Directed by:
Martin ScorseseScreenplay:
John LoganCinematography:
Robert RichardsonComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Helen McCrory, Michael Stuhlbarg (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
After his clockmaker father (Jude Law) perishes in a museum fire, Hugo goes to live with his Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone), a drunkard who maintains the clocks at a Paris train station. When Claude disappears, Hugo carries on his work and fends for himself by stealing food from area merchants. In his free time, he attempts to repair an automaton his father rescued from the museum, while trying to evade the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), a World War I veteran with no sympathy for lawbreakers. When Georges (Ben Kingsley), a toymaker, catches Hugo stealing parts for his mechanical man, he recruits him as an assistant to repay his debt. If Georges is guarded, his open-hearted ward, Isabelle (Chloë Moretz), introduces Hugo to a kindly bookseller (Christopher Lee), who directs them to a motion-picture museum, where they meet film scholar René (Michael Stuhlbarg). In helping unlock the secret of the automaton, they learn about the roots of cinema, starting with the Lumière brothers, and give a forgotten movie pioneer his due, thus illustrating the importance of film preservation, a cause to which the director has dedicated his life. If Scorsese's adaptation of "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" isn't his most autobiographical work, it just may be his most personal. (Entertainment in Video)
(more)Reviews (13)
Martin and his big movie. Not his best, but undeniably his most personal. Here Scorsese (Hugo is him) professes his lifelong love of stories in the form of a melancholic kids’ movie which isn’t so much for kids, after all. And in addition to this he was the first to prove that 3D has its rightful place in cinema, where it can be something more than a mere good-looking bolt-on. Mainly and primarily this is a darn good movie; and that is all that is important in the end.
()
More than just a tribute to the forefather of cinematic brats (weaned and further nourished on the sci-fi, fantasy and horror genres). The web of references to films and filmmakers who were influenced by Meliés and who possibly influenced Scorsese (who came to Meliés through his own spiritual father, Michael Powell) has multiple layers and one viewing is not nearly enough to disentangle them, while the revealing of the central idea, which is underpinned by numerous allusions, is no less entertaining. Film as a mechanical means of reviving memories, bringing people together and creating dreams. Here, only cinematic dreams, not real ones, which have the form of nightmares, serve as a reliable means of escape from reality (we therefore also mainly see examples from Meliés’s special-effects films and less from his reconstructed events). (In the second bad dream, there is a peculiar absence of clocks, i.e. time as a dimension, which mechanical inventions other than film lack). ___ The story isn’t divided into two parts; from the beginning, it’s about repairing a broken machine, with the first part accenting the mechanical level and the second part placing emphasis on the human level. We mainly see the machines first. They are placed in the foreground of the mis-en-scéne and, at the same time, Hugo pins all of his hopes on them. The first part also comes closer to grotesque films, as a human functions as an inanimate, mechanical object. The second part, from the activation of the automaton, is a partial negation of the modernistic enthusiasm over technological progress. Hugo starts to realise that the machines will not change anything about his loneliness. The guard’s mechanical leg, previously used as a source of gags, becomes a means of becoming close to the flower girl, who lost her brother at Verdun (mass slaughter thanks to the use of modern technology). The settings of the action are expanded with the addition of Meliés’s household and library. Books and people get more space. Technology is talked (theorised) about more than it is shown. ___ The mechanical thesis and the human antithesis logically lead to cinematic synthesis, to the joining of reason and emotion as, for example, Jean Epstein wrote about it (La Lyrosophie). The conclusion brings separate “peephole” scenes (gags) like those from early films into the overall narrative. Like the characters, these scenes find their place, their meaning. The film is constructed in such a way that it can result in a film. I cannot imagine a more wonderful tribute to the very idea of moving pictures. ___ The historical inaccuracies that Scorsese allows are easier to criticise than the outwardly atypical plot structure. Viewers’ dodging of the oncoming train can still be tolerated when reading the book by Tabard, who, as it happens, was not accurate in writing about Meliés, but not in Meliés’s own memoirs, which corrected other authorial errors. Meliés did not come across cinema by accident, as he was personally invited to a public film screening by the Lumière brothers and he did not create the camera from nothing, but improved an existing model by R.W. Paul. The decline in interest in his work did not come until the First World War. By about 1909, Meliés’s laborious method had made it simply impossible for him to shoot as quickly as the times demanded and he completed his final film in 1913. However, these details are overshadowed by his incredibly precise revival of old Paris and even older films (several seconds of Le Royaume des fées are memorable). The transfer into 3D gave these a new dimension without diminishing their charm. They are improved, though indirectly, by highlighting their meaning. Scorsese not only proclaims his love for film, but also calls on us not to forget. 90%
()
(less)
(more)
2009 – Pandora. 2010 – the cyberspace of TRON Legacy 3D. 2011 – A Parisian train station. Three very different magical worlds and three reasons to pay a few crowns more of a 3D cinema ticket. In addition to the intoxicating visuals, Hugo captivates with its two child protagonists (such likeable kids is not something you see everyday in film – with Chloe is no surprise, but Asu was unknown to me) and its sincere love for cinema. As it’s clear from all the reviews, Hugo is a beautiful celebration of the beginnings of cinematography and it’s very easy to surrender to it. What’s worth noticing is that both Hugo and the silent and black and white The Artists are this year’s biggest Oscar favourites and they’ve received the most nominations. Both deal with a certain period that marked a turning point for cinema. Hugo focuses on the beginning of the century in France, and in particular the work of G. Mèliès, which was setting the trends at the time, and the turning point means WWI, due to which the epicentre of the film world moved to America. The Artist, in contrast, celebrates the American silent movies of the 20th century, and the turning point is sound. Both of them imprint the world into their format, where The Artist is a silent romantic comedy and Hugo is a fairytale that uses special effects to bring the viewer into its (3D) world (and that’s why you must watch it in 3D). Almost like Mèliès A Trip to the Moon, init? :). It’s interesting how it came together this year…
()
Hugo is a beautifully crafted story that stands out in the world of cinema. Martin Scorsese not only shows his deep love for film, but he also weaves it into a narrative rooted in truth, with some imaginative elements added to create a captivating tale. The plot revolves around Hugo's hidden secret, which sets off a chain of events that unfolds into a touching and unique story. However, the pacing felt a bit slow, and I found myself wishing for more excitement to keep me fully engaged. Scorsese has pulled this off brilliantly in his other films, but this one didn’t quite bring that same level of thrill for me. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the originality and the heart of the story, which makes Hugo a rare and unforgettable film experience.
()
Paradox: the simplest film illusion created in the most technically complex way. A return to the initial astonishment. For me, it’s not closest to The Artist and other parallels presented here, but rather Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Even Scorsese tries to return to the magical moment of ecstasy from the world of visions, to the dimension in which the image on the retina changes into the complex world behind it. I spent two hours in the movie theatre in bliss and ecstasy from something that was not and is not. Hugo's value is not in its (factually dubious) encyclopedic teachings, but in the fact that the film teaches us to rejoice in the imagination - not in the stimulating visual expansion that evokes its utter stunting, but in the journey into the interior in which the most beautiful spells are always performed, stimulated by the magic of pen and celluloid masters. I hope that one day I will raise a kid that the anachronistic illusionist Hugo will entertain, even with its embarrassingly romantic (and soothing) vision of the world as a mechanism in which everything has a fixed place...
()
Some dreams do come true. The magic of film intertwined with reality, sketches with meticulously crafted images fly through the air, and Martin Scorsese pays homage to the beginnings of cinematography without getting overly sentimental or desperately trying to make the movie into a classic. Hugo seems like a sophisticated fairy tale about a boy and his great adventure, only to ultimately transform into a fascinating journey through human imagination and determination. And that nostalgic hurricane of memories of children's books and movies, as well as fascination with unreachable worlds, has a power that managed to captivate me completely.
()
It's a fairy tale, a fairy tale that even adults can go to the cinema and enjoy. Even I enjoyed it; but I still couldn't help feeling like something was missing. What was missing? Suspense. It looked beautiful, you would almost like to go for a walk there, the actors acted, the music worked (of course, I can't remember it anymore, so it must not have been that memorable), but it just didn't flow. Plus, the death of Hugo's father was such an empty thing, it must have happened just so Hugo could go to the station where he met... Plus why did he get the book? Why didn't he get his notebook back? Why was the key in his dream lying in the rocks in one shot and on the railroad track in the next? And why....? I don't know, basically the overall experience was a bit spoiled by all the questions and the unsatisfied longing for the kind of suspense or adventure that makes you forget to breathe. There was nothing in the movie I wouldn't want to forget. It's a beautiful film. Visually well done. But it didn't have to be in 3D, even 2D would have looked great (unfortunately my local cinema only offered it in 3D). I left the cinema a bit disappointed, but I still know I watched a beautiful film aimed at younger viewers. It's a film without violence and a film about fixing things. Just the thing for a gentle soul. If I had a little kid, I'd let him watch it. But I wouldn't watch it with him, I wouldn't join him in front of the TV like I do sometimes when I'm walking by and something interesting is on. I'd be more likely to go do some cleaning instead.
()
He got me! I am usually coldly dismissive toward attempts to move me with a pitiful orphan or a feeble old man and often openly mock them, but here my eyes were teary and I was genuinely touched. That makes it even more disappointing to state that it is probably a suicidal film that will be a big flop at the box office and could only be partially saved by a few Oscars and the associated publicity. Because, contrary to the claims of many, it is not a typical family film, but rather an arthouse film that is suitable for projection at festivals and in film clubs. While Cameron used 3D technology to shoot a spectacular fairy tale, Scorsese used it to create a nostalgic tribute, not only to cinema, but to art in general, be it visual or literary, and to his enthusiastic admirers. It is also a homage to the technique and science that fulfills the legacy of the classic and the founder of the sci-fi genre, Jules Verne, who died a quarter century before Scorsese's story takes place, but still, it seems as if the script and characters came from his pen. Actually, it seems to me that after Zeman's film Invention for Destruction, this film is the best portrayal of Verne's world of values. All the amazing gears, complex machines, smoking locomotives and inventions, and the whole ingeniously constructed atmosphere are exactly what fits into Verne's works. Thanks to a generous budget and the enthusiasm of the actors involved, as well as Scorsese's long-standing directorial experience, an outstanding film was created that, in my opinion, will be remembered in film history. While watching it, you will recall several specific scenes from famous films of the past, without Hugo cheaply plagiarizing them. Ben Kingsley will not be associated with the character of Gandhi for me, as he is with others, but rather with the character of Méliès, and Chloë Grace Moretz gave an incredible performance for her age. Her character is charming, and that girl simply has charisma. Overall impression: 100%.
()
A movie about movies for people who like movies. Nothing earth-shattering in terms of story, but Marty reminds me of Méliès himself in terms of technical implementation and eye for detail. The same applies to the old captivating images hidden throughout the picture. Movies used to be a way of creating dreams, while today the audience wants to see reality. And isn’t there enough room for both?
()
The original book has turned into an unoriginal film in which every added thing is just excessive. A lot of scenes seem to have been made just for the vaunted 3D (especially the completely unnecessary train accident), the story is strangely sloppy, too set-up, and Sacha Baron Cohen makes too big a fool of himself... Yes, the direction is skillful, the love for Hugo films is also very nice, but I certainly didn't see anything groundbreaking. Which is quite a shame. I don't tend to do that, but this time I really want to scream: Read the book, it's so much better!
()
A wonderful tribute to cinema as such, which could only have been made by a filmmaker for whom cinema is truly the one and only purpose in life. In his amazing career, Scorsese has produced many successful and legendary films that have rewritten and greatly influenced the history of cinema, so he decided to pay homage to the man who started it all. And it wouldn't be him if he didn't embellish the story with a special atmosphere, if every detail wasn't perfectly executed and on point, and if he didn't shape the entire film in a way that's simply unforgettable. Hugo is sweet as a family film, charming as a playful fantasy, and as a whole incredibly wholesome, funny and harmonious. Though it’s true that they could have gone a bit easier on the sugar and that all the motifs don’t quite fit together as intended, but these are slight flaws perfectly masked under Scorsese's precise direction. I didn’t like Butterfield very much, but Kingsley and Cohen in particular are brilliant. 4 and 1/2*
()
Hugo is (not only) a tribute to one of the greatest giants of early cinema, who defined a whole new kind of film. We are talking, of course, about Georges Meliés. The story of the child protagonists is cleverly complemented by the fates of the supporting characters, from the flower girl, to the policeman and the dog walker, to Meliés himself. The overall impression was spoiled at times by a certain sense of over-sentimentality and family pathos, which admittedly belonged in the film, but I had trouble digesting it. Otherwise, the technical workmanship such as the cinematography, sound and visual effects, editing and music was of a high standard. In short, a nice film that wasn't perfect for me personally, but definitely worth watching.
()
I was quite looking forward to Hugo, although I must say I was genuinely surprised by how many Oscar nominations the film received. It was fairly clear that Martin Scorsese wouldn’t take home any statues for himself; the Academy doesn’t favor him. However, the film is truly worth it. It’s a beautiful fairy tale excursion into history. The story is based - at least partially - on real historical figures and primarily on the history of film. It’s a celebration of cinema, its early steps, but above all, a glorification of one great man who was a pioneer of film in his time. Martin Scorsese gave the lovely story solid direction, humor, relatable characters, and the charm that perhaps The Adventures of Tintin lacked. The film has excellent characters, whether it’s Sacha Baron Cohen, who has to redeem himself by the end, or the child characters who dominate the film. It’s a pleasant family viewing experience that will touch you, won’t offend, but you probably won’t be cheering either. For me, it gets bonus points for Chloë Grace Moretz and Christopher Lee.
()