Martin Scorsese's 'Hugo'

S

Sad Max

Artful Dodger
Saw this on Saturday - first impressions: it is a -very- beautifully made film that I think is particularly rewarding if you happen to be interested in film history. It's very much a genre piece - 'Grand Hotel' by way of the Mysterious Quest (or vice-versa) but one heck of one, at that.

A good deal of it feels familiar, but familiar in a good sort of way (after all, cliches become cliches because they work, and a cliche can be well and artfully employed same as anything else...)

Highly recommended. I don't think it will work as a unified whole, for everyone, but it's one of those films where there is still something for just about everyone.
 
Have to be honest and say the trailer was a touch disappointing when it first landed, still with Marty at the helm and Logan providing the script this remains a must see.
 
I wanted to love this movie but I didn't. I liked it, but a lot of people are over the moon about it and I just wasn't. The sets are gorgeous, as is the 3D cinematography of them. But I found the pacing dragged in the first hour, a lot of the comic timing felt kind of flat footed, and the character of Hugo not very interesting nor the actor who portrayed him. Not until the story involving Ben Kingsley's character took center stage did the film come alive for me. But even then, it was okay. Nicely done, but not the masterpiece it's being hailed as...I might have to watch it again in 2D to cement my opinion. I'm starting to notice that 3D makes it more difficult to appreciate composition in photography. I think because it forces your eye to focus on one part of the image, wheras in 2D your eye takes the entire image in at once so how things are composed in a frame takes on more importance.
 
from watching the trailer,

i thought it was pathetic, the pacing of the movie did not match the upbeat music at all. you can tell how slow the movie is going to be and how sparse the adventure/action is.

over the top color correction did not help much either.
 
Batutta said:
I wanted to love this movie but I didn't. I liked it, but a lot of people are over the moon about it and I just wasn't. The sets are gorgeous, as is the 3D cinematography of them. But I found the pacing dragged in the first hour, a lot of the comic timing felt kind of flat footed, and the character of Hugo not very interesting nor the actor who portrayed him. Not until the story involving Ben Kingsley's character took center stage did the film come alive for me. But even then, it was okay. Nicely done, but not the masterpiece it's being hailed as...I might have to watch it again in 2D to cement my opinion. I'm starting to notice that 3D makes it more difficult to appreciate composition in photography. I think because it forces your eye to focus on one part of the image, wheras in 2D your eye takes the entire image in at once so how things are composed in a frame takes on more importance.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially about the 3D; I went to the 3D viewing because I'd heard it was "the best 3D yet," and figured I should see if 3D is something I'm going to be able to learn to appreciate in the future. It's not. It was well done, but even the most focused points of the frame confuse my eyes to the point where I'm not focused on the story, I'm focused on focusing.

I did notice that the "comedy" bits seemed almost a homage to the slapstick of the silent era films the movie is about. So did a lot of the side stories. The film was well done in a visual sense -- much of the first act is told entirely through visuals, which is impressive for a "kids movie," but unfortunately, there was no magic in this film. At least not in 3D.
 
Been reading a few rave reviews recently... not really a fan of 3D (only Avatar has thus far added any value) but as this is Marty, I'll check it out....
 
Amr Rahmy said:
from watching the trailer,

i thought it was pathetic, the pacing of the movie did not match the upbeat music at all. you can tell how slow the movie is going to be and how sparse the adventure/action is.

over the top color correction did not help much either.
Click to expand...

These threads are more for responses to actual films, as distinct from critiques of trailers. Maybe we need a separate sub-forum, for that.

I have yet to view anything that was really better with the 3-D than without. I'm already at the point of just ignoring it as best I can.
 
Batutta said:
I wanted to love this movie but I didn't. I liked it, but a lot of people are over the moon about it and I just wasn't. The sets are gorgeous, as is the 3D cinematography of them. But I found the pacing dragged in the first hour, a lot of the comic timing felt kind of flat footed, and the character of Hugo not very interesting nor the actor who portrayed him. Not until the story involving Ben Kingsley's character took center stage did the film come alive for me. But even then, it was okay. Nicely done, but not the masterpiece it's being hailed as...I might have to watch it again in 2D to cement my opinion. I'm starting to notice that 3D makes it more difficult to appreciate composition in photography. I think because it forces your eye to focus on one part of the image, wheras in 2D your eye takes the entire image in at once so how things are composed in a frame takes on more importance.
Click to expand...

Just saw it in 3D and loved it and I agree with most of your review, but the first thing I noticed was the variety of accents, none of them French
and in a French story.

I know it's difficult to do, and I'd say Scorsese auditioned them all, but both kids would have probably decided him not to.

However as it progressed, the French railway gendarmes English cockney accent really detracted things for me, almost comic like Ullo Ullo.

I noticed Scorsese himself as a silent fim cameraman in one shot, also paying homage to Hitchkok, why not.
Best vfx, editing and sound fx and sound mixing, and support for Ben Kingsley, best movie if it can edge out the Artist.

For me 3D is gradually getting better, as when stereo LPs first appeared and everything was hard left and right, they got better too.

Cheers.
 
At first I didn't plan on seeing this because I wasn't too excited about it being 3D, then I saw it got nominated for all these awards then I said, well maybe I'm missing something here and plus I said, it's Scorsese so, maybe he'll do something special here with the 3D.

I thought the movie would be something epic, but it wasn't. Visually it was good to watch, but the story wasn't that good. It was missing that special thing all best pictures have, it's a good movie, but not best picture worthy in my opinion. And I agree what someone else mentioned as far as 3D I feel sometime takes us away from the story, but if a story is good enough or powerful enough maybe the 3D wouldn't matter.
 
I thought it was excellent. One of my top three films of the year. The 3D really added a whole new element for me. I normally dislike 3D and couldn't say enough about how I thought it advanced this narrative.

Kegan
 
My favorite film of 2011 (admittedly I haven't seen all the competition, I watch fewer movies now than before I started making them) and my favorite 3D film of all time.
 
Just finished watching. Enjoyable. Not quite the love sonnet to the history of film some made it out to be. The beginning was overlong and I started wondering if there was actually anything about filmmaking in it at all. (Really, The Aviator had more.)

Visually gorgeous. Loved the incorporation of the train wreck.
 
David Jimerson said:
Just finished watching. Enjoyable. Not quite the love sonnet to the history of film some made it out to be. The beginning was overlong and I started wondering if there was actually anything about filmmaking in it at all. (Really, The Aviator had more.)

Visually gorgeous. Loved the incorporation of the train wreck.
Click to expand...


exactly what i felt when I watched it.
but the cinematography goes along the lines of my style or the style I like. and I enjoyed it. however I must admit that at some points the 3d was distracting...
 
I'm at the point where I think I'll just start wearing an eyepatch to 3D presentations, so I can finally watch major motion pictures in glorious non-migraine-producing 2d, as the Gods intended.
 
I thought Hugo was OK - beautifully crafted but I found it boring. The child characters seemed too old, as in they were 8 but playing 35 year olds. I had no idea what the story was about before seeing it - besides it being about some kid into clocks - but then found the story kind of disjointed, with the entire first hour being simply the setup for George's story about his filmmaking... I was expecting a little more magic and adventure for the kids, which it seemed to allude to so much, but instead was about the cranky old dude. I did like Borat and Ben Kingsley's performances.
 
Enjoyed the film. Have to say I agree this has been the best use of 3D so far. The 3D was part of the storyteling and the cinematography, the depth was part of the whole concept of the film. The Oscar was really well deserved, there.

The problem with the film is that it was probably too "over thought": by trying to appeal to all audiences, Scorcese was just too "descriptive" in order for everyone to be able to understand what was going on. This made for some "docudrama" moments that somehow felt a bit forced. The chemistry between the kids was also not that great, I think that acting, overal, felt a bit bellow Martin Scorcese's standards.

However, one of the best films of the year, a great 3D experience - not a big fan of 3D but have to say here it did work: how many directors and productions will spend the necessary time to implement it as brilliantly as Scorcese? - and a film that the whole family can enjoy. Loved the "3Dfication" of some of the BW films- Magic within the magic, I believe that's what Scorcese was looking for and a worthy tribute.

All in all, I think watching first the Artist and then going and Watch Hugo (Both on the big screen and not at home) provides one hell of a wonderful time at the movies. That's what I did, and in case this is still an option for anyone reading this, do it !
 
I'm at the point where I think I'll just start wearing an eyepatch to 3D presentations, so I can finally watch major motion pictures in glorious non-migraine-producing 2d, as the Gods intended.
Click to expand...
Or wait for a dvd/bluray release. I'd keep the eyepatches to avoid seeing majority of posts here ;)

Mr Scorcese walks the walk when it comes to his love for cinema. What an irony that it took a violent-lover true Italian filmmaker to portray the birth of cinema in France so magnificently in a story bringing Le Salon Indien du Grand Café, Lumiere bros, Melies, his all glass Montreuil film studio, his masterpieces and the most importantly the concept of preserving cinematic treasures. A master work from a master.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top