Martin Scorsese Directing Hugo Cabret

So i went to see this movie without knowing anything about it just the fact that it was a Scorsese picture and the interesting visuals i saw at the trailer. All i can say is that it's one of the best movies i have seen in my life(and it takes a lot for it to be in that list) the movie is just beautiful in every sense of the word, the cinematography was amazing, i could just stare at these locations for hours, the 3D is one of the best i've seen, it made the sets come alive in a way. The story itself was a little confusing but at the end you see the whole picture; i was able to relate to some of these characters so well and thats very rare. the actors themselves were fantastic, i never seen the kid that played the main character before but he really delivered, as for Chloe i believe that shes going to be one of the best actresses in the business and ben kingsley well ive never really like him before but after this really moving performance i've become a fan.
I dont really write reviews for movies but this film was so good i had to, if you are a fan of the film industry/cinema history you have to see this.
 
Well, Hugo is expanding tomorrow. It'll be in 563 more theaters, which ups the theater count to 1,840. Maybe we'll get it on December 9th.

I can't see it grossing $100M domestically during its theatrical run (I don't remember a movie having a 10x multiplier since Avatar), but I imagine it'll have a healthy life on home video.
 
After thinking about this more, apart from the visuals, it wasn't anything special.
 
I really enjoyed it, but I think it's fair to say that Scorsese was more interested in the Ben Kingsley material than the Hugo Cabret material. The first half could stand to be trimmed some to get to the material Scorsese was really invested in earlier.

That said, once it gets to that material the film really becomes a lot more than a solid kid movie with great art direction. There's some real love and magic on display there.

I saw Hugo and The Artist this week. I'm following that up with a theatrical screening of Murnau's Nosferatu on Saturday. It's been an interesting look back.
 
Haha, I imagine its no surprise that Scorsese was more interested in the Meilies scenes than the stuff about the kids. In a way, the story begins with the kids but it turns into an interesting piece about a filmmaking pioneer.

I say this from just having read the book, btw. I'm going to see the movie either this weekend or next week. Really looking forward to it.
 
I really want to see this, but my local theaters aren't playing it. Sure they have That Adam Sandler movie, and that Ben Stiller diaper stain, and Leo Dicaprio's millionth attempt to get an Oscar, but they seem to have neglected to feature a movie that a lot of people would really enjoy.
Not that I'm frustrated or anything.
 
This is an amazing film. One of the year's best and it's a shame not enough people will see it in theaters. The 3D is actually worth it. Also the young actors both performed very well.
 
Well, we're finally getting Hugo 3D this Friday (no 2D but I'm not complaining). I'll be seeing it either Saturday or Sunday, depending when I get off my shift.

Lots of positive reviews is very good. The fact that it only dropped 34% in its second weekend bodes well for the word-of-mouth and gradual expansion.
 
Saw this on Friday. It was enjoyable but I wasn't all that blown away by it.

Post converting a clip of the original From the Earth to the Moon was a nice treat though.
 
Best film of the year . It is really unfortunate how piss poor the marketing ofg the film has been ... If I wasn't a Scorcese fan , I probably would not have given this film a chance .... Chloe Moretz is probably the best young actress today . I predict like Portman she will go from child actor to academy award actrees one day.


The film is just a wonderful film for film buffs .
 
The tone of the film is a bit hard to place.

Update: Film Crit HULK sums up my thoughts pretty well :
http://badassdigest.com/2011/12/07/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-two-hugos/
HUGO IS WONDROUS.
THAT BASIC TRUTH BECOMES AN INESCAPABLE FACT WHILE WATCHING THE FILM, AS IT IS BASICALLY ONE LONG, SWEEPING ARC OF CINEMATIC JOY. IT IS THE CLEAR WORK OF A MASTER OF HIS CRAFT. WE ARE TREATED TO HEAPS OF MINUTE PRODUCTION DETAILS, A WHOLE WORLD BROUGHT TO LIFE WITH VOYEURISTIC PANACHE. AND THE FILM MANAGES NOT JUST TO BE A LOVE-LETTER TO EARLY CINEMA, BUT FEATURE ON-KEY PERFORMANCES, EMOTION, GRANDEUR, AND PERHAPS THE BEST USE OF 3D HULK'S EVER SEEN.
IT ALSO HAS SOME MAJOR SCRIPT PROBLEMS... BUT HEY, IT'S A MOVIE AND THAT SEEMS TO HAPPEN A LOT.
THIS SAD REALITY OF MODERN STORYTELLING ALSO BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING QUESTION: WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A MOVIE?
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS A BLANKET "WHATEVER YOU'RE LOOKING FOR," BUT HULK TRY TO ARGUE THERE A NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF FILMMAKING, WHICH, AS-OBJECTIVELY-SPEAKING-AS-POSSIBLE, MATTER. THERE ARE ASPECTS OF PRESENTATION AND SOUND (IE "CRAFT") WHICH STRIKE THE AUDIENCE MEMBER WITH EMPATHIC AND VISCERAL REACTIONS. BUT MOVIES ARE AT THEIR BEST WHEN THESE VISCERAL MOMENTS OF EMPATHY COMBINE WITH LONG-FORM PLOTTING, THEMES, AND CHARACTER-BASED IDEAS THAT THE AUTHORS PUT FORWARD. AND THE TIMES WHEN THESE TWO ASPECTS OF VISCERA AND THEME BLEND SEAMLESSLY? THEY CREATE EMOTIONAL CATHARSIS IN THE VIEWER AND UNLOCK THE TRUE JOYS OF NARRATIVE FICTION.
SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DIRECTOR MASTERS HIS CRAFT, BUT IS STILL CRAFTING AN IRRECONCILABLE STORY/THEME?
IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN ONE WOULD THINK. FOR EXAMPLE BOTH HULK AND DEVIN CITED THE SCRIPT PROBLEMS OF SUPER 8 WHOSE THEMES AND STORY WERE LARGELY INCONGRUENT WITH IMPECCABLY MADE MOVIE BEING ASSEMBLED AROUND IT. THE PROBLEM WITH GREAT FILMMAKING, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE VISCERAL THRILL CAN BE EQUALLY ALLURING AND MISLEADING. MOVIES ARE POWERFUL THAT WAY. AND IT MAKES THINGS TOUGH ON THE CRITIQUE-R TO TRY AND APPROXIMATE THE REACTION OF THE AUDIENCE (NO ONE LIKES BEING TOLD "ALL THOSE THINGS YOU FELT" DON'T MAKE SENSE). SO EVEN THOUGH IT MAY SEEM THAT HULK BEING TOUGH ON A GIVEN MOVIE WHEN IT COMES TO THE SCRIPT AND THEME, HULK REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE ASPECTS MATTER GREATLY TO THE LONG TERMS SUCCESS OF A MOVIE. BECAUSE WHEN A CHARMING MOVIE IS FULL OF INCONGRUENT THEMES AND CHARACTERIZATION, THEN SAID MOVIE USUALLY ENDS UP BEING A FLASH IN THE PAN.(1)
AND MOVIES THAT RESONATE ON EVERY LEVEL... LAST.
SO AGAIN, THERE IS A CAPACITY TO WHICH HUGO IS A WONDER TO BEHOLD, WHICH MAKES IT SEEM LIKE IT CAN OVERCOME ANY NARRATIVE PROBLEMS PURELY THROUGH THE SURE-HANDED GUIDANCE OF ONE OF THE GREATEST FILMMAKERS EVER... BUT THE SCRIPT, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS STAGNANT.
WHAT MAKES THE MATTER MORE PROBLEMATIC IS THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROBLEM IS NOT A FUNCTION OF ANYTHING ABOUT THE FILM BEING "BAD." IN FACT, JOHN LOGAN IS A GOOD WRITER WITH STRONG ENOUGH HISTORY. SO THIS IS NOT A CASE OF THERE MERELY BEING "BAD STUFF"IN THE MOVIE... THIS IS ABOUT GOOD STUFF IS ACTUALLY MISSING... THE CRITICAL STUFF.
SIMPLY PUT, THERE'S NOT A LOT FOR THE CHARACTERS TO DO.
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, PERHAPS YOU MAY WANT TO TURN AWAY NOW CAUSE HULK GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME STORY POINTS INCLUDING THE FILMS "REVEAL" BUT IT REALLY NOT SPOILING... SO HULK NOT SURE, IT UP TO YOU REALLY ... OKAY COOL... BASICALLY THE FILM HAS ONE CENTRAL MYSTERY THAT IT PUTS FORTH AND IT SPENDS JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE FILM TRYING TO UNLOCK IT. BUT IT ACTUALLY TAKES THE WRONG APPROACH TO TELLING THAT MYSTERY. STORIES OF MYSTERY USUALLY WORK BEST WHEN UNVEILED THROUGH A SERIES A INTERLOCKING POINTS, WHICH EVENTUALLY LEAD THE PERSON ON A PATH BACK TO THE MAIN MYSTERY AND CONCEIT.
INSTEAD, HUGO EXPLORES THIS CENTRAL MYSTERY THROUGH A LONG SERIES OF APPROACHES AND REFUSALS INVOLVING THE PRINCIPALS OF THE CENTRAL MYSTERY ITSELF. FOR INSTANCE, PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY WITHHOLDING INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP MOVE THE STORY FORWARD... AND THEY NEVER SEEM TO HAVE ANY CLEAR REASONS TO WITHHOLD SAID INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN JUST NOT GIVING AWAY THE WHOLE MOVIE YET. IT'S VILE STORYTELLING TACTIC AND THIS HAPPENS CONSTANTLY IN FILM. IT FEELS LIKE TREADING WATER. SURE, SOME STUFF HAPPENS, BUT THERE IS NO ACTUAL PROGRESS CHARACTER OR PLOT-WISE.. WE JUST GET MORE BITS OF VAGUE INFORMATION FOLLOWED BY MORE REFUSALS. ULTIMATELY, IT JUST MAKES THE WHOLE "REVEAL" PRETTY CLEAR LONG BEFORE IT ACTUALLY GETS THERE (SPECIFICALLY IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE REAL-LIFE HISTORY OF CERTAIN PEOPLE INVOLVED).
TO USE A VISUAL METAPHOR. IMAGINE A MOVIE ABOUT THE SCALING OF MT. EVEREST. NOW PRETEND THE MOVIE SIMPLY COVERS THE LAST 20 FEET AND THAT'S IT, SO THEY'RE ALREADY PRETTY MUCH THERE. NOW PRETEND THE CHARACTER FALLS DOWN EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO SCALE IT... FOR TWO HOURS. YEAH... EXACTLY (THEN AGAIN YOU'D ALSO HAVE TO IMAGINE IT'S BEAUTIFULLY MADE). THIS IS A CRAZY, EXTREME EXAMPLE TO BE SURE, BUT IT GETS TO HEART OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE MOVIE.
REFUSALS STOP ANY FILM FROM PROPELLING FORWARD. LIKE THE CHARACTER, THE AUDIENCE STOPS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS AND SITS THERE WAITING FOR THE STORY TO START MOVING AGAIN. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY OF STORY TELLING. HECK, THERE'S A REASON IMPROV GROUPS ARE TAUGHT TO AGREE ALL THE TIME AND NEVER MAKE A DENIAL, IT'S WHAT MAKES STORIES WORK! AND REALLY, IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY MOVIES (LIKE GREEN LANTERN FOR EXAMPLE) TRY TO ACHIEVE DRAMA THROUGH THE CONSTANT MEANS OF HAVING A CHARACTER REFUSE TO COMMIT TO ACTION. IT IS OF COURSE MEANT TO SHOW TORMENT OR CONFLICT OR SOMETHING, BUT IT USUALLY DOESN'T WORK... AT ALL.(2) AND FOR MOST OF THE RUNNING TIME IT DOESN'T WORK FOR HUGO... THAT IS UNTIL THE END, WHEN THE FILM COMES TO THE CRUX OF ITS THEME (IE "FIXING") AND IT HITS THE EMOTIONAL RESONANCE OF THE MATTER WITH THE MOVIE'S VERSION OF A CATHARTIC SAVING THROW... IT IS HERE THE MOVIE FINALLY FEELS ALIVE. IT MIGHT EVEN JUSTIFY THE WHOLE THING.
WHICH TURNS HUGO INTO THE ODDEST KIND OF A MOVIE, ONE THAT IS FULL OF ANIMATED LIVELINESS AND VISCERAL WONDER, YET IT SPENDS SO MUCH OF ITS RUNNING TIME WITH THE FAINTEST OF THEMATIC / PLOTTING HEARTBEATS.(3)
THIS CAN TRANSLATE MANY WAYS AND PERHAPS ANY OF THEM FAIR. YOU CAN THINK THE MOVIE IS WONDROUS (WHICH IT IS) AND YOU CAN THINK THE MOVIE IS BORING... REALLY, YOU CAN THINK IT IS WHATEVER YOU WANT. BUT HULK ALWAYS LIKES TO PLAY SCRIPT DOCTOR AND HULK SEES A SCRIPT THAT LOST A LITTLE BIT OF PURPOSE AND TRIED TO RELY ON BEING A ONE-TRICK PONY. BUT STILL... MR. SCORSESE TURNS IT INTO SOMETHING TRULY WONDROUS.
HUGO WORKS... AND HUGO DOESN'T WORK.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
<3 HULK
ENDNOTES:
(1) - HULK COULD MAKE A SNARKY LIST OF POPULAR MOVIES HULK THINKS USE GREAT FILMMAKING, BUT DON'T MAKE A LICK OF THEMATIC SENSE AND THUS PROVIDE A KIND OF "FALSE CATHARSIS," BUT THAT WOULD BE... YOU KNOW... SNARKY... OKAY FINE HERE'S A THREE: CRASH, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, MYSTIC RIVER. THERE. BUT THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION.
(2) - REMEMBER LUKE SKYWALKER REFUSES THE CALL IN STAR WARS FOR ALL OF 30 SECONDS OF SCREEN TIME.
(3) - THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY ALL MOVIES HAVE TO BE THE BASTION OF NARRATIVE. BUT THERE ARE MOVIES THAT CALL FOR ARTISTIC INVERSION OF NARRATIVE AND MOVIES THAT, WELL, DON'T. AND THIS MOVIE AIMED AT FAMILIES CALLED FOR MORE NARRATIVE AND LESS OVER-RELIANCE ON A SINGLE PLOT MECHANISM.

Whats weird is he totally read my mind about Mystic River and Crash as well. ... I hate Crash.
 
Last edited:
Nikki Finke says that Hugo has made $1.8M today, with an estimated third weekend gross of $6.5M (and it's playing in 2,608 theaters now). If it holds true, then it has only dropped 13% from the past weekend. That's impressive, even though the weekend gross isn't in the double digits.

Hugo may not be a huge holiday movie, but the word-of-mouth is keeping it afloat. I wonder if Paramount will keep expanding it or keep the theater number as is. And I think this will have a profitable run on home video...
 
I saw it last night. Gorgeously shot and excellent 3D -- Scorsese totally got the rules of 3D filmmaking and used it to help enhance the story. Good acting by Asa Butterfield, Chloe Moretz and Ben Kingsley too.

The story itself was very good, and it's clear it was a labor of love for Scorsese. It's very refreshing to leave a Scorsese film feeling warm and fuzzy for a change. I wouldn't give it the Best Picture of the year, but it's definitely in the Top 5.
 
I watched this movie yesterday. It was wonderful and touching. The visuals were fantastic!

4/5
 
Finally got to see this today. Must say the first 30-45 mins is the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar, and I say that as someone who hates the format (still had to take my glasses off every 20mins to relax my eyes). This really is a wonderful tribute to the history of film, I wasn't really captivated by the story as a whole, nor did the character of Hugo win me over (I didn't think the kid was very good to be honest), but overall the final act is where it really hit it home for me being a film nerd. The only thing I'll say though is that it really isn't a kids film even though it was marketed as one, it's more of a film with kids in it, I don't know if I'd like this film if I was 8 or 9 given there weren't really any major action sequences or crazy characters. This film is more for lovers of movies of which I am one.

Not perfect nor is it Scorsese's best but a well deserved 8/10.
 
It's great with these kinds of urban fantasy/kiddie sci fi films to be located in Paris. The city looks like a fairy tale of its own. And I don't mean the, from time to time, gritty Dickens feel - but having a city that seems full of beauty, wonder and mystery. I can't wait to see Hugo Cabret at my local cinema. I think it's going to be a great experience.
Regarding cities that have a fairy tale feeling, London could be a sibling to Paris. The victorian era still dwells inside the british captial, and the french city by Seine still have 1800th-1900th century elements, as well as gothic buildings
The Harry Potter franchise didn't really do the same for London, because the characters were rarely there.
And Moulin Rouge gave us a amazing, surreal Paris. But it's not aimed for children, nor does its plot involve kids. So I guess it doesn't count.

I can't think of any family film that presents a european city the same way Hugo does. There aren't even those kind of cities here, except the two mentioned above.


Edit. After some thinking, I think that Vienna, Berlin, Moscow, St Petersburg, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Stockholm can work. Each of them have enough fairy tale themes to work with, but I don't see how any of them can rival Paris or London. Only one other city can, and I haven't mentioned it yet. It's Rome.


Edit 2. The Thief Lord, with Aaron Johnson and Rollo Weeks, was a kind of fairy tale film for/with kids. And it took place in Venice, but it never fully exposed that city as a fairy tale location. It was just a beautiful location, but it never had that sense of wonder it could have.
 
Last edited:
I had low expectations but was pleasantly surprised.

The film is really Scorcese's love letter to cinema.

Its a Georges Méliès biopic with some Oliver Twist stuff thrown in and was rather enteraining if a little long.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"