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:

Rating: **