• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hugo |OT| A Martin Scorsese (3D) Picture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gregorn

Member
I'm going to see this on Friday but didn't really know much about it (still don't) but once again GAF has succeeded in filling me with hype.
 
D

Deleted member 22576

Unconfirmed Member
So I saw this last night. What a jumbled, enjoyable mess. The different pieces did not come together very well, I thought. The first 45 minutes or so I was almost regretting my decision to see it. But the last hour or so when it really delved into film history was very, very enjoyable. The train station was also just an unenjoyable setting. I felt claustrophobic and dirty, and very terrified.

Still, it was a good time. Once it really got going on it's film history tangent I was completely engaged. Its just a shame the movie didn't really have a singular voice or vision. It felt like 3 separate projects that were all crammed together.

3D was good for the most part. Though a bit nauseating inside the train-station walls. Though that might have just been the poor set design. The love-letter to film stuff was definitely it's best attribute, which is why its sad it felt so contrived and tacked on at the end. I would have much rather just seen an Aviator-esque biopic about George Melies and the invention of special effects.

Good time, but overall I wish I had gone to see Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at it's preview screening like I had intended when I left the house. But then I saw the Hugo poster and the promise of an empty theater.

Go see this movie. Its weird and "schizophrenic", but its good.
 

Mifune

Mehmber
Saw this over the weekend. Girlfriend and I both loved it.

You could tell it was the work of a veteran filmmaker, and it really shamed most recent family movies. The pacing, cinematography, acting were all dead-on. I was surprised to read so many people found the first half dull; I was completely enchanted throughout. The constant camera movement and breathless pacing gave it the feel of, well, a Scorsese film.

And I'm excited to see what he does next, something I couldn't say after seeing Shutter Island.
 
I just came back from it.

I bawled like a fucking baby throughout the entire second half of this film. It was like Scorsese was whispering the deepest desires of my own heart back to me. This is no joke. It was a good thing I was wearing those polarised lenses. I haven't seen such an earnest love letter to the magic of movies since Agnes Varda's One Hundred and One Nights. It was absolutely beautiful.

Melies' entire flashback was revelatory. I pity those people naive enough to have missed watching this film in 3D. And that sequence should be proof enough for anybody the power it can have on transporting you and thus - especially in the case of this film, serving the narrative. The photography itself was gorgeous. In the innards of the train station I have to say it felt similar to the three-colour tinting effect had employed in The Aviator, only it was achieved through the lighting and set design itself, rather than seeming like anything done after the fact in post.

Kingsley was brilliant. Chloe Moretz was a joy to watch any time she was on the screen, which I'm very happy about. I wasn't convinced about her based on Kick Ass, but she really is one to watch. Asa Butterfield was okay. I might have had him under a larger microscope since I knew he had been cast as Ender, which I just don't see at all.

I agree about the first forty-five or so minutes seeming to drag, but after that it is all gravy.

I will never buy this film unless I have a 3D TV in which to watch it. I can't imagine watching it any other way.

I've yet to see The Artist, The Descendants and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but Hugo has quickly shot straight to the top of my best of 2011 list, with Tintin and The Tree of Life in tow.
 

Window

Member
So I finally got to see this! So beautiful to look at. Particularly loved the transition to Hugo's flashback, when Melies sees a movie projector for the first time and the flashback sequence of the film historian.
 

Tizoc

Member
Watched this with my brother a week before he went back to UK for college.
When we left the theater he said 'Thank you for taking me to this movie' =)
We both loved it and were astounded by the visual presentation.
Only thing about the story I didn't get is...
how did the fire start in the museum?
When's the BluRay release for this movie? I don't have a 3DTV but must let my other family members experience it.
 
I might have to watch the film again to see if I appreciate it more this time, I didn't leave the theater hating or disliking it, but I can't say I actually enjoyed it. Maybe it was just the mood I was in.
 

Socreges

Banned
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.
Yeah, completely agreed. It did make it all the more beautiful, though, and there were therefore some moments that double as self-referential.
 
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.

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.
 

Socreges

Banned
universalmind said:
IMO not worthy of 95% or whatever it is at on RT.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Saw this a second time recently, my parents wanted to go see it. I first saw a test cut so it was cool seeing the finished effects, but man did the movie bore me to death this time around.

First time through my favorite aspect of the film was easily the early cinema material, but second time it was significantly less entertaining. I think it ultimately might play better if you're not already familiar with that era. The rest of the movie was as awkward and cheesy as it was the first time.

My first experience with Hugo was a PDF of an early draft of the script. That's probably my favorite version. Everything felt more "magical," not just the second half of the film.
 

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
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.
This is basically how I felt about it: loved the cinephile bits; the larger story, not so much.
Have to agree.

The sequences about Méliès and early cinema are very beautiful, but the rest largely wasn't engaging. Hugo Cabret and his story just aren't very interesting (no wonder the film works best when it forgets about him), and I agree with complaints that it's a bit of a mess.

One thing that bothered me was how
the final chase in the station wasn't resolved with the station inspector realizing Hugo serviced the clocks and letting him go. That would have tied that plot strand to the point about everybody serving a valuable purpose. Instead it's tied up in the least interesting or magical way possible, and the station inspector seems oddly disconnected from the rest of the movie. He's just a device to generate more conflict, as if Scorsese and Logan don't trust that the relationship between Méliès and Hugo will be enough for kids.
 
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.

Purpose can be said about pretty much any movie. I think there was one scene where they talked about destiny in this.
 
You miss my post?

It's an interesting one. I hadn't really thought of it as a plot focus as it's more like underlying metaphysics. Perhaps you're right that was the aim, but I don't think it was shown very well if true. Hugo doesn't really share memories with anyone apart from when he briefly mentions
his father dying and his uncle arriving (who disappears without a murmur, only to show up dead when convenient). Georgos only does a sudden 180 when Hugo helps him remember his glory days.
It's not a gradual friendship filled with memory
despite Hugo's montage working for Georgos, which again, served no purpose
. Georgos only appreciates Hugo because he helped him which is more like a favour (also possibly because he said he too liked to fix things when he was young, but still too minor, gets mentioned once at the end.)

One other thing I missed,
was it the automaton coming up with the ideas for films or was it drawing Georgos' dreams because Georgos said he poured his heart and soul into it? The second one makes more sense, but I got the impression the automaton was influencing Hugo while he was sleeping by the way it was looking at him.
 
saw this last night - opened in australia last week.

wonderful wonderful movie. The 3D added a lot to the movie. Amazingly pretty, moving, really beautiful, funny as all hell, and the kids are perfectly cast and not annoying. Hugo - the kid; was great. Loved how the trailer didn't even really hint at what the movie is about - from the trailer; its a completely different movie.

Sacha (Borat) was pretty damn funny in this. He was the comic foil and he worked. There was a sly humour to the movie that was done perfectly and the cinema guffawed at a lot of it.

are they going to re-release this in the US; now that it goe 11 oscar noms and give this a second chance in the cinemas?


* like sculli - when the 2nd half kicked in about the
"magic of cinema"; and they showed the old school stuff;
, it went off on a tangent and became something else. Truly magical. and I found myself being very moved and affected by it. Martin Scorses obviously loved the movies and this echoed with me.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
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.

I agree; it was also about the importance of not just living, but finding your place in life. Hugo found his by helping Georges Melies to do the same, again. The automaton was the device that bridged their stories.

I'm glad you liked Chloe Moretz's performance. Between her role selection and how well she tackles them (Kick-Ass, Let Me In, and Hugo are what I have seen her in) I think she has extraordinary potential. She really helped ground the film.

On a related note, my wife and kids were ticked off about one change from the book (there were many, large and small). When they break into the movie theater, it was Chloe's character that picks the lock in the book. They changed it to Hugo in the film, for no reason I can think of. In the book it made an additional point of connection for their characters.
 

Griegite

still a junior
Did anyone else enjoy the score as much as I did? I thought Howard Shore did a great job. I had to buy the score after seeing it the first time. It seemed a bit minimalist at times but I had problem with that.
 
Feb 28th.

hugo-3d-blu-ray-combo-box-art.jpg


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!
 

jett

D-Member
Final watched this movie, in 3D in a big "XD" screen. It was gorgeous, the use of 3D was really incredible. You can tell it was designed with 3D in mind from top to bottom. The entire production design complements it incredibly well. The scenery, the constant use of machinery and gears, everything is always giving huge amounts of depth and detail to the picture. Definitely the best 3D movie yet, and by far.

The movie itself was really good, and not as preachy regarding film history as I was lead to believe. It's charming and entertaining. Will watch again on blu-ray.
 
I just watched this movie in a theater. The 3d was really well made, but also obnoxiously in your face (every other shot has an object in the very foreground, it gets old). It looks a bit fake like most CG-heavy movies (i would be very shocked to learn it was not CG).
one 3d gimmick i liked is when character faces got very big. it's childish but i found it amusing

Wasn't a big fan of the acting, especially of the kids (and Baron Cohen's character felt very largely pointless). It's unfortunate the parts of the movie could be ranked in that order
the movies by Melies >>> the shots where you see Melies making movies >>> the scenes with Melies >>> everything else.

I liked the idea behind the movie very much, but the plot felt disjointed and aimless. But some parts were very nice. It's also a feel good movie, which I was in the mood for, so i guess it was ok.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Totakeke

Member
Just watched it, definitely by far my favourite movie of the year. I didn't like the kids acting as much, but the story was good enough to keep me engaged. The Meiles parts however was just incredible. I didn't like the overuse of 3D in the beginning, but after that, there were scenes where it would just lose so much without 3D. It's hardly perfect, but goddamn it is amazing and so touching ;_;.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Since this thread was bumped, I was going to offer my thoughts, but...

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 about sums them up succinctly.

Also, that (presumably fan-made?) poster art is amazing. I'd frame the shit out of it.
 

Yager

Banned
Masterpiece. Movie of the year. Will watch it again this week if everything goes ok. First 3D movie where I truly enjoyed the 3D.
 

lacinius

Member
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!


I'm picking up the 3D version as well even though I have no way to play it, but I can't imagine not having it just in case for the future. This will be my first purchase of the 3D+2D combo disc set, but this film fully justifies that decision.
 
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.
 
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.

Don't presume-- my 7 year old loved it. Also, it's not really a kids movie, it's a family-friendly movie with more for the adults but enough for the kids. I recommend this movie to all sorts of people with no kids at all.
 

Pachimari

Member
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom