D to be like it was in the earlier generation of 3D.

Pop Trash

07-19-2011, 04:20 AM

Malick had one movie in that time period......
And it's a masterpiece.

Derek

07-20-2011, 06:37 PM

Finally saw the trailer for this and it does look pretty awful. I agree with Spinal that you can't judge it too harshly based on the trailer, especially since it is Scorsese. Still, I don't see how this won't be bad, but I also don't see E giving it less than ***1/2, so we'll have to wait and see.

Ezee E

07-20-2011, 06:47 PM

but I also don't see E giving it less than ***1/2, so we'll have to wait and see.

Glad you're looking out for me!

Ezee E

11-20-2011, 03:05 AM

This is getting some great early buzz, saying it's a huge love letter to silent cinema.

This is going to do AWFUL at the box office I bet. But the raves about the 3D have me excited.

Trying to find out if it's something that kids will like, but bloggers basically say, "It's not your fast food entertainment," which to me, is basically saying that kids will be bored by it. Meh.

MadMan

11-20-2011, 03:33 AM

At this point Scorsese seems to suffer from the same criticisms that Allen's movies receive-they're not as good as his older stuff. Well no shit. You could say the same of Spielberg, Coppola, etc.....

Honestly though as much as I like Scorsese, I don't think he'll make another great movie anytime soon. The last one of his that I thought was great was The Departed, and that was a remake. Also released now 5 years ago, too.

Ezee E

11-20-2011, 04:12 AM

Oh MadMan...

Henry Gale

11-20-2011, 06:42 AM

This is going to do AWFUL at the box office I bet. But the raves about the 3D have me excited.

I had already felt like this was going to happen, and then I saw Box Office Mojo show that they're only opening it in 1,200 theatres on Wednesday, so it reaffirmed that it'll probably open pretty small.

Then just now out of curiosity I checked IMDb to see what the budget on it was...

$170,000,000

WHAT.

Kurosawa Fan

11-20-2011, 01:27 PM

I'll be taking my son at some point. We both really enjoyed the book.

MadMan

11-20-2011, 06:02 PM

Oh MadMan...What? I'm gonna keep on being happy that I'm getting a chance to see movies from Spielberg, Allen, Scorsese, et al in the theater and on DVD while they are still around and making movies. I have yet to view a Scorsese movie I didn't like, and Hugo looks good although once again I'm a bit annoyed that they shortened the title. Means they don't think Americans are smart enough to remember it, although maybe they have a point.

NickGlass

11-21-2011, 07:51 PM

This is getting some great early buzz, saying it's a huge love letter to silent cinema.

Yeah, somewhat. It's amusing reading this thread roughly a month after I saw the film. Considering the multiple reactions of this thread so far (even though no one here has seen it, right?), you're all partially correct. Sacha Baron Cohen's bad-Christmas-movie slapstick character is a big eye-roll. The 3D is nicely layered. There's a fair amount of lame "adventure" dialogue. It's occasionally a very thoughtful little love letter to film and film history.

All of this should add up to what I really think of the film, which is a bit of an exhausting experience--as an oft-precious, yet lumpy, adventure with some pleasant highs and obnoxious lows.

Mara

11-22-2011, 02:31 PM

I found the trailer for this film insufferable. It made my head hurt in the theaters and I finally closed my eyes to avoid it.

The rave reviews are baffling to me.

Raiders

11-22-2011, 02:33 PM

I found the trailer for this film insufferable. It made my head hurt in the theaters and I finally closed my eyes to avoid it.

The rave reviews are baffling to me.

To be fair, they are reviewing the whole film, not the trailer. :P

Mara

11-22-2011, 02:37 PM

To be fair, they are reviewing the whole film, not the trailer. :P

To be fair, one must assume the eye-searingly ugly candy-colored-technoporn of the trailer is in the film somewhere. Unless, like Tangled, they just made up a new story and footage for the trailer.

Raiders

11-22-2011, 02:39 PM

eye-searingly ugly candy-colored-technoporn

That's a wicked turn of phrase.

I don't know if I have seen the trailer in theaters yet, actually.

Mara

11-22-2011, 02:47 PM

I don't know if I have seen the trailer in theaters yet, actually.

I think I saw it before HP7pt2. Perhaps if I had seen it on a smaller screen, or not in 3D, it would not have hurt so much. I'm going to check it out on the internets.

...

Okay, without the 3D it felt far less intrusive. But it still didn't look good.

TGM

11-22-2011, 03:50 PM

I found the trailer for this film insufferable. It made my head hurt in the theaters and I finally closed my eyes to avoid it.

The rave reviews are baffling to me.

The first trailer they released really didn't do anything for me. The newer trailer recently released was much, much better though.

Ezee E

11-22-2011, 04:23 PM

From the raves and what I see on the trailer, you'd think it was a totally different movie. There's nothing in the trailer that suggests it's basically a love letter to silent films.

Morris Schæffer

11-22-2011, 05:27 PM

From the raves and what I see on the trailer, you'd think it was a totally different movie. There's nothing in the trailer that suggests it's basically a love letter to silent films.

Based on ebert's glowing review - the man even liked the 3d! - it's quite obvious. Trailer, not so much, but perhaps that aspect isn't what should have sold this in the first place. I'm thinking I need to see it come december 21st.

Spinal

11-22-2011, 06:21 PM

Based on ebert's glowing review - the man even liked the 3d! - it's quite obvious. Trailer, not so much, but perhaps that aspect isn't what should have sold this in the first place. I'm thinking I need to see it come december 21st.

Ebert's Scorsese idolatry meets Ebert's 3D hatred ... clash of the titans!

Watashi

11-22-2011, 07:00 PM

Walter Chaw gave it one star stating, "The only real audience for Hugo is people who think of themselves as cinephiles but don't mourn that the man who used to make Taxi Driver and Raging Bull is now making The Polar Express for pretentious wanks and poseurs."

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/hugo.htm

Oh, Chawster.

Dead & Messed Up

11-22-2011, 07:44 PM

Honestly though as much as I like Scorsese, I don't think he'll make another great movie anytime soon. The last one of his that I thought was great was The Departed, and that was a remake. Also released now 5 years ago, too.

Five years ago. Wow, what a losing streak. That Scorsese guy is on the way out, I tell you what.

:confused:

Henry Gale

11-22-2011, 08:39 PM

To me The Departed is the weakest thing he's made in the last ten years, so I'm all for him doing as many music documentaries and Hugo's as he wants.

MadMan

11-22-2011, 09:47 PM

Five years ago. Wow, what a losing streak. That Scorsese guy is on the way out, I tell you what.

:confused:That's not what I meant. The other movies I've seen from him since that time have also been really good. I'm probably one of the biggest proponents of Shutter Island, here. This reminds me that I still need to view Bringing Out The Dead. Especially for teh Cage.

Unless I absolutely hate Hugo, I think I won't have to come back to edit this post: Walter Chaw can go fuck himself.

Dead & Messed Up

11-22-2011, 10:12 PM

That's not what I meant.

What did you mean? You said you didn't think he had another great movie in him, then you cited The Departed. Was that not meant to support the argument? Was it just another thought? I don't understand.

Ezee E

11-22-2011, 10:12 PM

Oh Walter.

Morris Schæffer

11-23-2011, 10:51 AM

Positive reviews are now blasting through the stratosphere. 47 vs. 2 on RT

Boner M

11-23-2011, 01:55 PM

Chaw's review is the most persuasive I've read so far.

TGM

11-23-2011, 04:27 PM

So yeah, this was really good, and a really interesting film at that. It's also not nearly as silly as some of the previews would lead you to believe. In fact, while certainly kid friendly, I'd be hard pressed to actually call this a children's movie. I really think that adults and lovers of film will likely get a lot more out of this than kids.

My only real complain was that the kid actors acted a little too adult sometimes, but that wasn't a major issue at all. They really did a good job, and even Sacha Baron Cohen wasn't as over the top as one might expect from him.

I had a great time, and this movie is just really wonderful to watch. One of the most visually appealing films I've seen in some time.

Grouchy

11-23-2011, 06:33 PM

Of all the movies Scorsese did since 2000, the only one I would call "great" is Shutter Island.

Dead & Messed Up

11-23-2011, 06:59 PM

Of all the movies Scorsese did since 2000, the only one I would call "great" is Shutter Island.

I don't think any of them are unconditional masterpieces or anything, but, yeah, I think I liked Shutter Island the most; I really dug its little detours and stylistic touches.

MadMan

11-23-2011, 07:50 PM

What did you mean? You said you didn't think he had another great movie in him, then you cited The Departed. Was that not meant to support the argument? Was it just another thought? I don't understand.Just because he doesn't have another great movie in him doesn't mean he doesn't make good movies.

Pop Trash

11-23-2011, 08:36 PM

But seriously, how's about them muppets and 49ers? Eh? Eh?

Dead & Messed Up

11-24-2011, 12:06 AM

Just because he doesn't have another great movie in him doesn't mean he doesn't make good movies.

Why do you think he doesn't have another great movie in him?

MadMan

11-24-2011, 01:31 AM

Why do you think he doesn't have another great movie in him?Based on what I've seen over the past decade. That's usually what I go by: a director's most recent record. Its why I've avoided Michael Bay like the plague, for example. Or why the Coen Brothers are on an amazing run at the moment.

Watashi

11-24-2011, 07:46 AM

This is one of the most misleading trailers of all time.

Watashi

11-24-2011, 08:19 AM

It's occasionally a very thoughtful little love letter to film and film history.

Did you walk out halfway through?

The ENTIRE second half is a love letter to silent cinema (to the point where Kingsley breaks the 4th wall and gives the audience a glimpse into his filmmaking).

I actually liked a lot of the station subplots. I loved the way Scorsese and his production designers modeled the train station to look like a big movie set (with every person playing their scheduled part).

eternity

11-24-2011, 07:40 PM

It's masturbatory, and the little kid is one terrible line reading away from being Noah Ringer, but that was pretty grand.

baby doll

11-25-2011, 03:56 AM

Of all the movies Scorsese did since 2000, the only one I would call "great" is Shutter Island.I'd go back to Goodfellas myself, which seems to be a sort of turning point between mid-range efforts like After Hours and The Last Temptation of Christ and big-budget holiday season blockbusters like Casino, Gangs of New York, and The Departed (Bringing Out the Dead being a throwback to his earlier manner, perhaps even a knowing farewell to location shooting and Paul Schrader). I certainly don't begrudge him wanting to make movies for a wide audience with lots of money, but let's be realistic about what's possible and what isn't in a 100 million dollar event film. The Aviator was a lot of fun in a bright, flashy sort of way, but that's all it was. As for the film formerly known as The Invention of Hugo Cabaret, I don't know when it's opening in China (though I'm sure it will), but I probably won't see it unless I have a date and there's nothing else playing.

Yxklyx

11-25-2011, 04:56 AM

Blech!

Mr. Pink

11-25-2011, 09:36 AM

Based on what I've seen over the past decade. That's usually what I go by: a director's most recent record. Its why I've avoided Michael Bay like the plague, for example. Or why the Coen Brothers are on an amazing run at the moment.

I think what he was getting at is you admitting he made a great film just 5-6 years ago, but now you say he doesn't have it in him, even though you said his last great one was only 5-6 years ago. For a director, that isn't really enough time to say a they lost the ability to make another great one.

I think.

Yxklyx

11-25-2011, 02:12 PM

Early on mostly suffers from a poor lethargically told story - and then to make matters worse turns its characters into line recitations from a Melies textbook. This film was way too didactic for my tastes. Also had a migraine afterwards - this was in 3D. One of the worst theater viewing experiences in a long time.

The Chaw review is spot on.

NickGlass

11-25-2011, 06:33 PM

Did you walk out halfway through?

The ENTIRE second half is a love letter to silent cinema (to the point where Kingsley breaks the 4th wall and gives the audience a glimpse into his filmmaking).

It's an intended love letter to cinema, yes. It's only occasionally very thoughtful, though. Even as an obvious lover of cinema, the presentation is a bit forceful.

I actually liked a lot of the station subplots. I loved the way Scorsese and his production designers modeled the train station to look like a big movie set (with every person playing their scheduled part).

The production design is absolutely magnificent. Everything that takes place in the station? Not so much. I felt bad for Emily Mortimer's career.

Skitch

11-26-2011, 02:18 AM

Just saw this today. Scorsese is one of the few filmmakers who can make a period piece with such detail that not only do feel (slash forget) the film is set in that time, you feel as though you can smell it. The set designs were so good I could smell the grease on the trains, the bakeries bread, and the steam flowing from every vent. Not a masterpiece or anything, but a fascinating film from the man. I think hes been making adult-centered films so long, he really doesn't know how to make a film for kids/family. This felt like an adults film that is safe for kids, as opposed to a kids film. Thats not a complaint, mind you, just an observation. I couldn't see a lot of kids being entertained throughout that film.

Watashi

11-26-2011, 03:26 AM

The more I think about this, the more I think it's brilliant.

The last half hour is masterful.

MadMan

11-26-2011, 03:37 AM

I think what he was getting at is you admitting he made a great film just 5-6 years ago, but now you say he doesn't have it in him, even though you said his last great one was only 5-6 years ago. For a director, that isn't really enough time to say a they lost the ability to make another great one.

I think.I stand by my opinion, though. I think the same can be said of Francis Ford Coppola and Clint Eastwood, too, although I like those directors also.

Mr. Pink

11-26-2011, 04:43 AM

I stand by my opinion, though. I think the same can be said of Francis Ford Coppola and Clint Eastwood, too, although I like those directors also.

No worries. Just wanted to clear up the possible miscommunication.

SirNewt

11-26-2011, 10:52 AM

I stand by my opinion, though. I think the same can be said of Francis Ford Coppola and Clint Eastwood, too, although I like those directors also.

Not sure I see the comparison to Eastwood.

Skitch

11-27-2011, 02:22 AM

The more I think about this, the more I think it's brilliant.

The last half hour is masterful.

I'm inclined to agree.

eternity

11-27-2011, 05:22 AM

The more I think about it, the more I'm kind of peeved by the whole "Movies are awesome!" thing. We get it.

There's also a bunch of random strands in the movie that don't amount to anything. Like...why is Emily Mortimer there?

The production design and the grandeur of it all is unquestionable, though.

kopello

11-27-2011, 03:35 PM

There was a great film here somewhere. It has some of the best 3D I've ever experienced, and Scorsese does a great job of immersing you into this world he created. Unfortunately the choppy pacing is what really killed it for me. My wife said the film was really faithful to the source material, and while I haven't read it yet I'm guessing it moved at such an odd speed because was it was busy trying to cover everything in the book (just a guess).

Mal

11-28-2011, 03:13 AM

The more I think about it, the more I'm kind of peeved by the whole "Movies are awesome!" thing. We get it.

Why?
The average large popcorn-with-butter moron doesn't think of movies as any kind of significant thing - just a good reason to see 'splosions.

I very much admire the movie and its ability to convey the history of cinema with the little quips here and there - and the actual explanation of Melies, etc.
My parents came along and asked me if it was all real stuff that was being referred to.

This probably would have been my Oz if it had been released in 1989.

Pop Trash

11-28-2011, 06:02 PM

This is frustrating, because it becomes so dangerously close to being a masterpiece, but some of those nagging flaws just keep it from going the distance. There were moments in the middle that are so beautifully realized and tender that I got choked up.

But at the same time there are things that kept throwing me out of the film. I agree with Walter Chaw re: Ben Kingsley's overly mannered/hammy "Oh, hi I'm ACTING. You know I'm SAD because I'm covering my eyes at just the right moment!" performance. I also agree with Eternity that the screenplay became way too didactic at times with the whole Film Preservation: The Movie thing. Scorsese has enough power and clout to simply show us the magic of Melies films rather than telling us why it's IMPORTANT to PRESERVE FILMS AUDIENCE, so I kind of put the blame on him for not cutting a lot of those lines.

That said, it's often stunningly beautiful, and Scorsese continues to be preternaturally good with fluid visual filmmaking. The camera movements, editing, and look and feel of Dream Paris are gorgeous without ever being too gaudy.

I liked the ending. I kept wondering if maybe Scorsese was watching some Wes Anderson films for inspiration, because that ending felt very Rushmore/Tenenbaums. The long one take with every character coming together at a social function. I liked Chloe G.M.'s final v.o. as well. Speaking of which, she continues to be a great little actress. The boy was good too.

So, yeah, good if frustrating, but then I also haven't read the book, so it's hard to say how much of this came out of the source material.

Pop Trash

11-28-2011, 10:45 PM

This is also probably the most personal film Scorsese has made since I dunno...Goodfellas maybe? Scorsese had crippling asthma as a kid, which made him sort of an outsider from sports and social functions, so he basically hung out at the movies all the time. Hugo is obviously a stand-in for a young Marty.

Henry Gale

11-30-2011, 09:57 PM

Absolutely loved it. The way the film unfolds is just such an effective and seamless build, done so effortlessly in the way it brings all of its elements, a handful of themes and characters (which I suppose is the thing that most makes it a family film), closer and closer together. In the opening sequence I was filled with child-like wonder and by the end I was just emotionally overwhelmed. Scorsese using 3D here is exactly what you'd hope a director as established with his skill and technical sensibilities would do in terms of instantly figuring out how to use a new tool like it in the best way possible. It's easily the best and most beautiful live-action 3D I've ever seen. I saw it on a pretty big screen and sat just where the screen filled my field of vision and it was unlike any experience I've had with a non-IMAX 3D presentation.

One of the best films of the year. The less you have in the way of expectations or prior knowledge of it, the better.

To be fair, one must assume the eye-searingly ugly candy-colored-technoporn of the trailer is in the film somewhere. Unless, like Tangled, they just made up a new story and footage for the trailer.

It's basically this. They don't even scratch the surface as to what the story actually is and half of the clips in it are cut together with entirely different scenes. For instance (and most importantly), Sacha Baron Cohen does not fall into a cake to Asa Butterfield's amusement. Also, trade 30 Seconds To Mars with a gorgeous 1930s Parisian-influenced Howard Shore soundtrack.

baby doll

12-01-2011, 03:35 AM

This is also probably the most personal film Scorsese has made since I dunno...Goodfellas maybe? Scorsese had crippling asthma has a kid, which made him sort of an outsider from sports and social functions, so he basically hung out at the movies all the time. Hugo is obviously a stand-in for a young Marty.Remind me, why are we supposed to give a shit if Scorsese's movies are personal or not? Let's suppose he actually wanted to make The Departed (a possibility I find unspeakably sad); is this something you can tell from simply looking at the film? Incidentally, I learn from Ebert's book on Scorsese that he only agreed to direct After Hours because he couldn't get funding for The Last Temptation of Christ, yet I still prefer it to Mean Streets or Raging Bull which are allegedly more personal.

Irish

12-01-2011, 05:26 AM

Let's suppose he actually wanted to make The Departed (a possibility I find unspeakably sad); is this something you can tell from simply looking at the film?

Well, a lot of Hong kong actioners are overly focused on male friendship, loyalty, brotherhood, and betrayal (real or imagined) by those close to you. That's thematically similar to a lot of Scorcese's stuff, including Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Last Temptation, and Goodfellas.

So I could see why he might be drawn to some of the undertones of Infernal Affairs (which was pretty much a short riff on the work John Woo, Ringo Lam, and Tsui Hark were doing in the 1980s).

Why Scorcese took a lighter than air HK actioner and turned it into a bloated, uninteresting, slug like Hollywood drama is anyone's guess, though.

Where his movies used to be obsessive, personal and dark, now they take on all the trappings of generic Oscar bait.

It's like he's actively trying to be a slightly meaner version of Steven Spielberg.

Watashi

12-01-2011, 05:51 AM

Cause people like Bergman, Fellini, or Antonioni didn't make personal films at all.

baby doll

12-01-2011, 06:03 AM

Cause people like Bergman, Fellini, or Antonioni didn't make personal films at all.Let's say they didn't. Let's say they were just in it for the money and the women. Does that make L'eclisse or 8 1/2 or Persona any less interesting formally and stylistically? Maybe Bergman was so busy bopping his script girl between takes that some unknown assistant wound up directing most of Winter Light, but that doesn't make it any less of a movie.

baby doll

12-01-2011, 06:19 AM

Well, a lot of Hong kong actioners are overly focused on male friendship, loyalty, brotherhood, and betrayal (real or imagined) by those close to you. That's thematically similar to a lot of Scorcese's stuff, including Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Last Temptation, and Goodfellas.

So I could see why he might be drawn to some of the undertones of Infernal Affairs (which was pretty much a short riff on the work John Woo, Ringo Lam, and Tsui Hark were doing in the 1980s).But here's the thing: I don't really care what attracted him to the material. I just care about form and style, and on both levels, The Departed is nothing special. Shutter Island had some neat stylistic touches, but I couldn't get past the ridiculous plot. Maybe these movies are really personal to him, maybe they're not, but it's not like you can see his passion on the screen. Certainly I wouldn't have guessed that After Hours meant so little to him before reading Ebert's book.

Watashi

12-01-2011, 07:13 AM

Let's say they didn't. Let's say they were just in it for the money and the women. Does that make L'eclisse or 8 1/2 or Persona any less interesting formally and stylistically? Maybe Bergman was so busy bopping his script girl between takes that some unknown assistant wound up directing most of Winter Light, but that doesn't make it any less of a movie.
I have no idea what this paragraph is saying.

baby doll

12-01-2011, 08:16 AM

I have no idea what this paragraph is saying.I don't think a director's personal investment in a particular project (or lack thereof) is in itself a positive or negative quality. What irks me about most reviews of Scorsese's films (and Ebert's in particular) is the tendency to read his movies autobiographically, treating the actual "text" as if it were merely a cipher to be decoded.

Raiders

12-01-2011, 01:28 PM

I don't think a director's personal investment in a particular project (or lack thereof) is in itself a positive or negative quality. What irks me about most reviews of Scorsese's films (and Ebert's in particular) is the tendency to read his movies autobiographically, treating the actual "text" as if it were merely a cipher to be decoded.

You're too intellectual for your own good. This isn't about "decoding" or finding easter eggs of Scorsese's personal investment. It's about feeling that connection between creator and creation or noticing the romanticism and textures Scorsese lays on the film's obvious homage and dedication to the spirit and showmanship of early cinema, Melies in particular. It's something specific that we realize a director less interested in cinema history (something Scorsese's numerous docs, interviews and conservation efforts have proven he is profoundly keen on) might not have turned the film into. It's the emotional connection to the material that some viewers can feel and notice. I don't think anyone is saying it suddenly makes the film great (greater perhaps, but not great in and of itself), but it is certainly something that adds a dimension to viewing a film.

It's the same way we can view a film like Altman's The Company. It's a great film regardless, but there is something profound in seeing the way it relates so specifically to Altman's own view of the creation of an artistic goal and/or show (film). The collaborative process, the disparate elements, all coming to create the beautiful product that Altman's camera captures so elegantly on stage. It certainly adds to the "text" of the film inasmuch as we can see the impetus for the images on display. A film is created as much by chance and by whims of its creators and by the choices made in editing, camera placement and so forth, something a director like Scorsese or Altman certainly has some part in. To think the possible "why" or "how" of the chosen style of a film is unimportant as long as the style itself works is short-sighted.

Spinal

12-02-2011, 01:42 AM

I liked this a lot less than I thought I would. I was disappointed that it was more interested in telling the story of early cinema than it was in creating a compelling narrative for its protagonist. It looks good, but it's surprisingly dull, as there just isn't enough plot to make the damn thing go. Good performances from Butterfield and Cohen. There's enough there that I could probably talk myself into thinking that I enjoyed it. But I never got into it on a gut level.

Ezee E

12-02-2011, 03:08 AM

This is quite nearly a fantasy biopic, in that Scorsese manages to create an entire world, but base it off the early history of film. Spinal is right that the narrative with the boy losing his father is a bit weak, so Scorsese basically changes it into something else completely.

I even get a Jacques Tati feeling out of the characters in the station as they are mostly grunts, reactions, and simple subplots for the movie. Cohen's Inspector is both hit and miss, a lot of the laughs coming from the sound of his leg brace. The two kids are also hit and miss. They act well, but the mystery is never (even when settled) all that compelling.

The movie is masterful when dealing with Melies, and that includes Kingsley. It quite nearly becomes one of Scorsese's documentaries about films (which are all awesome if you haven't seen them). There's enough passion behind the acting, direction, and art direction that it's a beauty to watch.

The high positives easily outrank the negatives.

The 3D, while raved about, isn't really something that makes it the best use of 3D ever or anything. Avatar and Coraline might still be the best use of it. However, the scene at the flower shop probably looks a little better with the depth of field with the flowers, and the dolly in on Melies' speech is more effective.

Derek is correct - *** 1/2

Spinal

12-02-2011, 03:49 AM

I get the feeling that this film will be featured in Oscar montages for many, many years to come.

Watashi

12-02-2011, 04:06 AM

The thrill of seeing Melies's A Trip to the Moon in 3D is quite extraordinary. It was a great way of honoring the innovation of Melies by adding a whole new depth of magic using 3D.

baby doll

12-02-2011, 04:10 AM

You're too intellectual for your own good. This isn't about "decoding" or finding easter eggs of Scorsese's personal investment. It's about feeling that connection between creator and creation or noticing the romanticism and textures Scorsese lays on the film's obvious homage and dedication to the spirit and showmanship of early cinema, Melies in particular. It's something specific that we realize a director less interested in cinema history (something Scorsese's numerous docs, interviews and conservation efforts have proven he is profoundly keen on) might not have turned the film into. It's the emotional connection to the material that some viewers can feel and notice. I don't think anyone is saying it suddenly makes the film great (greater perhaps, but not great in and of itself), but it is certainly something that adds a dimension to viewing a film.

It's the same way we can view a film like Altman's The Company. It's a great film regardless, but there is something profound in seeing the way it relates so specifically to Altman's own view of the creation of an artistic goal and/or show (film). The collaborative process, the disparate elements, all coming to create the beautiful product that Altman's camera captures so elegantly on stage. It certainly adds to the "text" of the film inasmuch as we can see the impetus for the images on display. A film is created as much by chance and by whims of its creators and by the choices made in editing, camera placement and so forth, something a director like Scorsese or Altman certainly has some part in. To think the possible "why" or "how" of the chosen style of a film is unimportant as long as the style itself works is short-sighted.I don't share your high opinion of The Company, but even if I did, the important thing to me is how the film's style generates effects and meaning. For instance, one could look at how Altman's mise en scène in McCabe & Mrs. Miller, apart from being realistic, adds to the film's bleak quality--and in turn, how this relates to what the film is saying about the old west. In other words, the "why" or "how" of a chosen style is quite distinct from the director's personal investment in the project.

Furthermore, I don't think it's very daring for a filmmaker to make a movie about how great the movies are (or the art-making process generally). Does anybody say of their barber, "You can tell from his work that he really loves hair"? I think this romantic notion of the great man making films purely out of personal passion (but still accessible to a wide audience) is just a way of legitimizing the business of commercial filmmaking as an art.

Ezee E

12-02-2011, 04:13 AM

Furthermore, I don't think it's very daring for a filmmaker to make a movie about how great the movies are (or the art-making process generally). Does anybody say of their barber, "You can tell from his work that he really loves hair"? I think this romantic notion of the great man making films purely out of personal passion (but still accessible to a wide audience) is just a way of legitimizing the business of commercial filmmaking as an art.

You're very hypothetical. Does anyone ask a housekeeper, "You can tell he loves cleaning shit."

Irish

12-02-2011, 09:49 AM

Furthermore, I don't think it's very daring for a filmmaker to make a movie about how great the movies are (or the art-making process generally). Does anybody say of their barber, "You can tell from his work that he really loves hair"? I think this romantic notion of the great man making films purely out of personal passion (but still accessible to a wide audience) is just a way of legitimizing the business of commercial filmmaking as an art.

It's ballsy because most of em are too close to it to make it relatable. I probably couldn't think of more than a handful of really great movies about the movies.

And speaking of hairdressers: The Hairdresser's Husband is worth a watch.

Dead & Messed Up

12-05-2011, 05:23 AM

This got a little too indulgent towards the end, and I say so as a man who was nearly in tears during the montage of silent film. Scorsese says something grand about film, and then he...just keeps on saying it. It stalls the development of Hugo's story, and while it's told with love and care, it's just too much.

That said, this is a mostly enchanting, well-made affair. Obviously the production design is lovely, and I enjoyed the little side-stories with the other station tenants. The two kids do fine work; Chloe Moretz is so radiant that I'm ready to forgive her depressing posturing in Kick-Ass. I especially loved a cameo from Christopher Lee, not just because he's Christopher Lee (although there's that), but because he's old enough to have dim memories of first-run silent pictures. The creepy little automaton adds the requisite nightmare fuel for impressionable children, but this is really a movie for adult children.

Also interesting how tenable the film makes the link between film and literature. The kids don't just imbibe film history, they imbibe fantasy stories of Robin Hood and Captain Nemo and C. S. Lewis, and this film captures of the high-energy cheeriness of such writers (if not always the efficiency).

The 3D bugged me, as 3D usually does. It's best when Scorsese holds a shot and keeps movement to a minimum, but for some reason, Thelma Schoonmaker chopped the shots up way too thin, same way she did for The Departed. And there was an overabundance of arbitrary foreground objects in the first half of the picture. Seemed like Scorsese saw a lot of shots and thought, "Needs a lamp in the foreground."

B+

Ezee E

12-05-2011, 06:01 AM

Also, lots of floating specks of dust and stuff. Not really sure if that's indicative of anything, but it's constantly there.

Beau

12-08-2011, 04:08 PM

Arbitrary foreground objects? What, is he Ruiz now? Speaking of which, Ruiz in 3D. A possiblity that will never be. Grotesque objects stretched out towards us by marvelous technology. Feet hanging above our heads, alcoholic beverages drowning us with their size, furniture, decorations, curiosities, all of them falling on top of us through the window of 3D glasses!

I guess not.

B-side

12-09-2011, 03:42 AM

DavidSeven

12-13-2011, 09:51 PM

Scorsese does indulge himself a bit too much in those last 30 or so minutes, but at least the film felt like it was about something at that point. Narratively, this film is just going through the motions for a good three-quarters of its length. The story of this little kid is just barely interesting. Obviously, this film is truly about giving glory to Melies . In that, it's mostly successful. The finale is strong, touching, but overall, this is not a great film. There is another 90 minutes to account for, and those minutes are spent telling a meandering story of a child who barely registers as a character. The ending saves this movie, but only up to a point.

The 3D still feels pretty artless to me. There's a nice novelty to it while you're sitting in the theater, but none of the popping images really stick with me. Most of the film just felt like an animated diorama to me, which may have made it even more difficult to connect with the film's central story.

EyesWideOpen

12-13-2011, 09:55 PM

The 3D did absolutely nothing for me.

ledfloyd

12-14-2011, 06:47 AM

this was actually the first film i've seen in 3D and i had mixed reactions. like damu i think it worked best when he held shots. when there is a lot of movement/action it almost felt like too much for my eyes to keep up with and things got flickery (i might see tintin in 2d for this reason). which isn't to say there weren't plenty of times i thought 'wow, that's cool' but even in those moments it looked more like a diorama to me than anything approaching real life.

as for the movie, i really loved it. even early on when it was mostly silent and plotless i enjoyed the tati-esque observations of life around the train station. chloe moretz was positively magnetic. i do agree that he may have pushed a little too far into sentimentality in the last half hour but the effect the montage had on my might belie that. the decision to hold off on converting melies films to 3D until that point was a smart one. it really doubles down on the power of that moment.

and michael stuhlbarg is a chameleon, i kept thinking 'i know that guy... but from where?!' it didn't click until i saw his name in the credits.

Ezee E

12-14-2011, 11:20 PM

Thanks ledfloyd for also making the Tati observations. I have hardly read them anywhere else, but that first thirty minutes certainly seemed that way.

ledfloyd

12-15-2011, 02:11 AM

Thanks ledfloyd for also making the Tati observations. I have hardly read them anywhere else, but that first thirty minutes certainly seemed that way.
yeah, i was reminded of the airport sequence in play time, and richard griffiths character seemed to have a bit of monsieur hulot in him.

Mysterious Dude

12-15-2011, 03:13 AM

I thought it was weird how the height of the clock tower kept changing every time they looked out the window. One time, it looked like it was taller than the Eiffel Tower.

I was surprised at how small the story was. I think it was entirely confined to the train station and the neighborhood around it. I think a more modest approach to the filmmaking (fewer visual effects, less flashy camera work) would have suited this story better, but modesty seems to be out of style right now. I suppose it could be said that the visual effects (complete with inaccurate perspective) were an homage to Méliès, but the story was so unlike a Méliès story that it seems inappropriate.

EyesWideOpen

12-15-2011, 03:18 AM

I've now seen like 10-15 3D movies including the one's everyone says uses the technology the best (Coraline, Avatar, Hugo) and none have given me an experience that I wouldn't have preferred to have the normal way.

Ezee E

12-15-2011, 06:05 AM

I can't really imagine seeing those three in any other way. ESPECIALLY Coraline.

EyesWideOpen

12-15-2011, 12:14 PM

I can't really imagine seeing those three in any other way. ESPECIALLY Coraline.

I got much more enjoyment sitting at home watching it on blu-ray.

Ivan Drago

12-16-2011, 03:13 PM

Narratively, this film is just going through the motions for a good three-quarters of its length. The story of this little kid is just barely interesting. Obviously, this film is truly about giving glory to Melies . In that, it's mostly successful. The finale is strong, touching, but overall, this is not a great film. There is another 90 minutes to account for, and those minutes are spent telling a meandering story of a child who barely registers as a character. The ending saves this movie, but only up to a point.

Pretty much.

Morris Schæffer

12-27-2011, 05:13 PM

Love it although I couldn't have predicted that in the first hour, but the movie just builds and builds to a joyous and hugely resonating finale.

Little else to add. Glorious production design, stunning 3d (even myscreen was up to snuff this time!). Hell, Hugo's clocktower dangle was nearly as vertiginous as Hunt's Kalifa shenanigans! And the cool thing, Hugo probably got inspired by him seeing Harold Lloyd in an earlier scene. No one told him not to try this at home (or in a train station).

I will add that Cohen's portrayal was a miscalculation - who comes up with this shit?! - though not a dealbreaker despite me using the word "shit."

Also, an early scene in which the Winstone character is the bearer of bad news is handled with such insouciance and formality that someone, somewhere, deserves an uppercut for it.

But again, fantastic stuff overall, but I often equate teary eyes with awesomeness.

Spinal

12-27-2011, 05:22 PM

In what way was Cohen's performance a miscalculation? He was one of my favorite parts. I thought he fit the movie just fine.

Morris Schæffer

12-27-2011, 05:51 PM

In what way was Cohen's performance a miscalculation? He was one of my favorite parts. I thought he fit the movie just fine.

I get that the movie existed in a heigtened sort of realism, and since he wasn't that prominent of a character I didn't mind too much, but it felt exagerated, completely unfunny. Yeah, I felt he was there for a bit of comic relief. So perhaps I worded incorrectly. I'm cool with such a character being in the movie, but I didn't buy a single word he said because of the way he behaved and said them. All I could think of was, "this needed to be a different actor. Why him?"

Bosco B Thug

01-01-2012, 05:06 AM

I was surprised at how small the story was. I think it was entirely confined to the train station and the neighborhood around it. I think a more modest approach to the filmmaking (fewer visual effects, less flashy camera work) would have suited this story better, but modesty seems to be out of style right now. I suppose it could be said that the visual effects (complete with inaccurate perspective) were an homage to Méliès, but the story was so unlike a Méliès story that it seems inappropriate. Agree. Pretty sure I thought these same things when watching!

I went in expecting a mystery/intrigue/real-danger-filled robot fantasy thing. But of course the almost-hilarious moment comes when you realize, yes, this is just about a depressed filmmaker.

Baron Cohen was mostly very convincing, but he did have some off moments. I'd say it was the script - the somewhat cringe-worthy parts for him being the schtick about poetry and that part when he repeats a threat three times with different wording...

Dukefrukem

01-09-2012, 12:50 PM

The story of this little kid is just barely interesting. Obviously, this film is truly about giving glory to Melies . In that, it's mostly successful. The finale is strong, touching, but overall, this is not a great film. There is another 90 minutes to account for, and those minutes are spent telling a meandering story of a child who barely registers as a character. The ending saves this movie, but only up to a point.

I had zero interest. The whole time I was wondering where this kid was sleeping, eating… surviving. His uncle’s? That wasn’t made clear. That wasn’t the point, but this is a family movie. What could possibly interest a family in watching this more than once? I kept wondering if Scorsese had something incredible up his sleeve but every character felt out of place. Kingsley, Cohen, the two kids… Cohen’s character was simply there for the last 5 minutes of the movie…? This could easily be cut down to 90 minutes and get the point across. Hell, it takes 15 minutes for the title screen to appear! Every scene drags and drags.. the chase up to the clock tower? Completely uneventful!!

Scorsese’s worst movie.

Ezee E

01-09-2012, 11:46 PM

Dukefrukem

01-10-2012, 12:21 AM

The kid slept and survived in the train station. He stole the food from the vendors.

I can understand you not liking the pace of the movie, but man, those are easy answers solved in the context of the movie.

YEh you're right but it's hard for me to buy that, which is why I was looking for more answer I guess. The whole movie felt awkward.

dreamdead

01-17-2012, 08:52 PM

This film has the misfortune of my earlier experience with Selznick's children's novel. Because that text alternated cleanly between art and prose, there was an audacious energy and verve to it. And Hugo as everyman, due to many of the first-person style imagery, thrived despite a relatively anonymous characterization. Here, though, like several others, I found myself bored by Butterfield, and it's largely in how the cinema asks Hugo to be more than he's asked to be in fiction.

And while the focus toward the railroad community works, each character is such a stock character that I'm left highly ambivalent by the whole affair. The focus on film history, which Selznick largely restricts to Melies and one brief 400 Blows reference, feels more thorough here, as it indeed is. Yet the final celebration of Melies' return comes off as empty and excessively burdened by a narrative moment already bettered by the Keaton, LLoyd, Chaplin, etc., footage. It's not a bad film, but it's not a revelation for me either.

ledfloyd

01-18-2012, 04:32 AM

i felt like there was some subtext present in that hugo's interactions with the day to day going-ons of the train station were mostly of an observational nature. he's watching life like a movie, teasing out plot threads and the like.

Russ

01-21-2012, 01:58 AM

LOL @ Regal theaters

N66d7cnJpLY

Grouchy

02-21-2012, 07:11 PM

Absolutely loved this. Scorsese is such an effing genius.

I disagree with everything that can be said against this movie. Yes, the plot might be thin, but the sooner you accept that the entire film is an excuse for an elaborate love letter to special effects and the creators of cinema, it all makes more sense. Every actor is perfectly cast - leave it to Marty to make a movie about two orphan kids and cast just the right child actors so that you don't want them to be murdered on the spot. Hugo, in particular, reminded me a bit of young Noodles in Once Upon a Time in America. And Sasha Baron Cohen is a revelation. He often had me in stitches just with the way he pronounced his lines, very Monty Python.

Furthermore, I think Scorsese made a huge evolution as a filmmaker in the last ten years of his career. I'm serious about this. Yes, he might make obviously commercial films, but he's the best commercial filmmaker alive. Like someone mentioned here, the environments he creates for his films are so inmersive and visually tasty that you feel you can almost touch and smell them.

Adam

02-23-2012, 02:54 AM

I did not like this and the most brief and cogent critique I've read that more or less articulates my feelings about it came from, of all things, a tossed off line in Armond White's review of Mission Impossible 4

Ethan’s remarkable reppelling [cityartslol sic] stunt is truer to the spirit of Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last than the tiresome homage that Scorsese crams into Hugo.

Yeah. There is so little imagination in Hugo; a movie that is a paean to imagination. It's a two hour long namedrop that ostensibly doubles as children's movie which no child I know would enjoy

I did like Sascha Baron Cohen, though

Boner M

02-23-2012, 02:57 AM

Yeah. There is so little imagination in Hugo; a movie that is a paean to imagination. It's a two hour long namedrop that ostensibly doubles as children's movie which no child I know would enjoy
I was more positive since the last 30 mins are pretty moving, but this rings very true.

Watashi

02-23-2012, 03:19 AM

I did not like this and the most brief and cogent critique I've read that more or less articulates my feelings about it came from, of all things, a tossed off line in Armond White's review of Mission Impossible 4

Yeah. There is so little imagination in Hugo; a movie that is a paean to imagination. It's a two hour long namedrop that ostensibly doubles as children's movie which no child I know would enjoy

I did like Sascha Baron Cohen, though
You need to know more children then.

Derek

02-23-2012, 03:24 AM

Who cares if children would like it? Most kids have shit taste.

Pop Trash

02-23-2012, 03:32 AM

Wasn't this the argument against Where the Wild Things Are too? I seem to remember things like The Neverending Story or Empire of the Sun having bigger impacts on me when I was a kid than things like The Goonies or Masters of the Universe or whatever.

Adam

02-23-2012, 03:42 AM

Who cares if children would like it? Most kids have shit taste.

That'd be great if there weren't so many misguided bones thrown to all the kids in the audience throughout the movie. I feel kinda the same way about Rango. Here's what Michael Sicinski wrote about it (Rango)

I think there's no denying that this is a strange film, Verbena promising big-budget family animation and delivering an impressively awkward auteurist item. But I'm not convinced. There's no sense, rationally or even in the interest of fairness, questioning RANG0's being what it is. But, if it weren't about a cowboy lizard, would its Leone or CHINATOWN riffs scan as much more than moviebrat wankery? And, considering these elements, the slow pace, the gunplay, and the 3rd-act turn to stone seriousness kind of make this (imo) a piece of animation for adults much more than kids, I have a hard time setting aside that nagging sense of showoffiness. I shrug. Sorry.

You need to know more children then.

I'm pretty confident in saying that by the time Michael Stuhlbarg's character shows up, the ten year old me would've lost all consciousness and slipped into a rest-of-the-movie-long coma

Wasn't this the argument against Where the Wild Things Are too?

Yeah, but it kind of got away with it by at least having the decency to self-identify as being a movie "about childhood" as opposed to "for kids."

Watashi

02-23-2012, 03:45 AM

Adam

02-23-2012, 03:49 AM

Most of the adults are bored by Hugo, while the kids love it. This is from my personal experience watching families exit the theater that I work at. Sure, it's a small sample size, but I've witnessed way more positive reaction from kids (including my sisters) than negative.

Who cares if children would like it? Most kids have shit taste.

But, yeah, fair enough. I have no evidence that kids were as bored by Hugo as I was. It just seemed to me like a really tough sell for most of the kids I know. Like what do you think the appeal for them is? What do kids have to latch onto in this movie?

Grouchy

02-23-2012, 04:32 AM

I think most people who make movies for children seriously underestimate kids or think they're simply retards with a small body. Well, some of them are, but I'd say it's about the same ratio as adults.

Anyway, I didn't think it was strictly a movie for kids or family-oriented. Children can see it, but adults will probably get more out of it.

I agree with that criticism regarding Rango - it references a lot of movies that no kid today would've heard of, let alone seen. The difference is that Hugo doesn't rely on the audience having ever seen Mélies, since it incorporates him as a character in a story. I'd imagine it must be awesome to be a kid, watch this film and then find out that he was a real person.

Morris Schæffer

02-23-2012, 08:24 AM

It's a two hour long namedrop that ostensibly doubles as children's movie which no child I know would enjoy.

This is how I felt about allen's midnight in paris except that in Hugo the parade of famous names feels organic, essential to the narrative and intentions of scorsese. I was enraptured by the images of Lloyd, keaton because it felt like, in a way, I was seeing them on the big screen for the first time.

Spinal

02-23-2012, 06:32 PM

Grouchy

02-23-2012, 06:55 PM

Rango succeeds because it draws from the past, all the while embarking on a new adventure with a charismatic character and its own peculiar sense of humor. This movie just goes through the motions as far as narrative is concerned. It's a total bait-and-switch.
I feel the exact opposite. I kind of liked Rango, but I think it's a movie that depends entirely on name-dropping and homages and I didn't like that. You can walk into Hugo without knowing absolutely anything about the creators of cinema and still enjoy it.

EDIT: Heh, I meant to rep Morris and repped Spinal instead.

Morris Schæffer

02-23-2012, 07:04 PM

I feel the exact opposite. I kind of liked Rango, but I think it's a movie that depends entirely on name-dropping and homages and I didn't like that. You can walk into Hugo without knowing absolutely anything about the creators of cinema and still enjoy it.

EDIT: Heh, I meant to rep Morris and repped Spinal instead.

That means Spinal has to rep me also. :)

Spinal

02-24-2012, 12:18 AM

I'm keeping the rep because I feel like I deserved it.

EyesWideOpen

02-24-2012, 12:40 AM

lovejuice

03-06-2012, 12:02 AM

Here in Thailand, this and The Artist are in theater at the same time. I can't help but notice most of my friends tend to like either one but not both movies. Since I had no idea what Hugo was about, this perplexed me a little.

Then yesterday I watched both movies, and now I see.

As a nostalgic trip and paying homage goes, I prefer Hugo. It seems like a more creative way to celebrate the art of cinema. Not simply imitating old movies, but expanding upon the idea by framing it with the Dickensian adventure of two orphans (representing a new generation of magic-makers perhaps).

MadMan

03-06-2012, 06:12 AM

Morris Schæffer

03-06-2012, 09:10 AM

I preferred this slightly over The Artist, although I'm not sure both movies have much in common besides being about the past and also being about people's love of cinema. Anyways, Hugo was absolutely wonderful, entertaining, and even a bit magical. It just might be the best movie Martin Scorsese has made in some time.

Glad you loved Hugo Madman. I think there may be other, more overt, similarities such as both Valentin and Melies feeling like they're not wanted anymore, spat out by the world and what do they do? They both burn their movies to a crisp in a fit of rage and whaddya know? In each instance, one copy of their most treasured commodity gets salvaged.

They both have dogs. So there's that. :)

MadMan

03-06-2012, 05:56 PM

Glad you loved Hugo Madman. I think there may be other, more overt, similarities such as both Valentin and Melies feeling like they're not wanted anymore, spat out by the world and what do they do? They both burn their movies to a crisp in a fit of rage and whaddya know? In each instance, one copy of their most treasured commodity gets salvaged.Oh yes, that is true....hence the reason why I often try to watch movies multiple times so that I pick up on things like that. I loved Ben Kinglsey in Hugo-I imagine if he had been considered for an Oscar nom it would have been supporting, though. I almost cried when Melies burned all of his props and everything, btw. It was a really tragic moment.

They both have dogs. So there's that. :)The Artist has the better dog, though, heh.