Paramount Pictures | Release Date: November 23, 2011
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 747 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
585
Mixed:
106
Negative:
56
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
10
EricNeugeborenNov 26, 2011
Hugo is a very cute and enjoyable film. Martin Scorsese brought the book to life. It showed very much suspense and even some laughs. I definitely agree with shibumi7126 that is was a very heart-felt film. Hugo is about a little brave boy whoHugo is a very cute and enjoyable film. Martin Scorsese brought the book to life. It showed very much suspense and even some laughs. I definitely agree with shibumi7126 that is was a very heart-felt film. Hugo is about a little brave boy who works at a train station in the clocks area where he finds this amazing robot that has the ability to do a lot of things along with an amazingly smart man (Ben Kingsley). This great picture is filled with amazing writing and amazement. Expand
27 of 32 users found this helpful275
All this user's reviews
3
awhubschNov 27, 2011
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 whyOver-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? Expand
15 of 32 users found this helpful1517
All this user's reviews
4
TheHygienistDec 29, 2012
A pretty film in blue-ray, and one of few movies a parent can take a kid to without the inevitable F-bomb. Entertaining but slow to the point and a bit overacted.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
MovieGuysOct 22, 2013
Hugo is one of Scorcese's best films in the 21st century, and delivers a combination of magic, expert moviemaking, and a great, talented cast. Sacha Baren Cohen strays from his usual "crazy foreigner" performance for a quiet, shy one. AsaHugo is one of Scorcese's best films in the 21st century, and delivers a combination of magic, expert moviemaking, and a great, talented cast. Sacha Baren Cohen strays from his usual "crazy foreigner" performance for a quiet, shy one. Asa Butterfield is amazing, and has a pretty good amount of potential for the future. Chloe Grace Moretz is amazing, as always, and Ben Kingsley gives an Oscar-worthy performance that is enjoyable as well as sturdy. You have to see this movie for yourself to soak up every little magical thing about it. Just the way it progresses, and the dialogue spoken is a feat almost irreplaceable. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
NefakiNov 28, 2013
A nice movie you can watch with your whole family. The main negative parts are: Main character's acting is dull and the movie could be shorter (its 126 min.) When or If you watch it fully, you will understand how come it earned 5 Oscars.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
8
BrianMcCriticJun 19, 2013
A visually stunning experience that any film fan will love to see. Not only does the film have characters that you connect with, but it will have you totally invested in the journey back to the an earlier time in movie history.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
Viper8787Apr 27, 2014
I didn't think I was going to like this movie, but it was really well done and I ended up enjoying it more than I thought. It was surprising to me when I saw that Martin Scorsese directed this movie because it is not one of his typicalI didn't think I was going to like this movie, but it was really well done and I ended up enjoying it more than I thought. It was surprising to me when I saw that Martin Scorsese directed this movie because it is not one of his typical movies. But he's a great director and this is another good movie done by him. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
grandpajoe6191Feb 13, 2012
"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.
11 of 16 users found this helpful115
All this user's reviews
5
pegasusDec 27, 2011
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
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
6
tenmusesNov 26, 2011
Beautiful to look at and the acting was above average (although not stellar). I thought the story was bland and the vintage cinema theme in the second half of the movie just didn't do it for me. Ultimately, my reaction to the movie was oneBeautiful to look at and the acting was above average (although not stellar). I thought the story was bland and the vintage cinema theme in the second half of the movie just didn't do it for me. Ultimately, my reaction to the movie was one of disappointment.

To be honest, I think the main appeal of the movie lies in a somewhat taboo area of discussion - nostalgia for a lost time and lost homogeneity of society. That "all in it together" feel was used effectively to add complexity and empathy for a particular character. There is a loneliness in today's society and a longing for that sensation of shared goals and tribulations. The vintage cinema element is a related theme but misses the mark. People are mourning a lost society, not lost movies.

This movie is ultimately chocolate box art. People are hungering for this though and we are going to see more movies like it. I hope the stories get better.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
MattCarterWADec 13, 2011
Hugo was alright. It was an on-rails, whimsical adventure movie that should not have been given its 127 minute run-time. I came into this movie expecting Scorsese's "touch of death," and so was curious how that would extend to a "children's"Hugo was alright. It was an on-rails, whimsical adventure movie that should not have been given its 127 minute run-time. I came into this movie expecting Scorsese's "touch of death," and so was curious how that would extend to a "children's" movie. I felt that Hugo had an overly gloomy tone, as many of the characters had experienced death or crippling disappointment. I couldn't quite gauge this movie's target audience.

However, one could get lost in the wonderful set design, costumes, and attention to detail. As many other reviews state, Scorsese's trip down the movie industry's "memory lane" was a welcome treat. The no audio shorts were entertaining, and the creative process behind them was intriguing.

The score could have been handled better. I found myself mouthing "and que montage music", "que etc" multiple times throughout the movie. In part due to its length, and also the "on-rails" comment I made earlier.

The last thing is the child acting. It always leaves something to be desired, or it's great. I don't believe it's worth faulting the movie as a whole. For kids, it was acceptable. For the movie goer who: likes to watch things that look decent, have a multiple hidden messages, a decent plot and a happy ending, this movie is great.

For the movie goer who: doesn't like to be pandered to, thinks about plot progression, and likes to analyze, it was alright. It's almost worth going to see for the retro films, but other than that, it's a rent.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
9
NedRyerson1Jan 17, 2012
Hugo is clearly one of the best movies of the year, for many reasons. First, is an adaptation of a book that has nothing to envy to Harry Potter or The Lord of the rings. Second, its use of 3D is breathtaking and that is more surprisingHugo is clearly one of the best movies of the year, for many reasons. First, is an adaptation of a book that has nothing to envy to Harry Potter or The Lord of the rings. Second, its use of 3D is breathtaking and that is more surprising because is a non-animated movie. Third, the picture has amazing performances of Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley. Finally, the film has some beautiful messages, the most important for me are the one that the whole world is like a machine and we all are the parts of it, so everyone has a role to play; and the other is that the movies can capture our dreams. These four things mixed with typical Scorsese criminal stuff and visceral fantasies, and the recollection of old movies; make this picture a tribute to cinematography.
This tribute is explicit when are shown in screen The Arrival of a Train, Exiting the Lumiere Factory, Intolerance, A Trip to the Moon, The Great Train Robbery, The Cabinet of Doctor Caligary, and many more. And add to this, that in the film appears George Melies, the father of science fiction movies. The implicit things are the automata, which remind me the robot of Metropolis, and the derailment of the train with the same camera position of Lumiere Brothers picture.
This film makes us nostalgic, but not in a sad way, because we notice that these classics have not been forgotten and never will. They are the foundation of cinematography as an art. Hugo is one of the few movies that are not boring to watch again an again.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
3
LovegoodcinemaFeb 27, 2012
It is unbelievable how a film like this one can get so many Oscar nominations. A mix of artificial technical effects, boring script, a copy of some French films style (Delicatessen, Amelie,...) but without any humour, ridiculous characters...It is unbelievable how a film like this one can get so many Oscar nominations. A mix of artificial technical effects, boring script, a copy of some French films style (Delicatessen, Amelie,...) but without any humour, ridiculous characters... Once again, Scorsese over-rated, unable to tell a real story, full of banalities. Nogo recommendation Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
1
littlebsueNov 29, 2011
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 askingJust 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
13 of 21 users found this helpful138
All this user's reviews
0
sniderman89Nov 26, 2011
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 happensThis 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
7 of 12 users found this helpful75
All this user's reviews
5
BKMDec 17, 2011
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 seasonHugo 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. Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
3
ravenscarDec 3, 2011
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 aI 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
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
4
marsiliaNov 27, 2011
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. SomeI 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
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
5
hevatinNov 23, 2011
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 wasI 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
9 of 17 users found this helpful98
All this user's reviews
4
real1gNov 29, 2011
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 INot 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
9 of 17 users found this helpful98
All this user's reviews
0
GOUGHDec 2, 2011
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 whoYes, 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
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
3
petitorenjiDec 6, 2011
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 theA 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
5
CanisrahJan 12, 2012
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 ofAny 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
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
0
PickyDec 17, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The subject matter of the lonely boy living in the train station was so dreary and sad, I couldn't
get over it. People were mean to him and I just wanted to go to sleep. The pacing was very
slow. The colors were dark, the clothes were dark, the movie was dark. Not a fun time.
Wish I could get a refund on this. I did not find it enjoyable at all. Disturbing imagery with
chldren being abused, locked up, hungry. Not a fun time.
Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
5
Singe8Dec 21, 2011
Hugo takes forever to get going and leaves many things unexplained. The character Hugo is poorly acted and the movie suffers from it. There were a lot of supporting characters that were interesting and could have had a bigger part in theHugo takes forever to get going and leaves many things unexplained. The character Hugo is poorly acted and the movie suffers from it. There were a lot of supporting characters that were interesting and could have had a bigger part in the movie, but instead were barely there at all. The robot, was kind of unnecessary and while you would think it would play a bigger part in the story, it really was out of place in both the story and the setting.The best part about the movie by far was Ben Kingsley's performance as the toy shop owner and film maker Georges Méliès. The movie has a good moral to it, and if you can get past the unbelievably boring first half of the movie a pretty good second half awaits you. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
5
lblJan 20, 2012
Too long. Do film makers today believe that every movie they make has to be more than two hours to qualify as a good film? Hugo needed at least twenty to thirty minutes cut out of it. I was so bored in the middle I didn't think I was going toToo long. Do film makers today believe that every movie they make has to be more than two hours to qualify as a good film? Hugo needed at least twenty to thirty minutes cut out of it. I was so bored in the middle I didn't think I was going to make it to the end of the film. It got good in the end, but it took SO long to get there. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
txrangersfan72Feb 5, 2012
Scorsese steps outside of his typically gritty box and achieves pure magic filming a gorgeous rendition of the popular children's book, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret." While pieces of the story change for the purposes of film, my personalScorsese steps outside of his typically gritty box and achieves pure magic filming a gorgeous rendition of the popular children's book, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret." While pieces of the story change for the purposes of film, my personal opinion is that (and I'm going to offend hardcore readers here) it tried too hard to be a film version of a book. As a result, the first hour was very hard to sit through. It was long, it was slow, but so beautifully shot that I couldn't fall entirely asleep. However, the second hour more than made up for it. The movie, which takes a while to get to its point, eventually uncovers a sweet, precious film with a wonderful message. That is, our dreams make us who we are. If our dreams die, so do we. To "fix" ourselves, to truly live life, we must chase our dreams, even when we perceive ourselves to fail. Only then can we truly become what we were meant to become. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
JamesLJan 29, 2012
I found it beautiful and thought it was well done in 3D. However, I was bored throughout and went to buy M &M's so I would not keep staring at my watch. The story simply did not interest me in the slightest. "Hugo" summed up what a mediocreI found it beautiful and thought it was well done in 3D. However, I was bored throughout and went to buy M &M's so I would not keep staring at my watch. The story simply did not interest me in the slightest. "Hugo" summed up what a mediocre film year 2011 was. When "The Descendants", "Moneyball", and "The Tree of Life " are Oscar nominees , it is a poor year. I hope 2012 brings me a substantial improvement. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
BikerjamesNov 30, 2011
I wonder how Roger Ebert feels about this movie? He has trashed the 3D format for years and now his favorite director, Martin Scorsese, has made one! Unlike Ebert, Scorsese has totally embraced 3D technology, as the 3D is the star of thisI wonder how Roger Ebert feels about this movie? He has trashed the 3D format for years and now his favorite director, Martin Scorsese, has made one! Unlike Ebert, Scorsese has totally embraced 3D technology, as the 3D is the star of this film. For me, the movie would have been a failure without it. It is the best non-animated 3D I have seen in the theater, and nearly all scenes were filmed with the format in mind. The opening shot of the camera moving through a crowded train station is fabulous. It's a great looking movie. Unfortunately, the movie's plot and story did not match the visual delights for me. This is a slow, plodding movie, lacking humor, saved only by the visuals. Unfortunately, I just didn't care about any of these people, and the dialogue seemed stilted and unnatural in parts. I can't imagine a kid keeping his attention to this film. The little boy just seemed devoid of personality. Not sure I ever saw him smile until the end of the movie. I rate this film a 6 in the theaters, but only a 3 or 4 at home unless you have a 3D television. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
acquiredtastesDec 11, 2011
Actually, I liked this film although I did find it initially rather slow going. I nodded off for a short time and then perked up. It is a visually attractive film which is very stylized. The combination of old Paris and the old silent filmsActually, I liked this film although I did find it initially rather slow going. I nodded off for a short time and then perked up. It is a visually attractive film which is very stylized. The combination of old Paris and the old silent films is totally a visual treat. The film has a wonderful cast including the classy Christopher Lee, Frances De La Tour and even a **** cameo by director Scorsese. I did find though that the Hugo character lacked personal charm. However, his co-star looked to me as if she was a young Kim Catrell. This one has more warmth than a usual Scorsese film which is a plus. Still, hard to beat The Departed which was totally brilliant! Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews