Martin Scorsese’s Hugo in 3D

[Mighty Jack]

Seen it, loved it, hated it? Discuss…

(Potential minor spoilers, though most of this info has been revealed throughout reviews and interviews already)



There’s a reason I don’t join the complaint department when folks grouse about CGI or 3D or even those “shings” discussed in another thread and Hugo provides the answer as to why.

The story centers on one of film’s great innovators, the father of special effects if you will – which is why if ever there was a picture that should have been filmed in 3D, it’s Hugo. The movie is a love letter to the magic of motion pictures and to the people who make dreams come alive. Movie magic, whether it be process shots or stop motion or computer generated images – it’s all drawing from the same well and it all funnels back to one point in time. Hugo is what I love about going to see the movies. It’s why I endure crowds and rude teenagers and crying babies… because nothing compares –movie-wise- to sitting in a dark theater and watching the dream makers work their magic.

And “magic” really is the key word to describe this film.

It does take its time hitting its stride; the early establishing sequences are okay but nothing special. Once it gets going though, it’s captivating. How does Scorsese do with 3D? Here too it starts off a little rough. There’s a chase scene that’s pure sensory overload. It movies too fast, cuts too quickly and there’s too many things to pay attention too. If you’re the kind of person who gets nauseas during 3D, you might start ralphing in the aisles. But once it settles it’s quite stunning. Not only for the depth of field, but also for those scenes that mirror silent film techniques (a character falls and you see footsteps above her, ala Hitchcock’s “The Lodger”) – and for the modern flights of fancy.

For example, there’s a sequence where sheets of artwork fly through the air and float around our young lead actors. You can see the details on the paper; the images come to life even as they spin around you. It’s simply one of the most beautiful and magical moments I’ve ever seen in cinema.

Note: The 3D picture was bright, crisp and detailed. I had no issues with darkness. Some of the fast chase scenes do suffer from blurring. Scorsese also has fun with it, especially with close-ups (as in a scene in a bathtub)

The acting is all top-drawer, though Chloe Grace Mortez has a few minor broad moments. I don’t know if that’s all on her or if it came from Scorsese (whose films have highlighted ‘broad’ performances the past 11 years)

Several things I like about it is that it's not cynical, it's a good family film with a good heart, and above all I love that it's a celebration of film, especially the silent film era. If you have any appreciation for the period, this is must see. If you are clueless to it, Hugo will provide an enchanting education. Despite a few imperfections, it’s the best movie I’ve seen all year (and dearly I wish solgroupie were still a forum member because I’d love to hear what she thought of this). I think it’ll work whether you see it in 2 or 3D – but I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to see what the director did with it. And I’m happy with my choice.

[Satchmo]

I saw this yesterday, and I absolutely loved it; it was almost perfect. Despite however much I love a good movie with a complex plot and the kind of deep philosophical undertones that one can ponder for hours, sometimes the most magical thing in film is an old, simple tale done right. Usually I can understand why someone would hate a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed, and there are movies I like a lot more than Hugo that have detractors who raise a lot of valid points regardless of whether or not I agree with them. Howevever, I have a hard time understanding how someone couldn't like Hugo: it seems impossible to not get caught up in the magic of what Martin Scorsese and his collaborators have crafted. And you can grouse all you want about the overuse of CGI in movies, but all the heavy effects work in a film like Hugo and never, ever seem out of place or too "fake".