User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 625 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 55 out of 625
Watch On

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. Nov 26, 2011
    10
    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 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 smartHugo 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
  2. 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?
  3. Jul 26, 2012
    3
    This movie was quite falsely advertised. All these commercials saying "This movie is the greatest movie of ALL TIME...Magical...enthralling..." It wasn't that good whatsoever. This is nothing close to enthralling. The most exhilarating part was when the main character was running from a security guard. Hugo is repetitive, slow, and didn't appeal to me WHATSOEVER. It was visuallyThis movie was quite falsely advertised. All these commercials saying "This movie is the greatest movie of ALL TIME...Magical...enthralling..." It wasn't that good whatsoever. This is nothing close to enthralling. The most exhilarating part was when the main character was running from a security guard. Hugo is repetitive, slow, and didn't appeal to me WHATSOEVER. It was visually entertaining, as the setting was interesting and the gears were a nice touch, but I still didn't like the movie. Not recommended. Expand
  4. Mar 16, 2013
    6
    It`s an interesting film, It was kind of slow at times but has a good message. I like the music and time of this movie, it adds a nice feel to it. I kind of wanted more from the movie but it`s worth watching.
  5. Jul 10, 2013
    4
    Nice, cute, Hugo is a nice film and a bit tedious and um, hilarious in itself. Its too long though and it was extended. Though its good it won a few Oscars, though its kind of odd
  6. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    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.
  7. Jan 11, 2013
    3
    Well there goes two hours of my life I'm not getting back. Many others have nailed what's wrong here; it's too long, there's almost no plot, the acting is weak, there are glacier size holes in the story, trite characterizations, exposition is the main source of dialogue, I could go on. Yes, it's beautifully shot, but we go to movies to see ourselves through the characters portrayed. If weWell there goes two hours of my life I'm not getting back. Many others have nailed what's wrong here; it's too long, there's almost no plot, the acting is weak, there are glacier size holes in the story, trite characterizations, exposition is the main source of dialogue, I could go on. Yes, it's beautifully shot, but we go to movies to see ourselves through the characters portrayed. If we only wanted beauty, we could go to the beach, or a park. The filmmaker (George Milies) in the film became a has-been because once the novelty of moving pictures wore off (a train! Special effects!) the audience craved rich, complex characters overcoming seemingly impossible odds to acheive their goals. The Director of Hugo forgot that.

    It's much much easier to criticize than it is to create a movie start to finish. And yet, we as Scorcese's audience deserve to see him use his awesome power and budgets in the service of great characters in a great story, and not in talking down to us. The ten-year old in me is disappointed.
    Expand
  8. May 15, 2013
    2
    I didn't read the book so I don't know if its properly ported, but the movie is... omg.
    It's been years since I have to stop watching a movie and this had even Oscars behind it.
    The girl is extremely painful and the main character is even worse.
    I'm not trying to be troll. I'm just saying that, for me, it's an incredible bored movie.
  9. Jan 23, 2014
    6
    Martin Scorsese is one of my all time favorite directors and this movie was good,
    i liked the visuals and the plot, and i like the details about movie making and all that stuff,
    however i didn't like the way this movie addresses it's audience,
    it seems as the story was for kids not for adults, come on if you seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about
    that's my only problem with this movie.
  10. Apr 25, 2013
    5
    Hugo is directed by either Spielberg or Scorsese. I think it's Scorsese, but it felt like Spielberg. The film even had some John Williams-style big music, composed by Howard Shore (yeah, that's right! the saxophone player from the band Lighthouse!)

    This fantasy is about a boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station. Not since The Legend of 1900 have I heard of anything this
    Hugo is directed by either Spielberg or Scorsese. I think it's Scorsese, but it felt like Spielberg. The film even had some John Williams-style big music, composed by Howard Shore (yeah, that's right! the saxophone player from the band Lighthouse!)

    This fantasy is about a boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station. Not since The Legend of 1900 have I heard of anything this screwy. Inside these walls are the guts of the station's clocks. The guts consist of cogs, gears, counterweights, pinions, springs, and inexplicably steam.

    During the course of the film, we learn that Hugo is the dude that built C3PO (or some C3PO prototype). C3PO reveals to Hugo that the local old grump (played by Ben Kingsley) is in fact a forerunner to movie wizards like Spielsese or Scorberg.

    Anyway, I saw this movie in regular old boring 2D. I didn't realize it was a 3D film until the scene where some pages with drawings go flying from the kids' hands and drift all over the screen. At first I was thinking, "What the hell is this all about? Am I supposed to be mesmerized by fluttering stationery?" Then I realized that this was intended to be seen in super-duper 3D. "Ahh," I thought, "Now I see. Ooooh, that would have been so cool to see all that paper flying around in 3D." We haven't witnessed anything like this in cinematic history since the famous bolo-bat scene in the 1953 film House of Wax.

    Hugo does a lot of hiding and running, primarily from a train station cop played by Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen's character is an amalgam of Inspectors Javert and Clouseau. He and his trusty Doberman Pinscher cannot seem to track down the elusive boy who knows the station and its walls like the inner workings of an automaton. During one climactic scene, Hugo gives the Inspector the slip by doing a Harold Lloyd impression from a clock tower.

    Once the Inspector catches up with Hugo, they have a talk. During the conversation, the little urchin makes the Inspector laugh. The Inspector tells him that he's funny. Hugo then says, "I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f____n' amuse you? What do you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny? What the f__k is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!"

    Wait a minute. I might me confused. That dialog might be from a different movie a real Scorcese film.

    All in all, Hugo isn't such a bad movie. But in retrospect, I think I would have preferred watching the Harold Lloyd film, Safety Last.
    Expand
  11. Jun 11, 2013
    4
    I didn't really like this film. It was too long and boring, lame. I didn't get the message of that movie and i didn't even bother to look for it through the internet or watch the movie again. A waste of my time.
  12. Oct 22, 2013
    10
    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. 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 anHugo 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
  13. Nov 28, 2013
    7
    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.
  14. Dec 4, 2013
    6
    I was expecting to be dazzled by Hugo, as critics across the board praised the movie and it won several Oscars for its achievements in cinematography and art design. However, Hugo let me down. The massive praise clearly stems from its purpose, a mushy love letter to the art of cinema. The acting is perpetually bland, the effects were underwhelming, and the story isn't as endearing asI was expecting to be dazzled by Hugo, as critics across the board praised the movie and it won several Oscars for its achievements in cinematography and art design. However, Hugo let me down. The massive praise clearly stems from its purpose, a mushy love letter to the art of cinema. The acting is perpetually bland, the effects were underwhelming, and the story isn't as endearing as several other 2011 releases. Hugo is not a bad film, and I do enjoy some moments. But when people cite Hugo as a year-defining film and an instant classic, I can't help but disagree. Hugo is a decent family movie, but does nothing new or inspiring other than glorify Hollywood. In the end, it's a sweet and simple appetizer for all the delicious cinematic entrees 2011 had to serve.

    6/10

    Follow me on twitter. @cbeers2513
    Expand
  15. BKM
    Dec 17, 2011
    5
    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.
  16. Feb 13, 2012
    8
    "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.
  17. Dec 27, 2011
    5
    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
  18. Jan 12, 2012
    5
    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 somewhatAny 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
  19. Nov 26, 2011
    6
    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 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
    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 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
  20. Dec 13, 2011
    7
    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 quiteHugo 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
  21. Jan 17, 2012
    10
    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 surprising because is a non-animated movie. Third, the picture has amazing performances of Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley. Finally, the film has some beautifulHugo 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
  22. Feb 27, 2012
    3
    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
  23. 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
  24. Nov 26, 2011
    0
    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 (itThis 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Nov 23, 2011
    5
    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
    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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
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.