User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 624 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 55 out of 624

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 8, 2011
    10
    Truly inspiration, and stunning. By far it easily tops "The Help" of Harry Potter and the deathly Hollows part 2." Watch out Oscars this could be the big winner
  2. Dec 7, 2011
    3
    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, inVery 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
  3. Dec 6, 2011
    3
    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 creativeA 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
  4. Dec 6, 2011
    7
    The first thing that came across my mind while watching this movie was "This is boring." While I was impressed with the camera work and art direction, the first hour or so dragged. I guess you could say it was getting us familiar with the characters and setting, but it still felt a bit uneventful. The rest of the movie, on the other hand, was superb. The story picks up, and I felt likeThe first thing that came across my mind while watching this movie was "This is boring." While I was impressed with the camera work and art direction, the first hour or so dragged. I guess you could say it was getting us familiar with the characters and setting, but it still felt a bit uneventful. The rest of the movie, on the other hand, was superb. The story picks up, and I felt like there was a goal (or a purpose) that made watching the movie a great joy to watch. This film had some great scenes, great artistic vision (it made good use of the 3D effect as well), I just wish the first half of the movie was as enjoyable as the last half. Expand
  5. Dec 5, 2011
    0
    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.
  6. Dec 5, 2011
    9
    http://themuddoctor.blogspot.com/2011/12/hugo.html There are few other films that are overflowing with love as much as Hugo; love for film, for Paris, for family, and for its central characters. This is the gentlest work of Scorseseâ
  7. Dec 5, 2011
    10
    Even though many people have said it before, this movie is a goddamned masterpiece. Finally, Martin Scorsese has returned to making art. Nothing against The Departed and Shutter Island, but if you want a more vivid display of Scorsese's brilliance, why not check Hugo out. It has nearly every ingredient that I could possibly become addicted to in here. The 3-D is used amazingly, the childEven though many people have said it before, this movie is a goddamned masterpiece. Finally, Martin Scorsese has returned to making art. Nothing against The Departed and Shutter Island, but if you want a more vivid display of Scorsese's brilliance, why not check Hugo out. It has nearly every ingredient that I could possibly become addicted to in here. The 3-D is used amazingly, the child acting is marvelous and the entire feel is warming, refreshing, mind-blowing and of course, it's brimming with life. Few films have managed to reenter the feeling that you recieve after discovering the majestic art of cinema. And Hugo is among those films. **** I love this movie. The more I think and talk about it, the more I want to see it. In 3-Dk, of course. It's magical and awe-some! Thank god Scorsese lives in this time Expand
  8. Dec 3, 2011
    3
    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 andI 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
  9. Dec 2, 2011
    0
    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 ofYes, 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
  10. Dec 2, 2011
    6
    I went in to see Hugo after seeing it advertised as a film about adventure, mystery, and possibly sci-fi. I ended up scrutinizing these overemotional actors and short-lived story lines that eventually came to mean nothing once I realized the whole thing was a setup to explore the history of early film making.
  11. Nov 30, 2011
    9
    At the risk of sounding clichè, the perfect word to describe this film is "magical". Every second is bursting with happiness, warmth and appreciation, not only for film, but for humankind as well. From a director who's given us something like "The Departed", to see a masterpiece at the COMPLETE opposite end of the spectrum is just remarkable. "Hugo" will be a classic for everyAt the risk of sounding clichè, the perfect word to describe this film is "magical". Every second is bursting with happiness, warmth and appreciation, not only for film, but for humankind as well. From a director who's given us something like "The Departed", to see a masterpiece at the COMPLETE opposite end of the spectrum is just remarkable. "Hugo" will be a classic for every Christmas season to come. Expand
  12. Nov 30, 2011
    6
    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 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 wereI 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
  13. Nov 29, 2011
    1
    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?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
  14. Nov 29, 2011
    10
    Martin Scorsese has escaped from his comfort zone as a gangster movie manifesto, proven that he can make a children's film, and still keep up with the rapid change of movie making formats and technology. And he has done so successfully.

    'Hugo' is Scorsese's first film shot entirely in 3-D. It also may be the best 3-D film ever made (Yes. Even better than Avatar).
  15. Nov 29, 2011
    4
    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 mainNot 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
  16. Nov 28, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a very good movie. It may not be as good as Star Wars, but it beats many other movies that I've seen. It has a very interesting plot, in which, the main character is trying to get a former director to believe in himself again. This director stated that he now hated creating movies, because after the Great War, (World War I) he threw all of his equipment away, and never went back to making movies. So now in the end, the director gave everything to a museum, and celebrated his movies. The dynamic characters in the story are very interesting as well. Everyone seems to change very much from beginning to end. The only real problem I have with this movie is that the beginning of it was slower than a Legend of Zelda game. I had no idea who any of these characters were, because at first, they weren't properly introduced until a short while later. However, the rest of this movie more than makes up for this shortcoming. Expand
  17. Nov 27, 2011
    0
    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 opinionsIt 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
  18. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    Beautiful!!!!! a truly spellbinding classy epic oscar worthy film that is unforgettable and cannot be overhyped it is wonderful!!! S e e t h i s m o v i e ....it is important that you do.
  19. Nov 27, 2011
    7
    The cinematography is a WOW. The 3D is a WOW. The acting is above average, but the movies real downfall is in its story. The comedy wasnt funny and the story takes a 180 turn halfway through with no reason. This turn in focus is not a twist neither.
  20. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    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 ownA 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
  21. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    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.
  22. Nov 27, 2011
    9
    I saw this film with my 14-year-old daughter, who had read the book, and we both loved it. It felt like kind of a throwback to older, foreign films in a way -- the time period, photography, music, the movie's pacing. But the story itself was charming, sweet, sentimental -- not your usual Hollywood mashup of loud music, explosions, violence and quick cuts. It was quite different, andI saw this film with my 14-year-old daughter, who had read the book, and we both loved it. It felt like kind of a throwback to older, foreign films in a way -- the time period, photography, music, the movie's pacing. But the story itself was charming, sweet, sentimental -- not your usual Hollywood mashup of loud music, explosions, violence and quick cuts. It was quite different, and quite wonderful. We saw it again 2 days later and enjoyed it just as much. Expand
  23. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    People complained the movie too slow and predictable. Maybe, but I don't think it was slow and it was predictable, but so what? Why do people want to think ahead instead of enjoy the part they are watching? The history of cinema, the heart and soul put behind this story, the life back then, the suffers that the young generation may never understand...It is beautifully weaved and thePeople complained the movie too slow and predictable. Maybe, but I don't think it was slow and it was predictable, but so what? Why do people want to think ahead instead of enjoy the part they are watching? The history of cinema, the heart and soul put behind this story, the life back then, the suffers that the young generation may never understand...It is beautifully weaved and the story telling is compelling, and the boy is one very talented actor! I enjoyed the movie thoroughly! It will become the classics of classics. A movie that pays tribute to the ones who walked before our time...I wish people who complains have more respects of the story this movie is trying to tell...it happens to be compelling and touching! Expand
  24. Nov 27, 2011
    4
    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 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
  25. Nov 27, 2011
    9
    Hugo was an inspiring film that made you believe once again in the magic of childhood. The mystery aspect of the film was a delight. It was filled with charm and wonder. The concept was fresh and the acting was great. The plot line was believable. I walked in to the theater wondering if I would really enjoy a film like this and came out thinking that it was great. It was family friendlyHugo was an inspiring film that made you believe once again in the magic of childhood. The mystery aspect of the film was a delight. It was filled with charm and wonder. The concept was fresh and the acting was great. The plot line was believable. I walked in to the theater wondering if I would really enjoy a film like this and came out thinking that it was great. It was family friendly and most importantly it conveyed its message well. The movie made you feel like you were a part of the world that the characters lived in. The film was beautiful and a treat to watch. It had its share of minor mistakes. It was a little bit long -2 hours and 6 minutes- and some of the film was unnecessary and could have been edited out. It was unexciting at times. Still, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to see a child friendly film that isnâ Expand
  26. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    I found Hugo to be a lyrical, beautifully acted and filmed movie that addressed an array of human values through the eyes of a host of appealing characters. How appropriate that a movie about the early years of film making almost a century ago should have been so carefully crafted with today's amazing cinematic technologies. I saw it in 3D, which I think enhanced the actor's expressionsI found Hugo to be a lyrical, beautifully acted and filmed movie that addressed an array of human values through the eyes of a host of appealing characters. How appropriate that a movie about the early years of film making almost a century ago should have been so carefully crafted with today's amazing cinematic technologies. I saw it in 3D, which I think enhanced the actor's expressions and enhanced the intimacy of scene after scene.

    When I realized that several scenes in the movie were grounded in scenes from early films that are shown, I smiled to myself and saluted Hugo's creators. As the movie closed the audience spontaneously applauded. My wife and I did as well. We are heading back next weekend.
    Expand
  27. Nov 27, 2011
    3
    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?
  28. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    The genius of Martin Scorsese film, and his stunning mastery of different genres of films in which an unattainable position on the Stanley Kubrick film that proved timeless. Hugo is a cinematic masterpiece and said that as a love letter to the Scorsese film, along with exemplary creativity in the use of 3D techniques is an achievement that is considered.
  29. Nov 26, 2011
    9
    Hugo was a fantastic films. The 3D was well used. Unlike most movies today where they toss scenes in that just scream "Did we mention that this movie is in 3D?" The 3D really added depth perception that came in handy during the scenes that showed the movie sets. The acting is superb and very believable, partly due to it's stellar cast. All of the characters were great. There were no trueHugo was a fantastic films. The 3D was well used. Unlike most movies today where they toss scenes in that just scream "Did we mention that this movie is in 3D?" The 3D really added depth perception that came in handy during the scenes that showed the movie sets. The acting is superb and very believable, partly due to it's stellar cast. All of the characters were great. There were no true "villains" in this movie, each had their own motives and perfectly reasonable reasons for the way they act. The story is well down. However the only downside to the story is how the just expose certain character's backstory's all at once. This is justified by the fact that if they didn't the movie will be 5 hours long. Personally I felt that this movie was better than the book. While the book was great, things seemed to flow more smoothly in the movie. Do not be fooled by the fact this movie was based on a book geared towards older kids and early teens. It is very deep and really plays with all of your emotions. If you go into this movie expecting this to be a simple childs film, you will leave the theater disappointed. While this movie isn't bad for children, they may not enjoy it as much as an older audience. The movie is very story driven with few action scenes. While the story may seem to lack direction at first, it all ties in at the end. You will have to be patient with this movie, don't expect everything to be layed out right away. Expand
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 41
  2. Negative: 0 out of 41
  1. Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    Nov 29, 2011
    89
    Although a nip and a tuck here and there might improve Hugo's overall pace, there is no denying that this love letter to the movies is something to cherish.
  2. 70
    For all the wizardry on display, Hugo often feels like a film about magic instead of a magical film.
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Nov 28, 2011
    50
    Visually Hugo is a marvel, but dramatically it's a clockwork lemon.