I wouldn't go that far, but I will say I didn't much enjoy anything this film had to offer outside of the awesome 3D and the recreation of George Meiies films.This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Please be trolling.
Tell me what was good and I'll tell you if I was trolling
Other than the visuals.
Yeah, completely agreed. It did make it all the more beautiful, though, and there were therefore some moments that double as self-referential.Eh, "integral to understanding" is a stretch. It's still pretty novel, even if you appreciate it in the framework of new mediums, storytelling, "magic", etc., that the movie provides. 3D has nothing to do with why this movie captured my imagination.
The score.
But really, the entire second half of the film elevated it to my favourite film of the year. On this very page I wrote why I loved it in my initial impressions.
Well, the RT score is a collection of individual opinions, so technically you wouldn't feel it worthy of 1%, much less 95. Particularly considering your entrance into this thread.universalmind said:IMO not worthy of 95% or whatever it is at on RT.
I am glad you enjoyed it as much as you did.
I thought the film was confused and didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it about the magic automaton that was flaunted about in the trailers? Is it about Hugo's struggle to survive? He felt shunted aside in the latter half, even though the film bears his name. Is it about clockwork and how we all work on the same stage? Is it about Georges Melies or film? That part wasn't really introduced until well into the second half of the film so I'm not sure.
Combine this constant shifting of focus with the inconsistent pace, the poor dialogue and deliveries, I couldn't bring myself to care about the characters. Why am I supposed to care about Georges Melies' 'tragic' story when he is surrounded by family who loves him and has a nice house to call home? All the while standing before him is Hugo who has lost both parents, has no house, no money, no food and no future. Hugo is supposed to pity Georges because he isn't a famous director anymore because he couldn't adapt to changing times? Sacha Cohen's sideplot felt irrelevent, forced and uninspired too.
IMO not worthy of 95% or whatever it is at on RT.
It's great to see Scorsese spill out his love and admiration for film on screen. Every scene that focused on the history stuff and not on the actual plot was magical. It's was, like, inspirational to watch. There's one scene in particular - a flashblack where we see Melies creating his films - where I was just enamored. Every time a character talked about old movies or any time they showed clips from old movies, I had a huge smile on my face. I love that kind of stuff, and I love that Scorsese loves it, and I love that he loved it enough to create a movie about it.
That said, Hugo is essentially a brief film history lesson wrapped up in a predictable family story. Not one of Scorsese's best.
Have to agree.This is basically how I felt about it: loved the cinephile bits; the larger story, not so much.
Well, the RT score is a collection of individual opinions, so technically you wouldn't feel it worthy of 1%, much less 95. Particularly considering your entrance into this thread.
Ironic that you call the film "confused" and then go on to suggest that the movie may have been about a "magical" automaton (it wasn't) or Hugo's struggle to survive (definitely wasn't). Think about the word purpose. And maybe go see the film a second time.
Ironic? Those points had prominent parts in the film and then they were each left behind. That was the entire point of that paragraph. I was pointing out that none of these things really had a lead focus.
You miss my post?
The film's pacing was inconsistent, but I thought the message was pretty consistent. The film was about the preservation of those memories the bring us together.
Wow just got back. Love the cinematography, the story and pretty much everything. I got to sit on it a couple days but I think this might be the best time I have had at a theater all year.
Welcome to the club, brother. It was my favourite film of the year in that it moved me in a way that felt as though Scorsese was making the movie just for me.
Since this thread was bumped, I was going to offer my thoughts, but...
...this about sums them up succinctly.
Also, that (presumably fan-made?) poster art is amazing. I'd frame the shit out of it.
I'm actually happy that there is a version coming with both the 2D and 3D blu versions. As I was hesitant about buying the film only because I can't imagine not being able to watch it again in 3D (since I don't have a 3DTV).
Also, that is a very close release date!
Welcome to the club, brother. It was my favourite film of the year in that it moved me in a way that felt as though Scorsese was making the movie just for me.
This is exactly why I don't think it succeeds. It's a kids movie made by an old man for film critics; I cannot see a child less than 10 being anything but utterly bored.
The cinematography and soundtrack were great for me but the absurd motivations of the adult characters, the inconsistent accent of Chloe Moretz and the plodding pace combined to make the film less than the sum of its parts.
I know absolutely nothing about this film, I don't even think I have seen a trailer, maybe a teaser one. But this one is probably the one I'm mostly excited about!
When is it coming out on Blu-ray 3D in EU?