Over-acting, plodding pace, too long. You can understand why this movie is well-received by critics. The plot involves the early making of movies. But that's really a distraction. The director fawns over that aspect of the plot. And why do American actors playing French people have such strong and unauthentic English accents?

Just a movie that was falsely advertised. It didn't have any of the "magic" that I was anticipating. It was a beautiful movie to "see", it just didn't have a story. It was hopping around with really no where to go. I left and was asking what was the reason for the Dad dying? Uncle dying? the mean Cop? the weird Dog? the weird old man and the weird old lady with the over aggressive dog? and what the heck was the purpose of the iron boy or the dream that Hugo had about the key and why did he turn into the iron boy. So confusing and stupid. It only left me and my family asking, what the heck did we just watch? And we were very happy we didn't pay the 3D ticket price.… Expand

I had to leave the theatre for awhile because it was so tedious and predictable. This movie is made for 10 year old kids, not for adults. It is a great story and Scorsese is a great director. But I'm beginning to think Scorsese has become Altman and Kurbrik in their later years. The pacing is a killer, some wonderful moments but it was edited like a student film, everything had to be included. It was irritating the way to spoke down to the audience.… Expand

Not enough words can be said in terms of how much I love Scorcese's work, but Hugo is a near-total flop. The idea that Scorcese would take on the daunting, film-crippling fad that is 3D, came as a surprise to me. But it was Scorcese, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and went into the theatre with high hopes. Boy, was I disappointed. The storyline, writing, and acting by the main character who plays Hugo are put together producing a flat product. The movie is boring. The only true part of the movie I liked was Scorcese going through the history of film periodically, which had nothing to do with the main story-line at all. Wait for it on DVD, don't see it in 3D. Disappointed!… Expand

I went in looking forward to seeing this movie and hoping it would be another Scorsese classic. I'm a big fan of Scorsese's past greats, such as Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Good Fellas - and the idea of him doing a children's movie was intriguing to me.

I left the theater with a nagging reminder that, as great as Scorsese is, he's only human and even he can fall into the same trap that so many directors fall into when making big budget visual films; so much energy is put into the visuals that the story and characters get left behind.

This movie is no exception to that sad Hollywood norm. The characters are lifeless and wooden, the dialogue is far too on the nose, and the plot is so slow moving that it trips over itself.

The music is annoying and far too omnipresent. Instead of being used to heighten a mood or intensify a feeling, it's just constantly in your face. It's so superfluous that it loses it's meaning and impact.

There were no humorous moments. I didn't laugh once. Sacha Baron Cohen is a lifeless, boring Station inspector and doesn't compare to other great children movie bad guys, such as the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Gene Wilder in Willy Wanka. From a visual standpoint it is a stunning movie. The best 3D movie I have seen. It makes Avatar look wimpy. Clearly Scorsese put a tremendous amount of thought into the visuals created each scene for 3D. But I think that is actually where he went wrong. He focused so much on that aspect that the story and character went dead. There should have been two directors on this movie - one for the visuals and one for the story. That might have created what I was so hoping to experience when I came out tonight.

I really wanted this to be great. But it was just average.… Expand

"Hugo" is tedious to start off with, which is Martin Scorsese's biggest problem when making his movies. But I give credit for his imaginative visuals and rich designs. A good movie to enjoy in the end.

I'm not sure if Mick Ock even saw the same movie I did. He claims that the "stuff about cinema" is only 20 minutes or so, when in reality it took up the entire second half of the movie (just over an hour). Hugo is a touching, heart-felt movie, if you have the intelligence to get it.

A major disappointment. What a mess. While it was fine from a technical standpoint, the story was completely unengaging. The result is a big beautiful mess. And these reviews about how it's a "Love letter to cinema" are laughable. The movie's about the young boy, and the stuff about "Cinema" is only about 20 minutes or so at the end of the movie, and has nothing to do with the boy's story at all.

This was the worst movie I have ever sat through in my life. 1.Story- What's the point of it all? Dead father, broken robot, movie maker who gave up b/c of the war, (boohoo), security guard who finds love and softens up, girl who just happens to have the key, author of book happens to be standing right there and have obsessive collection of girl's grandfather's movies, dead unkle (it didn't even matter that he dies). 2.Acting-horrible 3.Coincidences- way too many stupid ones. Like I said earlier. The girl just HAPPENS to have the key hanging around her neck. All the girls in the world and he hooks up with the one who chooses to wear it as a neckelace. 4. Way too long. 30 min would have been too long. 5. Was this fantasy or not? Robot that draws all this is unbelievable. Why were the papers flying around when the box dropped? Why was the grandfather so upset when the kids found the box of drawings? Why was he so upset about the book the boy had with the drawings? (another stupid super coincidence). He was just too darn upset about nobody liking his movies anymore? This movie dragged on and on and for what? For us to learn that the moviemaker DOES have people who like his movies still? That is so stupid. What the #### does that have to do with the robot he built and the boy happens to have? (coincidence). The trailer for the movie shows the robot flying through the air and a dragon shooting fire. It tricked me into thinking this may be somewhat of an exciting movie. With maybe some fantasy thrown in. (Not that a movie needs it to be good) But no. The robot is not flying. It is being dropped. Their is no dragon. It is a 1920 movie being made. I started this review trying to be structured but I am just spewing it out now. This movie is a waste of time and I do not understand how other people like it. This is the reason I created an account and wrote this first review. Some more ranting- How did the father die? It doesn't really matter but they didn't even bother with a real reason. Just fire shooting up the stairs after he heard noises. Lame. The movie tried to create tension filled and emotional scenes with way too much music but they just weren't there. Why when the kids tried to run away they all of a sudden were running AGAINST all the traffic. Run on the other side WITH the traffic dummies. And the boy was just living on stolen bread rolls? Please. The security guard side story was stupid and not needed. There was at least an 8 min scene with him trying to talk to the flower girl. What a waste of time. This movie is so bad that I am glad I saw it with my daughter. We will always remember it and laugh about it. Thankyou for making it so tereribly boring and stupid.… Expand

This was a beautiful movie. It was also unengaged, tedious, predictable and just down right boring. I am sure film students will rave about it as a masterpiece. I know Martin Scorsese's work very well and appreciate all of it but not this. This was the worst thing I have ever seen him put his name on. The fact that the movie was so beautiful just made it more disappointing because that is all it had going for it. Like a beautiful train wreck.… Expand

I fell asleep for a moment watching this movie. Much too slowly paced. Lots left undeveloped. Surprising to see other reviewers comments about the performances. Except for the child, all the other characters were quite undeveloped. Some quite good actors had very little to work with here. Humor is lame, groin injuries and dog bites. Characters that you thought might have some interest were left dangling and unfinished. And even the child's most dramatic moment in the movie is poorly integrated into the story. He shifts on a dime, or rather the director does. This is not a story Scorcese should have directed. And I certainly would not take children, unless they need a good nap! Contra shibumi, there isnt much to get. And whatever there is takes so long in the getting. Visually it is stunning, and the paean to the beginnings of cinema are appreciated, but it was too much of a good thing.… Expand

It seems that people enjoy making unbiased assumptions about others. You take your time to give a low score and give your insight on this film, and then expect us to respect your opinion, the problem is that you then start making such stupid assumptions on why critics gave Hugo a high score. You want us to believe your opinion, but then create such ridiculous reasoning for other opinions as if their opinion were wrong, the movie expresses love for other movies, therefore, that is the ONLY reason why the critics gave it a high mark? Preposterous. That is not a sane justification of any hypothetical. These people think they know better than movie critics, Your opinion of this movie, although unexplained well and improper, is not relevant to my point, the bitter assumptions of why critics gave this film a high mark is relevant to the point. Hugo, a film about fixing people, unfortunately, the message was not received. People saw the film, but they did not truly watch it. There is plenty of effort found in this movie, it has so much heart and beauty. The small minor details are not important, it is a very kind film that does not deserve such arrogant rhetoric. Review the film such as that of a professional, Do not scoff or insult the film, critique it. if you cannot, then you truly are broken. Arrogance is the weak poison of humanity.… Expand

Yes, most people have it right here. Beautiful to look at and all. Great homage. Nice Depp to the thing, as a sort of Django Reinhardt/Depp there in the Cafe, along with James Joyce and Salvador Dalí type playing guitar...but who cares? It pains me to say this but it was very stale dog turds. The only light bits were Sacha Cohen...and it was nice that there wasn't a lot of dialog...but, what was that LONG INTRO then BAM! Here's the title? Orson Welles homage? WTF? Lame.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is beautiful to look at, has a good cast among the adults, and has some nice moments with the train station setting. But the plotting and pacing kills it. For one thing, the two plots seem to be forced together in a non-credible way. That may be the fault of the source material, but a good director ought not to reproduce strained plotting out of some sense of faithfulness to the text. It was just too abrupt for me the way Hugo is all about the automaton and then suddenly he's all about movies. Too much coincidence, not well integrated. Then, there are two places where the movie basically stops for a lecture about film history. Nothing against the topic, but voice-over to explain it is a poor dramatic technique in a non-documentary film. Finally, the secret behind Papa Georges' reaction to Hugo's notebook and to seeing his old drawings didn't have sufficient dramatic heft. "He went bankrupt because tastes changed" is sad, OK, but hardly the tragedy presaged by all the preceding build-up. He didn't change with the times so his studio failed. This happens all over in every industry. I was left with a big feeling of "Is that all there is?" He seemed pitiful (and self-pitying) rather than tragic. I realize we are meant to view the melting of his films as an awful warning about preserving the classic films we know and love, but the point was laid on with too heavy a hand. Besides all this, the screenplay was uneven, sometimes awkward, there were too many extraneous bits such as the bookseller and the wicked uncle, and the pace was very slow. All these factors kept me from becoming fully involved. I can't imagine a child having the patience to try to follow this. In short, for a movie about the magic of movies, there just wasn't enough magic.… Expand

I was almost shocked by the stream of 100 reviews by critics, which the more I think about the less I like. I'll try to be fair and line up the points in its favour first then more onto the more disappointing. In its favour, Hugo carries a strong cast with (albeit brief) roles by Jude Law, Christopher Lee, the pleasantly surprising Sacha Baron Cohen as well as the superb Ben Kingsley and Annoymous Child Actor with Sparkling Blue Eyes. Y'see, I've already slipped into the negative because there's so many of them. Director Scorsese doesn't seem to be able to focus on Child Actor with Sparkling Blue Eyes (hereby referred to as CASBE) without an overly long and rather blunt focus on his sapphire blue eyes. Thus starts a long stream of the film throwing what it wants you to think in your face in a blunt and unconvincing manner. He's an innocent child, it screams, can't you see that, in his blue-blue eyes! Ahem, back to the good. The setting of the film is spectacular, beautiful even. We are pleasured optically with panoramas of early 1930's Paris bedecked in a powdering of snow, lit in the evenings by twinkling lights and a few obvious landmarks like l'Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame, just to make sure you're absolutely sure it's Paris because amazingly NO-ONE, except Christopher Lee's line "Mousieur Cabret," sound even remotely French. Okay, we can forgive that, back to the good things. A lot of money has clearly been put into backdrops and extras; the train station in which most of the film is set is bustling with hundreds of Parisian folk about their business, crushingly busy at points (like during chases) but fortunately empty at others (like when extended dialogue takes place). Maybe Parisian's were more polite in the 1930's than they are now. There's a few moments that may make you laugh, mostly with comedy relief Cohen, but they were few and far between for me. Right, is that the good stuff done? Recap, imagery, some actors, a few laughs. So much for Hugo as a good film, now for it as a monster....

The film's so God-awfully slow as to be painful. In a world of high octane films that demand attention through sheer eye popping explosiony goodness, it's nice to slow the pace, it really is, but not this far. I was bored by mid-way, checking my watch for the first time in a film in years. Each scene is staggered out with long dramatic pauses that drag on and on. My hopes were high in the extended introductory scene where a chase with Cohen, the unlikable and awkward station inspector, pursues CASBE through a throng of Parisians. Just as I'm thinking "ooo, this is fun" WHAM, it slows down again to a snails pace and becomes brooding and dark, which gives me another impression; this films doesn't know what it wants and so has a pot shot at everything. Rather than stick with a theme, it veers chaotically from tragic, comedic, philosophical, romantic, like it's on a runaway locomotive ploughing into a Parisian station.... The thing that annoyed the most, beyond the agonisingly slow pace and the butterfly plot, the thing that really got to me more than anything was how demanding this film is. Now I don't mean demanding in terms of complexity, God no. I mean demanding in what it asks of you in a manner almost as petulant as CASBE when he follows child acting school rule 17, "Act Shocked When Accused" and snarls that he's not a thief when anyone even vaguely implies a five finger discount being taken. This films DEMANDS how you feel about characters while providing so little background to them that to call them two dimensional in within serious risk of being overstating them. He's an orphan, roars the film, you HAVE to feel sorry for him! He's a sad old man, can't you see that? Aren't we making it clear enough how you should feel!? Every character that we are meant to empathise with has so little back story, or such a limited back story, that it makes it almost impossible to feel anything for them. The backstory that pads out Kingsley's character is given in one large chunk right at the end of the movie and I actually found this quite engaging as it allowed me to appreciate the character I wasn't allowed to feel anything for. Every time another character tries to peek into the bubble each character has around themselves they're rebused with almost the same petulance as CASBE along the lines of "I don't want to talk about it". The only character that gave any inkling into their motives was surprisingly the unlikeable Inspector, Cohen offering the touching line almost as an apology of his disability to the girl of his desires. In that brief conversation more was giving about one character than most of the others in the entire film. In short, appalling pacing, almsot non-existent character development and a waste of good actors do not make up for pretty settings and facing graphics. Let's not even talk about the 3D.… Expand

Hugo is filmed so beautifully, and its story is told just so elegant. Hugo is easily one of the best films of the year maybe the decade, and it has one of the most talented casts ever put together with strong performances from Chloe Moretz, Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley who will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for his strong and committed performance. I give this movie 96% of a good movie.… Expand

Hugo has a potentially interesting and moving story to tell, but it gets lost in what turns out to be a history lesson on early cinema with an endorsement for film preservation thrown in for good measure. It is taylor made for awards season and you can feel that in every frame of film.

visually pleasing and a not all together unpleasing 2 hour distraction, but FAR from a masterpiece. characters are two dimensional and their interactions are unbelievable. ben kingsley's portrayal is unconvincing and sasha baron cohen is plain terrible. if it wasn't for the high production value, this movie would be merit-less.

â

A visually-stimulating eye-candy that got lost in a cornfield in terms of storytelling. I wanted to see more of Hugo's growth and his relationship with his female friend after the death of his father. I also wish there was more to the Automaton (sp?) than just showing that Ben Kingsley's Méliès is still alive and well. Méliès's creative approach to film-making was a side-plot that somehow overruled the whole story after thirty minutes in, and I feel that the protagonist position shifted to him rather than Hugo as well. I agree w/ awhubsch that the critics may have loved this because it shows some film history, but the movie itself has too much airy, half-hearted acting (anyone could immediately tell that Asa Butterfield didn't know a thing about fixing things by the way he touched and handled the parts of a contraption) and badly developed characters - as well as many redundant ones. What exactly was Isabelle's purpose after her key was known to fit into Hugo's father's machine? It's like she became a smiley prop object or something. I feel that Hugo was just a mouse running on its wheel continuously and that somehow got lucky.… Expand

Very disappointing and hard to believe Scorsese had a hand in it. Brilliant cinematography but the rest of the movie and acting was very bad. Other reviews are very interesting, very high or very low but my wife and I both came out of this movie almost bewildered with a "What was that?" We saw it in an extreme 3D theater and those effects were also very good but the lead character boy, in some scenes, was absolutely terrible.… Expand

2 words to describe this disaster: boring, garbage!

I can't believe the critics gave this such a high score. They are blind or just stupid. How do you become a critic anyway? Critics are worthless shills to artsy fartsy crappola and follow each other like blind sheep.

This movie was genious!!! It did everything a movie needs to do to be a family friendly suspence mystery. The characters were very fasinating, the plot was both well thought out and well played out, and the message was both audvious and insightful. It taught that every human being has a purpose. If you feel like you lost your purpose, you feel like a broken robot that can't do anything. The truth is, every human being is on this earth for a reason.… Expand

A masterpiece. I was sucked in to the story from the first frame. Yes, it's visually stunning, but all at the service of the emotional truth of the characters. Never have I seen such complex technology so purely at the service of a deeply human story. The more you think about the film, the more you fine loops, parallels, connections and themes. The film exists completely on its own terms, yet evokes multiple classics as well, from "Rear Window" & "400 Blows" to "Amelie." Pacing is deliberate and some viewers, especially younger ones, may find it a little slow, but I was enthralled and only once was tempted to check the time. This is one of those movies that truly transports you to another world if you let it. If you resist, or somehow remain distant, yes, you'll be bored. But if you give yourself over to the movie - a feat I did not find difficult - you'll be richly rewarded.

And my all means, see it in 3D in a movie theater.… Expand

Any film directed by Scorsese is automatically awarded a place on my 'must see' list. I was somewhat dubious about Hugo, but went along anyway. My views on the film are mixed - I'd say it had high aspirations, and occasional flashes of brilliance, but ultimately it fell short for me. The story was functional, and it had some moments which bordered on the profound, but the plot was somewhat mechanical (like the subject matter) and ties between various elements were wafer thin such that the conclusion was not as satisfying as it could have been. The environments and the cinematography were beautiful throughout, but the pacing was a bit off - leading to several patches were I was bored (and feeling guilty for being so), in spite of the beautiful visuals and breathtaking recreation of a bygone era.

Sir Ben Kingsley was magnificent - as was the cast generally; although the young lad playing the lead was sometimes annoying for me. But the most disappointing aspect of the film for me was where it crossed the line between plot progression and telling a story into the realm of self-serving indulgence. Film critics will lap it up given it spends a great deal of time lecturing the audience on events of historical significance if you are a film buff. The film tries to weave this into the story by tying it to the characters but it comes off forced and grating. Would I see it again? No. Would I recommended it... probably not.… Expand

Very few movies hit me with emotional impact, when the movie is a visual masterpiece as well. Every visually gorgeous film I've seen, lacked storytelling, character, and depth. This movie was stunning, in every way. See "Hugo." It truly is, a masterpiece.

I'm not sure the production company had any idea how to market this film. The trailer looks like a non-stop action thriller set in a train station, when in fact it is far slower but well-paced, and its best moments come away from the station. Ostensibly they're marketing it as a kids' film, and my seven year old did enjoy it, but adults, and especially Scorsese fans, will find deeper meaning as the old director gets to immerse himself in his love for movies and moviemaking. His fans know he had a sickly childhood, unable to engage in many activities kids his age did, and that he spent many hours watching movies. Ben Kingsley is Ben Kingsley, and that should say enough. A marvelous film for all ages.… Expand

If you go into this movie thinking of the types of standard movies with typical humor and childish bravado, then don't waste your money on a ticket. This movie requires you to look into your heart, mind, and soul and realize you are going to be transported back to the way movies used to be when we returned multiple times to the theatre to witness them over and over. Hugo is a masterpiece of a movie for anyone who remembers the nostalgia of going to the cinema. Martin Scorsese has proven once again that he can obtain flawless acting out of anyone including sasha baron cohen who makes you forget about borat and bruno with an intricate performance as the inspector. All in all this movie is a refreshing respite from the repetitve fare that hollywood has become known for this century.… Expand