Hugo

What Sarah said:

This is a visually stunning film and ideally watched in 3D. Hugo lives inside the walls of a train station in Paris in the 1930s. His father leaves him a mysterious automaton that, when fixed, can write. I think it’s a family movie that feels artistic and there is an attention to detail that I appreciate.

Mike’s verdict:

I have quite a list of coming soon reviews and generally choose the order of films to watch randomly, or at least without too much intention.  In this case, I chose Hugo because after the disappointment of the The Artist I wanted something light and enjoyable; and 3D children’s movies generally fit that description.  In fact, until the opening scene, I had been under the mistaken impression that I was about to watch an animated film; presumably because of the over-saturated poster image.  I don’t watch movie trailers so I knew nothing of the plot and I was genuinely surprised to discover the obvious connection to The Artist. Thankfully, Hugo was a much more enjoyable film.

To start with, it really is visually stunning.  I made the effort to see this film in 3D; the home set-up pales in comparison to what would have been quite an experience if I’d been able to view it in a proper theatre but I think it was worth the effort.  The universe that Martin Scorsese has created is engrossing, and the added dimension greatly contributes to a feeling of being inside that universe.  All of the detail provided in the set designs was fantastic. Every corner in each scene was given attention, making it really feel like a world – there were no empty spaces and no background – everything was alive and meant to be looked at.

I also really appreciated the characters, who felt both real and like caricatures at the same time.  Certainly this has a great deal to do with the choice of actors like Sir Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen. They allow the over-saturation to extended past the movie poster, through the 3D set, right into the characters’ personalities.  Everyone seems like so much.  The story is fantasy, so believability isn’t really an issue, and the plot isn’t nearly as easy to predict as it initially seems.  The film did feel a little long, but considering that Scorsese directed it, it’s actually very reasonable.

My only real criticism concerns the plot revelation of why Georges Méliès abandoned film-making so drastically.  His portrayal and the lead-up to the revelation intimated that something terrible must have caused him to turn away from his passion, but when everything is explained in the end his anger seems like an over-reaction.  The story could have suggested that, as a film-maker at the start of the Great War, he would have been requested to document the fighting. By the end of the war, having witnessed so much, it would have been far more believable for him to walk away from the camera forever.  Instead, the writers let him simply be disappointed by a lack of attention – a plausibly human reaction, but not a very satisfying one.  Granted, my revisions would be somewhat less appropriate for a children’s movie – I’m simply not the audience this film was intended for.

Overall, an enjoyable watch that kept me engaged until the end.

7.5/10