Hugo got four stars from Ebert, 93% on the Tomatometer, and Oscars for Best Achievement in Art Direction, Cinematography, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Visual Effects.
I just saw Hugo – albeit not in 3-D but just on my television screen, and I honestly can’t figure out what the fuss is about.
It’s a simple-minded fable, a slow and boring story, told with bad acting and monotone music. If I hadn’t known the movie had won that many awards, I would have turned it off after 10 minutes and written the $4.95 for pay-per-view off to experience. But I stuck with it, questioning why I was watching this every 15 minutes or so until it was finally over.
It was a cute story, but that is about all.
Ok, I learned a little bit about film history.
Reading the reviews, it’s an autobiographical tome about Martin Scorsese and his own passion for special effects and preservation of old movies. That’s not something I know when I watch a movie. Somebody’s passion, and somebody’s early life, like Scorsese in Paris in the 1930ies, does not alone a good movie make.
So, if you are a movie history student, a special effects buff, a Paris-in-1920 aficionado, or an art direction student, you might get something out of this.
I would give it one star, but I DID sit through it and I believe it must have some worth, so here goes:
2 thoughts on “Movie Review – Hugo”
As always, the book was SO much better! Not because of the words, but because of the pictures. Check it out.
it’s like a love letter to the movies and i’m in love with them too so this film was kind of a special one for me, it’s not great but has a kind of magic.