User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 548 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 49 out of 548

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 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. 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? 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
  4. Nov 24, 2011
    1
    I had to leave the theatre for awhile because it was so tedious and predictable. This movie is made for 10 year old kids, not for adults. It is a great story and Scorsese is a great director. But I'm beginning to think Scorsese has become Altman and Kurbrik in their later years. The pacing is a killer, some wonderful moments but it was edited like a student film, everything had to be included. It was irritating the way to spoke down to the audience. Expand
  5. 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.
  6. 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
    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
  7. 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 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
  8. Nov 24, 2011
    10
    I'm not sure if Mick Ock even saw the same movie I did. He claims that the "stuff about cinema" is only 20 minutes or so, when in reality it took up the entire second half of the movie (just over an hour). Hugo is a touching, heart-felt movie, if you have the intelligence to get it.
  9. Nov 23, 2011
    0
    A major disappointment. What a mess. While it was fine from a technical standpoint, the story was completely unengaging. The result is a big beautiful mess. And these reviews about how it's a "Love letter to cinema" are laughable. The movie's about the young boy, and the stuff about "Cinema" is only about 20 minutes or so at the end of the movie, and has nothing to do with the boy's story at all.
  10. 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 (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
  11. Nov 25, 2011
    0
    This was a beautiful movie. It was also unengaged, tedious, predictable and just down right boring. I am sure film students will rave about it as a masterpiece. I know Martin Scorsese's work very well and appreciate all of it but not this. This was the worst thing I have ever seen him put his name on. The fact that the movie was so beautiful just made it more disappointing because that is all it had going for it. Like a beautiful train wreck. Expand
  12. 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 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
  13. 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 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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 of dialog...but, what was that LONG INTRO then BAM! Here's the title? Orson Welles homage? WTF? Lame. Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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 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
  18. Dec 17, 2011
    10
    Hugo is filmed so beautifully, and its story is told just so elegant. Hugo is easily one of the best films of the year maybe the decade, and it has one of the most talented casts ever put together with strong performances from Chloe Moretz, Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley who will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for his strong and committed performance. I give this movie 96% of a good movie. Expand
  19. 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.
  20. Mar 6, 2012
    4
    visually pleasing and a not all together unpleasing 2 hour distraction, but FAR from a masterpiece. characters are two dimensional and their interactions are unbelievable. ben kingsley's portrayal is unconvincing and sasha baron cohen is plain terrible. if it wasn't for the high production value, this movie would be merit-less.
  21. 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 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
  22. 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, in some scenes, was absolutely terrible. Expand
  23. Nov 23, 2011
    9
    This movie was genious!!! It did everything a movie needs to do to be a family friendly suspence mystery. The characters were very fasinating, the plot was both well thought out and well played out, and the message was both audvious and insightful. It taught that every human being has a purpose. If you feel like you lost your purpose, you feel like a broken robot that can't do anything. The truth is, every human being is on this earth for a reason. Expand
  24. 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 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
  25. 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 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
  26. 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.
  27. Nov 26, 2011
    10
    I'm not sure the production company had any idea how to market this film. The trailer looks like a non-stop action thriller set in a train station, when in fact it is far slower but well-paced, and its best moments come away from the station. Ostensibly they're marketing it as a kids' film, and my seven year old did enjoy it, but adults, and especially Scorsese fans, will find deeper meaning as the old director gets to immerse himself in his love for movies and moviemaking. His fans know he had a sickly childhood, unable to engage in many activities kids his age did, and that he spent many hours watching movies. Ben Kingsley is Ben Kingsley, and that should say enough. A marvelous film for all ages. Expand
  28. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    If you go into this movie thinking of the types of standard movies with typical humor and childish bravado, then don't waste your money on a ticket. This movie requires you to look into your heart, mind, and soul and realize you are going to be transported back to the way movies used to be when we returned multiple times to the theatre to witness them over and over. Hugo is a masterpiece of a movie for anyone who remembers the nostalgia of going to the cinema. Martin Scorsese has proven once again that he can obtain flawless acting out of anyone including sasha baron cohen who makes you forget about borat and bruno with an intricate performance as the inspector. All in all this movie is a refreshing respite from the repetitve fare that hollywood has become known for this century. Expand
  29. Nov 24, 2011
    10
    I am very torn about this film, as I think it contains some really bad directing by a great director. Ouch. On the other hand, once the film finds its pace and leads to its lovely conclusion I found myself deeply moved. It is not just a piece of fluffy entertainment, and yet it is very entertaining. Admittedly
  30. 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
    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
  31. 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 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
  32. Dec 17, 2011
    0
    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
  33. Dec 21, 2011
    5
    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 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
  34. 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 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
  35. lbl
    Jan 20, 2012
    5
    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 to make it to the end of the film. It got good in the end, but it took SO long to get there.
  36. 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
  37. Dec 10, 2011
    10
    Hugo is a masterpiece of art and films that goes on the journey of 3D. The story is about the young boy who created the invention of mechanical man until he meets the old filmmaker who creates the entire movies of the early 1900's. The movie was based on the novel by Brian Selznick's 'The Invention of Hugo Cabret", and its a brilliant story that recreates the entire movies from the past, and I do enjoy both the novel and the movie. The characters are interesting to see and they did amazingly job on their roles. Like Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), Young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz from Kick-Ass), and Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). They did perfect job and especially Ben Kingsley who did so much job as the character who created movies since he did many roles that accomplish. These two children are good at this and I just the love the two children are working each other and they have good friends for having a sweet moments. The settings are great and the build-up is just phenomenal. The CG effects are wonderful to the background was in 3D with good atmosphere and the flash images are fantastic to see. Scorsese did wonderful job and the first time make this movie for children's book. Also, this movie treats to children like adults and the adults are fascinating to watch. I love this movie and its one of the best films of the year. Beautifully perfect film and Martin Scorsese was awesome! Expand
  38. Feb 5, 2012
    7
    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 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
  39. Jan 29, 2012
    6
    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 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
  40. 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 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
  41. Dec 26, 2011
    8
    This movie starts out so fine -- what a world Scorcese creates, ripe for an adventure which the girl yearns for. And that appears to be what's in store, mysteries are afoot but alas what we ultimately get is a history lesson on the cinema. And ironically the artist he celebrates would never have been so unimaginative in his movies. Yet Scorcese's world might be strong enough to overcome the lackluster ending and still garner him his elusive award. Collapse
  42. Mar 6, 2012
    3
    I am a fan of some European films, and can find interest in old movies, but this was barely engaging at all. The train station and artistic detail is lovely for the first 20 minutes, but after that, we are led mostly nowhere by tragic characters who speak very little. The intense focus on mechanical things and all these supposed French characters acting bitter and speaking with British accents made it seem like a post WWII British engineering education film. Not deep or well-scripted enough for adults, too dreary and slow for children, it mainly was an equal-opportunity aggravation. Why the critics are swooning about this, I can't imagine. Expand
  43. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    Guys this time the critics are on a right track the movie far more best classic movie of one of the great director of our time Martin Scorsese. It it is the best adventure movie of our time and whats in bonus its an awesome joy-full adventure for all ages. Its a full family entertainer. So go and watch the movie and uncover the secret of Hugo Cabret.
  44. 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.
  45. Jan 9, 2012
    8
    Well, the move actually consists of two different, separate themes which are somehow intermixed. One is the story of a boy who lives in the clockworks of the parisian metro, 90 % of the film. And the other 10 % are about the history of cinema. The part of history of the cinema is very wonderful and a very nice tribute of scorsese to cinema 10/10 for that. The story of the boy is really bad and boring, predictable, with bad acting and simple dialogue I would give it a 3/10. But then again, the visuals are really fantastic, and the clockwork part scenes are great. So overall I give it 8/10, which includes some bonus for good intentions. But it is certainly not one of scorceses masterworks. Expand
  46. Dec 19, 2011
    6
    This is was an interesting one, though something was highly questionable about it. Hugo was a very meaningful movie that gets into the heart of the characters and the meaning of cinema itself. Any movie buff should see this, as its a testimonial to the history film making and film preservation, which is evidently very important to Mr. Scorsese. This is one of Scorsese's most technically lush films, boasting exceptional art direction (which needs an Oscar), nice cinematography and some decent costume designs. And finally Asa Butterfield did well and the supporting players were all good, particularly Chloe Moretz (as usual) and Ben Kingsley. With all that said, something that I genuinely questioned was the true quality of the movie's screenplay. It was very unbalanced, and the first half was a quite drab (despite having an interesting premise). The movie could have definitely used a a serious rewrite, but overall it was a good, and well made film. Expand
  47. 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 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
  48. 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.
  49. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    Having seen over 4,000 films in my life, while I'm not a critic, I do think I can say, without hesitation or reservation, that The American Film Institute now has a new movie to place in the top 10 greatest films of all time, Hugo.
  50. Nov 24, 2011
    8
    I am very torn about this film, as I think it contains some really bad directing by a great director. Ouch. On the other hand, once the film finds its pace and leads to its lovely conclusion I found myself deeply moved. It is not just a piece of fluffy entertainment, and yet it is very entertaining. Admittedly, I had read a lot of negative reviews before I went, and this lowered my expectations sufficiently to wade through the bad acting (which, as I said, is not the fault of the actors) which expires after a while. So, go see it, even in 3D, which I don't like. It was definitely worth the time and effort. Expand
  51. Nov 25, 2011
    9
    Hugo was such a beautiful movie. The level mystery in the beginning left you wondering where this movie was going. The satisfaction of learning alongside Hugo as to where the story takes you leaves your heart touched with happiness and inspiration.
  52. Nov 26, 2011
    9
    Just a wonderful movie -- especially for those who love the silents. Great performances -- especially by two youngsters and a charming, well written story. Yes, it has a "hollywood ending," but they still have a place. Go and enjoy!
  53. 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 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
  54. 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 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
  55. May 10, 2012
    4
    Yet another 2011 film receiving rave reviews that I don't get. While it is interesting to see Mr Scorsese defend his not selling out to SFX, that's exactly what he did. Watching at home, without 3D, the movie falls flat. A movie should have been made about Mr Melies but this is not about him, but about things that fly off the screen. And what's the story with the dust or snowflakes that drift around the entire film? Is everyone in a snow globe? Is this Dr Suess? Disappointing on so many levels. The director needed long explanations about the characters, their families, the evil cop, etc. instead of "showing" us some background-this is a visual medium. The best part of the film is the flashbacks on how movie making got it's start. Now that would make a good film. Mr S should get back to developing strong characters, fierce relationships, and de-emphasize the SFX. Poor outing from a usually brilliant director. Expand
  56. 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.
  57. Dec 13, 2011
    5
    Prepare to be underwhelmed, due to its overlong running time. If it had been 30 minutes shorter (and it could have been), I would give this an 8 or 9. Sasha Baron Cohen is dreadful, and the lead kid is not very good either. The little girl is excellent. Kingsley is one-note, but Christopher Lee is good. The recreations of Georges Melies studio are the best part of the movie, but there are endless chases through the train station that wear one's patience down. Expand
  58. Dec 15, 2011
    7
    On a technical scale, "Hugo" is a masterwork. Scorsese majestically helms this adventure delivering superb 3-D cinematography and a steady pace. Out of all of Scorsese's films, this is definitely one of his most personal. While delivering an engaging story, he uses the movie to celebrate his love of films, in particular, the ones that got the art of film off the ground. It's during these moments when the movie radiates a sense of magic. But these are the only magical moments. When the movie doesn't focus on film, it's only an interesting story, nothing more. The main issue is that few of the characters are satisfyingly developed. Kingsley's Georges Melies is the one exception. His back story is far more intriguing than Hugo's, and with only a limited amount of screen time, Kingsley gives us a complete heartbreaking portrait of a sorrowful genius. But the film focuses on Hugo, and his story and character is nowhere near as fascinating. This prevents the movie from taking off into greatness. Once Scorsese's love of film shines, the movie starts to soar, but this doesn't happen until the last 20 minutes. Still, it's a very good film that should be seen by anyone who's a fan of Scorsese or a fan of cinema in general. I wouldn't recommend it to younger kids however. The movie moves too slow for them, and they'll most likely leave the theater confused and bored. Expand
  59. Dec 23, 2011
    0
    This is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, i'm not sure i can rate this movie because i slept through half of it. The only reason you should ever watch this terrible movie is if you have insomnia.
  60. Jan 3, 2012
    9
    What to say about this film "HUGO".Director Martin Scorsese beautifully presented the story to the screen.The story filled with Adventure and Emotion of a little boy who try to do everything to know about the secret. Awesome Screenplay and Cinematography and the hard work is shown on each an every frame of the movie. It is really one of the Masterpiece in Hollywood Movies.
  61. Dec 29, 2011
    8
    hugo was a good film but for all that said it was 10/10 and 5 star were wrong it was pretty overated. not a film i would usually enjoy but a good one.
  62. Dec 26, 2011
    6
    The movie was overall sappy and slow. I took a young girl about the same age as the one in the movie, and there was no connection felt by her to that character. I can tell that the content of the movie meant a lot personally to Scorsese; he did an excellent job of transmitting his personal zest for the old films shown in the movie. You could see him romanticize some personal childhood experiences quite well. Expand
  63. Dec 30, 2011
    9
    Without spoiling, consider a motion picture whose last 30 minutes are equal to the last 4 minutes of Cinema. To be in a theater with people tearing up over images of vintage and historic cinema, so beautifully integrated into a dazzling and heartfelt story is something special indeed. Absolutely knock-out use of 3D, fantastic performances by everyone involved, glorious set design, music, costumes and state -of-the-art CGI that propel a story rather than being superficial, stand alone tricks makes HUGO a film for moviegoers world wide. Absolutely do not miss this film in a theater. The images are transporting and need to be experienced on the big screen. Expand
  64. Dec 28, 2011
    4
    I don't think I can even remember the last time I've ever been subject to such a stagnant, passive viewing experience. Such a slow, sluggish plot that I found myself silently urging along. The film felt like all twinkling lights and tenderness, almost never jumping out at me. Watching it could be compared to trying to swim through a lake of honey - there's warmth and sweetness, sure, but it's very slow going. The main boy actor hardly shows any emotion on his face - to me, he looked either creepily indifferent or morose and sullen. Expand
  65. Jan 3, 2012
    9
    A different side of Marty. Feels much softer also much more personal. And the 3D thing wasn't an issue during the view. The scenes in which oldest type of film were shown with the newest type of technology were amazing. Shortly yet another great piece of cinema from Marty.
  66. Jan 3, 2012
    10
    As everyone states, beautifully done. I loved how the character of Hugo was developed, particularly his revelation about broken machines. To me, the movie did feel more about Hugo than early film. A bit too long perhaps, but some fantastic performances (the always-fantastic Chloe Grace Moretz) make it easy to get through. I plan to see it again soon.
  67. Jan 28, 2012
    5
    Extremely visually wonderful (the opening scene is such a masterpiece take), in a beautiful 30's Paris, but a bit long, a bit too much of a homage (although deserved) and, for me, with a story and main character uncomfortably showing harrypotter-wannabeism.
  68. Feb 25, 2012
    7
    Definitely not as good as I thought it would be. I wonder how it can get so many Oscar nominations and the Global Award. The scenes are not beautiful. The robot is ugly. The plot is also boring. And it's really strange all the cast speaking English while the story supposed to take place in French. Only the music is satifting and Paris in night is really extraordinary.
  69. Feb 9, 2012
    7
    This flick seems to be aimed at the minds of children who can best appreciate insignificant fantasies such as this movie is. Hugo does have strengths in its visual and technical qualities such as set design, but these are not enough to catapult it to a higher level.
  70. Mar 28, 2012
    2
    One of the more pretentious movies made in the past few year. A love letter to itself and the the self absorbed members of Hollywood that believe all the magic and originality in the world is a result of their own collective efforts. The story is so slow, and unconvincing, you'll likely doze off well before the movie's anti climatic ending. The only redeeming quality is the beautiful set and costume design, as well as some slightly inspired acting . Expand
  71. Jun 11, 2012
    0
    Today I saw Hugo on DVD for the first time believing that it was supposed to be an adventure fantasy story. I was very wrong. This movie looked cool, and i can tell it was meant for 3D in the theater, but other than that it was not very good. The plot is so very slow moving that you think it has to lead up to some big climax of how all the mixed story lines tie together, but it does not. I still do not understand how that was supposed to flow well at all. The Automaton had so much potential to be entertaining, but actually had very little to do with the story. It all was very coincidental and the story of Hugo, his dad and the automaton and the story of the movie director didn't quite flow together, heck the Automaton doesn't flow with the director. How would it draw images of his movies if he took it apart to make his camera before making any of his films? Why did he fake his death or why do people think he is dead? What happened to Hugo's mother? Over all the movie left many questions unanswered and was not a fantasy adventure story that the previews made it out to be at all. Expand
  72. Nov 24, 2011
    9
    A wonderful movie for all ages. Beautiful art direction, and score. Hugo is not what I thought it would be, but it was something better. A story about french cinema, on protecting it through the years. The movie plays out slowly but great. The opening sequence was marvelous, as it sets up for the rest of the movie. This movie should be walking away with some Oscars come February.
  73. Mar 18, 2012
    3
    This movie is not captivating, not magical and not exiting. a movie about a washed up old man and a kid is pathetic Tin Tin was a better movie choice. I really did not like this.
  74. Dec 24, 2011
    10
    HUGO is the one of the most wonderfully pleasant movies I have ever seen ... The first time I have actually felt "movie magic." Please do not miss this movie.
  75. Mar 4, 2012
    10
    One of the best movies I have seen in recent memory. And even my kids, who don't usually like serious themed movies, had to watch it a second time as soon as it came out on bluray. Even though we saw it twice in the theaters. MUST SEE.
  76. 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 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
  77. Dec 10, 2011
    9
    Some may interpret this as a children's film, but its artistry expands beyond that audience. It follows the adventures of a boy who lives in a Paris train station and has a fascination with all things mechanical. The plot and dialogue are minimal, making this an almost silent film. The visuals, on the other hand, are amazing. This is director Martin Scorsese's most stylishly inventive film and the 3D is spectacular. The story sinks a bit with his film restoration messages and this drags the pacing slightly, but the brilliance of a master filmmaker makes this a masterpiece. Expand
  78. Mar 28, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hugo is a film that is technically brilliant but almost every other aspect fell short in my opinion. The cinematography is incredible and is one of the main reasons why the movie pulls you in initially. However, the story eventually let me down. Chloe Moretz is a great up-and-coming actress and she does well in this role, but Asa Butterfield isn't quite ready for a main role and in certain moments he comes off as awkward. The story is just too slow and uneventful for most of the movie. Also, moments that could be powerful are dramatically downplayed, such as Hugo's relationship with his father and uncle. When Hugo learns that his father died, he literally has no reaction and shows very little emotion. The father is a large part of the story, and he doesn't even shed a tear? The movie shifts halfway through to a story about the history of movies, which is probably why the critics praised it so much. The movie has it's moments, but I feel like it is predictable. I can't imagine kids really getting into this and enjoying it, though the blame is more on the marketing (who tried to sell it as a kids movie). Martin Scorsese is an all-time great director, and it's great to see him experiment so late in his career. However, Hugo was a big disappointment for me. I still recommend seeing it as it does have it's moments, but I definitely feel like this could have been so much more. Expand
  79. 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
  80. Apr 3, 2012
    8
    Spectacular film, with enviable art direction! sound, special effects, perfectly constructed, Scorsese did a tremendous job in making this film a reality. performances a bit loose but by the children, but Kingsley tremendous!
  81. Mar 11, 2012
    5
    WOW. I did not in a million years expect to be this bored during a movie that is held in such high regard. The technical and artist acheivements and acting were top notch, but dramatically this film does not exist. Why not do more wierd things with the robot? Why not have some chase scenes that are more than a kid running up steps while a man with a dog follows? The train station/clocks look amazing, why not use this to more avail? The came close to being the first movie that i paid for in years that I simply walked away from 2/3rds of the way. But I wanted to review it fairly on Metacritic so I sat through the whole thing. It was tough. The incredible look and feel of the film gives it a 50%, the lack of drama adds a big zero. Expand
  82. 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 every Christmas season to come. Expand
  83. Mar 5, 2012
    8
    When I first heard about Martin Scorsese was doing a family adventure film, I said to myself I have to check thiz out! As we knew, Scorsese is a Director who is widely known for most of his gangster and violent films like: CASINO (1995), THE DEPARTED (2006) and SHUTTER ISLAND (2010). Since the opening sequence, we are spoiled with such fantastic panoramic scenery. Dynamic camera movements effectively draw you into the story in a split second, where we follow the daily life of an orphan named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) in 1930s France. Hugo lives inside the tower clock of a crowded train station. By his curiosity, Hugo has been trying to fix an automaton in human form which his father (played by Jude Law) left him. Not long after, it takes him to Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley) with his toy booth. The premise is about the mystery behind it. Asa Butterfield, the boy who played in THE BOY IN STRIPED PAJAMAS in 2008, seems to be a proper choice for Hugo. His blue sad eyes tell everything. Ben Kingsley also delivers a firm and attractive performance. Only after about an hour, the things become more clearly. Apparently, thiz movie tells about the magical world of movie making. I have to underline thiz: the whole package is visually stunning! I was amazed by its remarkable setting, the exquisite cinematography and the exotic lighting schemes. Everything at its best, everyone can tell. The story is filled with various unique characters played by well-known Actors: there was the adventuress Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is Papa Georges goddaughter, the grumpy station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), the flower girl Lisette (Emily Mortimer), the kind-hearted librarian Monsieur Labisse (Christopher Lee) and still many more to mention. But if you want to be objective, most of these characters can be pushed away easily without too much ruining the main plot. I mean everyone! They are only here to become unimportant extras. Except for the station inspector, he is the only antagonist, we still need him! The character played comically well by Sacha Baron Cohen. Without him, there will be no chasing scene and nail-biting suspense. Clearly, the main frame of the story is not that complicated at all. It was kind of flat and anticlimax. To tell you the truth, I did not have The Wow Factor for the ending. Well, I have never read the book (THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET by Brian Selznick) before. So I cannot tell whether disadvantage of the story derived from basic material. However, thiz is an award winning book, it won Caldecott Medal in 2008. In that case, if is true that is the whole story. What we can sayâ Expand
  84. 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 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
  85. 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 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
  86. Apr 1, 2012
    7
    Hugo is not a magic, extravagant or elegant fantasy. Let's say it's Martin Scorsese, dazzling 3D and love letter to cinema. But Hugo is mediocre and even boring.
  87. Dec 23, 2011
    10
    A nicely written story, visually pleasing with good acting. Somewhat predictable but I wasn't much in the mood for a challenge, just sit back and enjoy the costumes, sets, colors, dialogue. Some of the characters were caricatures (the adults) and they were a bit over the top and light on dialogue but enough to propel the story forward. This will be a classic. Enjoy it with the family.
  88. Dec 11, 2011
    10
    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 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
  89. Jan 9, 2012
    9
    You'd have to be in a pissy mood not to love this film. Great for families and couples -- for people who don't mind being reminded about the importance of hope. Visually stunning (see it in 3D) and the greatest recent tribute to the history of film-making. There are several levels to the interpretation of the film, for those who are paying close attention. It's a rarity to see children who can act this well. It's surreal, to be sure, but intentionally so, and given the theme, it could hardly be any other way. I'll be very disappointed if Scorsese doesn't win some Oscars with this one. He's been working cinematic wonders for thirty years and this is no exception. Expand
  90. Jan 4, 2012
    10
    Hugo is a thank you letter from Martin Scorsese to motion pictures, specifically the first motion pictures and their early pioneers. Using the inquisitive adventures of a young, orphaned French boy, Scorsese leads us into a much broader and surprising area than where the setup begins. Furthermore, Hugo is in 3D which at first thought seems an odd medium from the director of The Departed, Gangs of New York, and Raging Bull. The polished result and gimmicky tricks of 3D do not resemble Scorsese Expand
  91. Mar 13, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very disappointing given the hype. The darndest thing is that it just isn't very interesting --though it should be given its, pardon, mechanisms and reality behind the magic. Whether fantasy or magical realism, this movie evoked no emotions in me --oops. The only reason to see it is Sacha Baron Cohen as the inspector, who endearingly steals what little is left of the show. Expand
  92. Feb 21, 2012
    9
    I can understand the viewpoints of the people that did not enjoy this movie. I can also see how the trailers of this movie can be misleading to the final film presented as the movie itself is more methodically paced than the action adventure portrayal. I, on the other hand, did not watch this film immediately in the theaters so I came to the movie with more of an open mind. Others criticized that they did not get any story out of the people in the train station and their rhyme and reason were convoluted, however, I thought it was well done. Especially if you try to look at them from Hugos perspective. Like him, looking upon them somewhat from a distance, you come to realize that that's how we look upon each other most of the time. Others commented that they wanted those relationships more spelled out, but In the end, I didn't think that was necessary. This is more about Discovery, and within that discovery, lies the adventure. Whether it be in ourselves or each other. This movie reminds me why I love movies in the first place. Expand
  93. Nov 24, 2011
    8
    Most impressive use of 3D since Avatar and beautiful cinematography, costumes, and sets throughout. However the story is aimed too squarely at film history buffs (like me) who will appreciate Scorsese's cinematic love song to the development of motion pictures, and therefore this one will have very limited audience appeal. Much more geared towards those over 40 than for the kiddies (and their 20/30-something parents) who will only enjoy the 3D effects but will find the overall film to be painfully slow and too specific to the early silent film era. Grade = B Expand
  94. Dec 8, 2011
    9
    Hugo is something truly extraordinary. It's an emotionally provocative fantasy drama with timeless themes, a gorgeously sumptuous visual feast and perhaps most intriguingly, it's Martin Scorsese doing family entertainment. You have to tip your hat to the film's production designers - from the meticulous recreation of a 1930s Parisian train station (particularly the intricate and beautiful clock tower that serves as Hugo's sanctuary) to the little details on the numerous stalls that crowd its walkways, to the period costumes, all of which help to utterly enthrall you in Scorsese's film world, helped in no small measure by his use of 3-D. The cast all give exceptional performances, with the young lead Asa Butterfield giving a surprisingly mature, heartfelt performance, Chloe Grace Moretz continuing to prove herself to be one of the most talented and versatile actresses working today, and Sir Ben Kingsley's performance is understated but masterfully multi-layered. As is to be expected from any sort of period drama, the rest of the cast is filled out with the usual British thesps - from Richard Griffiths to Christopher Lee. Quite surprisingly, the person who most impressed was Sacha Baron Cohen as Inspector Gustav. Though he provides the majority of the comic relief for the film, his performance isn't simply exaggeration for the sake of it (like in Borat or Sweeney Todd) - you have to respect his talent as a serious actor for making Gustav a complex and understandable character, as he could have quite easily ended up as a 'Allo 'Allo! knock-off. Scorsese is a film buff, and he likes to show it - in addition to the engaging story and child-like wonder that Hugo provides, it also serves as a love-letter to films of the past, and could serve as a good starting point for someone not familiar with such masters as Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton. That could be the most appealing aspect of Hugo - the huge variety of things it discusses. Yes, it's about an outsider finding his place in the world, yes, it's about looking back on your life and the pain of remembering missed opportunities, and yes, it's about growing up, but it's also a film about film. Scorsese has created something very personal to himself, but also something that will resonate with people the world over, perhaps for many years to come. Expand
  95. Dec 27, 2011
    9
    While the beginning may be slow, it rewards you with one of 2011's best films. The story about a young boy named Hugo who tries to unlock the secrets of an automaton is compelling, even if the story is a tad predicable.
  96. Dec 13, 2011
    8
    This was a very good movie. It isn't like your everyday film, but it was very good. Very well made, Sacha Baren Cohen (if thats how you spell his name) did a surprisingly good job in a more serious role. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Hugo is a very beautiful story, a must see film, if you enjoy a detailed plot, with an inspiring message. 8/10
  97. Dec 19, 2011
    8
    I don't understand all these bad reviews. Granted, it wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen, but it's certainly not as bad as some of these reviews make it out to be. Sure, it was a bit slow-paced and it took a while to get to the point, but it was very realistic, in that sense. Life doesn't always get straight to the point, and the roundabout way this film went told a unique story in a unique way. 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.