Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Hugo (2011)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Time Out rating

Average user rating

36 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

What an exceptionally un-Martin Scorsese-like film ‘Hugo’ appears to be on the surface: a 3D festive kids’ adventure with a boo-hiss baddie set on the not-so-mean streets of 1930s Paris. And yet it is possible this is one of the director’s most personal films: a love letter to cinema, to the magical emotional imperfection of celluloid just as its days are numbered. It’s a film about making films, about losing your heart – and finding yourself – in a pitch-black movie theatre.

On one level ‘Hugo’ is simply a dazzling children’s fairy tale adapted by John Logan (‘The Aviator’) from Brian Selznick’s 2007 graphic novel and deploying the latest CG technology bewitchingly to create its Paris setting. This isn’t real Paris, but reel Paris – bigger and better, more magical than life. Fourteen-year-old Londoner Asa Butterfield stars and has exactly the right sad little soulful face and intelligence to play the orphaned Hugo – who lives secretly in the eaves of a Paris station winding up the clocks. He’s trying to fix an automaton that his watchmaker dad (Jude Law) worked on before his death – a little mechanical man holding a fountain pen. Hugo believes the automaton will summon up a message from beyond the grave and enlists the help of gung-ho tomboy Isabelle (Chlöe Grace Moretz of ‘Kick Ass’, a dash too peppy).

The mystery of the automaton leads not to Hugo’s dad but to the movies – specifically the birth of cinema and director Georges Méliès, played superbly by Ben Kingsley as a study in wounded pride. This part of the story is borrowed from life: Méliès was a magician-turned-early cinema pioneer. After falling from grace, most of his 500 or so films were destroyed; Méliès was discovered years later working as a toymaker in Paris’s Montparnasse station. Here’s an irresistible autobiographical parallel: Scorsese famously ‘found’ director Michael Powell in the ’70s – like Méliès, forgotten and on his uppers. And one of his enduring gifts to cinema has been preserving and restoring films.

Scorsese takes us on a whistle-stop tour of cinema history (which may leave smaller kids squirming and bored). Hugo and Isabelle watch Harold Lloyd. There’s a flashback to Méliès seeing the Lumière Brothers’ film of a train pulling into a station. The audience ducks – as they really did. It’s a terrifically cinéastic defence of 3D: movies were always meant to jump out of the screen at you, Scorsese is saying. And he puts 3D to good use: yes, in the complex machinations of the station’s huge clocks, but most satisfyingly in his actors’ faces which light up the screen with depth and beauty.

The cast is mostly British, giving the whole thing a Dickensian feel, with many nods to the slapstick of early silents. Sacha Baron Cohen plays the villain of the piece, the station’s policeman, like a cross between the Child Catcher in ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ and Mr Bumble the beadle in ‘Oliver!’ Some of this is broad and the gags wheeze a little. It’s all a little too patchy to be truly great and the story splutters along in places, but ‘Hugo’s quixotic faith in movies is intoxicating: ‘If you ever wondered where your dreams come from, they’re made here,’ says Kingsley’s Méliès. It might be curtains for celluloid, but Scorsese, a boyish 69, clearly isn’t leaving the stage any time soon. He directs every film with the passion of his first. And it shows.

Author: Cath Clarke

Time Out London Issue 2154: 1 – 6 December, 2011

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

cineast633 said...

Posted on Apr 08 2012 10:14 Three satisfied customers aged 10, 34 and 66 all watched entranced by the central characters and the 3D recreation of reel Paris. Even the 10 year old boy who rapidly gets bored with non-action sequences lasted the course. Yes, its a little too long, and could have been approached very differently, but it's an interesting absorbing and valid take.

Report as inappropriate
lexstra said...

Posted on Mar 01 2012 20:00 What a disappointment. This film was so hyped and it turns out to be quite boring. It contains pointless scenes that were inserted simply to satisfy the 3D gimmick.
It is maudlin and utterly predictable. The cinematography and set design are attracrive but ultimately the film is vacuous.

Report as inappropriate
mo said...

Posted on Feb 25 2012 18:26 Wish I'd been able to see it in 3D. Wasn't really disappointed [I usually am when I see a film that I've been looking forward to for a long time] but I would have liked it to be about 30 minutes shorter. Thought it was a tad over sentimental, but then found myself wiping away a tear at the end.

Report as inappropriate
Gerry Mac said...

Posted on Feb 23 2012 10:00 Any movie which puts a permanent smile on my face throughout its length is good enough for me. However, personal emotions apart, this is one master of the cinema's homage of love to the art form which gave him his life. The passion which is evident in any interviews Scorcese has given over the years on his feelings for film, shouts from every frame. And each frame is stunning; the CGI is state of the art and, if Paris has never looked lovelier, so what? It's a simple tale of fantasy beautifully told and the canvas on which it is painted is stunningly beautiful. The acting, for the most part, is superb and believable, the cinematography is to die for.All-in-all, for a feel-good movie without the usual mawkishness, Hugo stands among the best.

Report as inappropriate
Kate said...

Posted on Jan 21 2012 09:21 Disappointment does not adequately describe the difference between the hype and reality of this film. While some of the cinematography is interesting, this is tedious film without an obvious plot/theme. Without an explanation of what the film purports to be, one struggles to derive any sense of the story line, plot or purpose. Yes, it is different to the usual Hollywood pap but that, of itself, does not justify the accolades for what is a tedious film with a bemusing plot. Don't trust the star rating but read the critiques.

Report as inappropriate
jennitpk said...

Posted on Jan 03 2012 21:05 Lovely thoughtful children's film. Beautiful to look at and the details of the scenes and references through the movie would make if worth watching again. Agree with the reviewers that a little of the acting could be a bit more convincing, but the rest of the film more than made up for that. My children of 8 and 10 also enjoyed it. A welcome relief from the usual children's movie fare.

Report as inappropriate
cliff williams said...

Posted on Jan 01 2012 18:11 I fell for all the hype and went to see Hugo on New Year's eve.
The movie was visually beautiful, but the acting lacked any credibility (with the exception of Jude Law)....every one either over acted or were totally unconvincing in their roles (especially the two children) The plot was extremely boring and predictable. I expected to see the two children exchange rings in the end, almost as corny as the two dog lovers, the flower girl and the station guard and on and on ...god I wanted it to end sooner. The director will probably get all of the 'hollywood hyped' credit, but isn't he supposed to be responsible for the actor's performances as well? Makes one mistrust reviews.

Report as inappropriate
Leah Ray said...

Posted on Dec 30 2011 13:09 Peter Ludbrook, I couldn't agree more! A thoroughly absorbing, intelligent movie of great humanity. I saw it with an almost entirely adult audience, so I am delighted to hear that the children in your audience were as mesmerized as we were.

Report as inappropriate
Peter Ludbrook said...

Posted on Dec 30 2011 12:22 I loved this movie. It was far better than I expected being both entertaining and at times quite moving. My companion, who was initially doubtful about seeing the movies, was captivated from the opening sequence. Certainly, neither of us were bored by it. On the contrary we were entranced both by the plot and the remarkable 3D effects. It was instructive to compare them with the crude 3D effects on offer in the trailers that preceded "Hugo". Yes, it is a love letter to early cinema in general and George Melies in particular but as a devotee of early cinema I share those sentiments.
Several writers have wondered how much young children will get out of it. We saw it in a suburban London Odeon over Christmas. The cinema was packed and many young children were in the audience. My fears of bored, restless children spoiling my enjoyment were completely unfounded. They seemed as engaged by the movie as did the adults.
For me this film reminded why I first fell in love with cinema nearly six decades ago and I've no hesitation in giving it 5 stars.

Report as inappropriate
james bradley said...

Posted on Dec 26 2011 16:15 Half an hour too long, wreaks of over indulgent director and producers afraid to confront him re the cut. Wish I'd waited for DVD

Report as inappropriate
Evie said...

Posted on Dec 24 2011 18:59 I *quite* liked it. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz certainly shine but the plot is slow paced and might be a bit too meandering for younger children to keep up. I enjoyed the sense of childish wonder and the faux-parisien setting but the emotional pay off I was waiting for never really came.

Report as inappropriate
critique said...

Posted on Dec 23 2011 23:24 Visually splendid (worth the extra cost to view in 3D) but very boring. Two and a half stars.

Report as inappropriate
Patrick said...

Posted on Dec 23 2011 08:37 Fantastic, the best film I have seen in the cinema in recent years

Report as inappropriate
Leah Ray said...

Posted on Dec 22 2011 02:22 An inspiring film; it works on so many levels, it requires more than one viewing to appreciate it. The story is simple enough, but the layers of cinematic references, artistic flourishes and period details make it a feast for the mind as well as the eyes. In terms of cinema storytelling, it is a bit oddball; the story arc is not conventional, but rather follows the line of the novel. This makes it feel a bit off-kilter, but if one can see beyond that, it is an utterly rewarding and moving experience. I would rather see this than a whole raft of by-the-numbers usual movies. And if you feel inspired by it to watch Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Fatty Arbuckle, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., and their peers, you will not be sorry you did! That is, of course, in addition to the films of Melies, the Lumiere brothers and the other pioneers.

Report as inappropriate
critique said...

Posted on Dec 21 2011 14:40 USMAN - glad to see you back! where have you been?!

Report as inappropriate