Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is quite simply a masterpiece. Full stop. It’s that absolutely rarest kind of movie: One which constantly reminds why you love movies. This is true even after the film has ended, when you are hardly able to contain a desire to run right out and tell others that they need to see this movie. I actually succumbed to doing just that—and in a sense that’s what I’m still doing here. As soon as the lights went up in the theater, I told my viewing companions (both of whom know I rarely talk about a movie right after it’s over) that I honestly felt that seeing the film was a privilege. The moment I got home from seeing the film, I started telling people to “stop whatever you’re doing and go see Hugo.”
There are, of course, those who will automatically denigrate Hugo for not being as “important” as Scorsese’s other films, and claim that it’s a lesser work because it’s a “children’s” film (though it really isn’t). What a sad and short-sighted view that is. I think it is quite likely Scorsese’s masterpiece—and almost certainly the most personal film he has ever made. Yes, it is a film about a boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield, Nanny McPhee Returns), who lives in the walls of a Paris train station in the 1930s, but it’s also considerably more than that. It’s a movie about the movies, and about the people who make them and the people who love them. It’s the story of the birth of every movie geek—and in that way, it’s Scorsese’s own story as well as our own. It’s about the history of the movies, the passing of time and the cruelty of changing tastes. It’s about dreams, the magic of the movies and their unique ability to make dreams real. And it’s the most elegant and beautiful film of the year—possibly of the 21st century thus far.
For those who don’t know, Hugo tells the story of a boy whose father (Jude Law in one of his best performances) is killed in a museum fire. The boy, Hugo, is then taken over by his rough and generally drunk Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone), whose job is to tend the clocks in the railway station. When Uncle Claude disappears, Hugo continues to live in the station and keep the clocks going—realizing that so long as the clocks run accurately no one is going to notice (or care) that Claude isn’t there. Not only does Hugo not want to be sent to an orphan asylum, but he wants to finish a project he started with his father—the rebuilding of an automaton that was found in the museum where his father worked. The automaton is a small mechanical man, whose function—in this case, an unusually elaborate one—appears to have been to write.
In order to find parts for the machine, Hugo has taken to stealing toys from Papa Georges’ (Ben Kingsley) toy stand in the station and adapting their inner workings to the automaton. That’s all well and good so long as the embittered Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) doesn’t catch him. And though that doesn’t happen, Papa Georges does catch the boy and becomes unaccountably upset when he sees the little notebook Hugo has that details the automaton’s workings. In fact, he takes the booklet from the boy with a plan to burn it, which he appears to do—although Papa Georges’ ward Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) reveals to Hugo that this hasn’t happened. The story then becomes a mystery about what secret Papa Georges is harboring—and why Isabelle has the key that allows the automaton to function. And that mystery deepens when the thing does work and the pair see what it does. Beyond that—for the benefit of those who know little of the film’s plot—I’m going to say no more, except to note that Papa Georges turns out to be a real person and one of the great pioneers of filmmaking.
The depth of what is going on and what is being addressed in this film is simply amazing. As far as I’m concerned, absolutely all of it works. That includes the story itself, though there’s more here than the story—moving and beguiling as it is. The film manages to capture the essence of cinema, to trace the history of it, celebrate it, and offer the most heartbreaking cry for film preservation I’ve ever seen. And it does this last not by preaching about the topic, but by making it wholly human and putting a face to it—and a real face at that—so that it becomes as much a very personal tragedy—and triumph—as an artistic one.
I cannot recommend Hugo too highly. It is superb on every level—from its technical accomplishments to every aspect of every performer. (I never thought I could so absolutey love Christopher Lee as I do here.) It’s a film of almost unbearable—even heartbreaking—beauty in every sense. Its sheer humanity is astonishing—as is its utter lack of postmodern irony and cynicism. This is a fine, fine film that ought to be seen by anyone who loves the movies. Rated PG for mild thematic material, some action/peril and smoking.
Wonderful. Exactly the treatment this film deserves. Anyone who hasn’t seen it might easily assume that you’re overstating the case here. Thing is, I don’t think you are. I’ll be making the trip back to the Carolina to see it again!
Anyone who hasn’t seen it might easily assume that you’re overstating the case here. Thing is, I don’t think you are.
There will be some who think I am after they see it, too, but that is their problem.
It will be a mightily long wait until January 12.
You wanna fly over here, you can flop on the couch.
I’m still paying off the last trip!
Mr. Hanke…..
I am honored to share the same feelings about this movie. It is the best film of the year (so far). When the movie was finished I walked out feeling so happy, no other movie this year has made me feel so happy walking out of a cinema.
Martin Scorcese is a genius and I hope science can find a way to clone him.
I will see this at least four more times and will make my friends go with me.
Long live great film!!!
I’d say it’s more than the best movie this year — and I’ll be mightily surprised if there’s anything coming along to beat it. I’ve seen Take Shelter and I’ve seen The Descendants and they don’t. The only possibility, I can imagine is The Artist, which I have not yet seen, though it is in the offing.
I imagine [i]The Artist[/i] would be a nice companion piece to this. Hopefully we’ll get it by the year’s end.
I imagine The Artist would be a nice companion piece to this. Hopefully we’ll get it by the year’s end.
Its fate as concerns that is completely up in the air, which I don’t understand. As it stands, there’s precious little in the area of art titles for Xmas. The Descendants is set to open here on the 9th, but there’s really nothing after that that’s likely to set the art crowd afire. The Artist seems such a sure bet, but…
Shame is another one that I’m highly anticipating, largely due to the prospect of Steve McQueen (not that one) and Michael Fassbender teaming up again. But its limited release on the 2nd and the fact that I haven’t heard any mention of it yet leads me to believe that it’s doubtful we’ll see it before year’s end.
But its limited release on the 2nd and the fact that I haven’t heard any mention of it yet leads me to believe that it’s doubtful we’ll see it before year’s end.
It’s down for the latter part of January at this time, but these things do change. It’s in the group of films being heavily promoted for awards. Justin has seen it, but I haven’t yet.
[b]Shame is another one that I’m highly anticipating, largely due to the prospect of Steve McQueen (not that one) and Michael Fassbender teaming up again. But its limited release on the 2nd and the fact that I haven’t heard any mention of it yet leads me to believe that it’s doubtful we’ll see it before year’s end.[/b]
The Carolina has it listed for the 20th of January, but their website isn’t the most reliable source.
No one’s website is reliable where art titles are concerned. Fox Searchlight had The Decendants down for Asheville for Jan. 13 — up till yesterday when they decided to move it to Dec. 9. It’s unwise to assume much where art films are concerned too early in the game.
Okay, I can’t resist…I’ll check this out over the weekend. It really does sound outstanding. While I may be the only person on the planet that feels this way, I was not as impressed with the last two films of Scorcese that I saw, ‘Shutter Island’ and ‘The Departed’ as most others seemed to be, but this sounds really good.
I for one do hope you make it out to see it.
I consider myself something of a Scorsese nut, but I didn’t love The Departed. And now, after 3 viewings, I’m reasonably sure I never will. I fell in love with Shutter Island before I even stepped out of the theater though. And subsequent viewings have only added to my admiration for it.
I’m certain I’ll see this film over the weekend, just not sure when.
Excellent, be sure to come back with your reaction. I plan on getting out to see it again this week.
While I thought it was okay, I just didn’t really care all that much for it.
I thought certain scenes were spectacular, but the film as a whole felt like an overly loud and garish version of some of his better work. And all the text messaging just made me…sad.
I might have to give Shutter Island another go; I found myself almost dozing off midway through it (although at least I didn’t actually fall asleep, as I did with The Wolfman). I still have that film on DVD so I’ll try again with an open mind and a large cup of coffee.
Glad to hear I can continue ignoring The Wolfman. I don’t suspect it achieves anything close to the perfect atmosphere and visual style of Shutter Island anyway.
“I for one do hope you make it out to see it.
I consider myself something of a Scorsese nut, but I didnТt love The Departed. And now, after 3 viewings, IТm reasonably sure I never will. I fell in love with Shutter Island before I even stepped out of the theater though. And subsequent viewings have only added to my admiration for it.”
I’m certain I’ll see this film over the weekend, just not sure when.
I like Scorcese as a film maker, and have enjoyed most of his previous films. I didn’t see The Departed at the theatre, but bought the DVD without having seen the film based solely on the reviews. While I thought it was okay, I just didn’t really care all that much for it. I watched it twice but my opinion didn’t change, so I gave the disc to my brother.
I might have to give Shutter Island another go; I found myself almost dozing off midway through it (although at least I didn’t actually fall asleep, as I did with The Wolfman). I still have that film on DVD so I’ll try again with an open mind and a large cup of coffee.
There is no good reason to see The Wolfman. If you need lycanthropy go with the 1941 original — or better yet, go with Werewolf of London (1935).
I have it mind to go see Hugo again this Sunday. Surely, another tree won’t fall on the house and thwart those plans two weeks in a row.
or better yet, go with Werewolf of London (1935).
Ooo, okay. I’ll look into it!
I have it mind to go see Hugo again this Sunday. Surely, another tree won’t fall on the house and thwart those plans two weeks in a row.
Gosh, I should hope not. And let’s hold our breath that your truck has had enough fun with mud for a while too!
Ha, actually the lady and I squeezed in a (second for me) viewing of Hugo before I went off to work. I liked it even better (turns out it was possible) this time around. I will say though that a dingy, dirty movie theater screen intrudes on some of the 3D effects, particularly in close-up shots of faces. Wasn’t an issue at the Carolina. Pulled me out of the wonderful spell at times.
And let’s hold our breath that your truck has had enough fun with mud for a while too!
I ain’t parking there again.
“There is no good reason to see The Wolfman. If you need lycanthropy go with the 1941 originalЧor better yet, go with Werewolf of London (1935).”
I completely agree. In spite of a big budget and big name actors, I just couldn’t warm up to the pseudo-remake. My reaction to it (in addition to boredom) was much like my reaction to Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’: a big let-down, especially in the casting.
No trees fell on anything and I managed that second viewing of Hugo, which I think was even better the second time.
It IS even better the second time around (even in 2D) because then you can just sit back and relish what Scorsese has accomplished. There’s no telling what will happen the third time. Or the fourth.
Most of what we see in the flashback sequence on Papa Georges comes from LE GRAND MELIES, a wonderful 1952 short (that features an 87 year old Madame Melies) from Georges Franju, a film archivist and director of some note (EYES WITHOUT A FACE, JUDEX).
While I’m sure that it will work just as well in 2D, I was glad to see it in 3D again, because I was better able on a second look to appreciate how skillfully the 3D had been done.
No trees fell on anything and I managed that second viewing of Hugo, which I think was even better the second time.
Congrats! And yes, the first time I was in awe at how marvelous it all was. The second, well, just one of those so damn good you could cry kind of experiences.
It IS even better the second time around (even in 2D) because then you can just sit back and relish what Scorsese has accomplished. There’s no telling what will happen the third time. Or the fourth.
Yep. And yet I’m having trouble convincing people to go check it out once. What’s wrong with some of these folks?
A really great movie! Your review could not have been more on-target. This is one I’ll want to own when the DVD comes out. But I think I’ll want to see it a second time on the big screen soon.
And yet I’m having trouble convincing people to go check it out once. What’s wrong with some of these folks?
Well, we convinced Dionysis at least, so that’s one!
I see the website is having a field day with apostrophes…again.
“Well, we convinced Dionysis at least, so thatТs one!”
And I am so glad you did. Here is an article on Scorcese and this film, including this observation:
УAs I was making the film, more and more people kept telling me: СThatТs youТ,Ф Scorsese told a press conference in Paris. УAnd ultimately by the time we had finished editing, there was no doubt.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/05/hugo-is-me-scorsese-says-of-new-film/
Glad to hear you’re joining the ‘multiple viewings’ club! Makes two films this year that I’ve paid to see in the theater twice.
And thanks for posting the link!
“Glad to hear youТre joining the Сmultiple viewingsТ club! Makes two films this year that IТve paid to see in the theater twice.”
There are just some things in life worth savoring over and over, few though they may be.
“And thanks for posting the link!”
You’re most welcome!
Jude Law in one of his best performances
Almost felt like a cameo to me.
I’m very anxious to see this film, nice review by the way, would you please tell me when you will be posting the reviews of “shame” and “a dangerous method”.
Almost felt like a cameo to me.
Well, yes, it’s short, but it’s rather more than a cameo. It’s very likely as long as the performance for which Judi Dench won that Oscar in Shakespeare in Love.
would you please tell me when you will be posting the reviews of “shame” and “a dangerous method”.
Based on when they’re currently set to open here (that’s always subject to change), I’d say mid and later January respectively. We don’t run reviews until the films are actually going to be playing.
I’ve never warmed to Jude Law so a handful of admittedly strong minutes felt about perfect to me.
Perhaps Helen and i need to get out to commercial movies more often, but the dreadfully slow pace of storytelling and the obvious self-love of his own Scorsese-ness, produced yawns of “don’t i have some email to write?” and so we walked out half-way. Not angry, just bored. Sorry we can’t be happy with just prettiness in a film. Pacing, Martin… Pacing!
No film is for everybody. I had zero problems with the pacing.
I saw this earlier in the week (in 2D–might want to go back and see it again), and I’ve barely stopped grinning since. I’m no moviephile, hardly getting to see a handful of movies every year, but that didn’t prevent the sheer joy of the movie from coming through. While I was watching it I definitely noticed the pacing: Scorcese took time to let the camera explore beautiful little things, from the click of gears to the shyness of the courting constable to the lazy path of a snowflake. It was much slower than a lot of movies, and a lot of screen time didn’t serve to propel the plot forward, and that was wonderful. Man oh man, what I’d give for more movies like this!
I’m curious, Ken, whether you think this movie owed a debt to Jeunet, or if I’m just confusing setting for style?
I’m curious, Ken, whether you think this movie owed a debt to Jeunet, or if I’m just confusing setting for style?
I’m interested to hear Ken’s take on this too, but I’m excited that you brought it up. It didn’t really consciously click with me until the second viewing, but the sub-plots between the elderly couple and the problem of the small dog interfering with a fledgling romance, as well as the scenes between the station inspector and the florist smacked of Jeunet, I thought; they had very much the feeling of something out of Amelie or maybe Delicatessen. Been a while for me, but a woman behind a cash register working a drug store kept coming to my mind.
I would say that it’s maybe a case of setting informing the style. Makes sense to me that since the film is set in Paris, Scorsese found it fitting to channel one of France’s most celebrated contemporary film-makers too.
The mood of the film is generally unlike Jeunet, whose work is constantly — and playfully — filled with touches that remind you you’re watching a movie. It almost seems to me that this is more like Jacques Tati than Jeunet, but then you could say that there are elements of Tati in Jeunet, too. That’s the trick to all these things and their fascinating connectedness.
I’m glad someone else mentioned Jacques Tati because he immediately came to mind during parts of the movie. The way in which we viewed the relationships of the secondary characters each day seemed straight out of M. Hulot’s Holiday. By the end of the movie, I genuinely cared for each of the other relationships (the sequences involving the shopkeepers and the dog was especially moving due to the lack of dialogue). It was a beautiful thing to see this type of film-making again. I was sad to go to rottentomatoes and see that some people found it boring. I was completely enthralled the entire time, but maybe I’m biased because I studied film and this really spoke to me. This was easily one of the best films of the year or even longer.
I was sad to go to rottentomatoes and see that some people found it boring.
I long ago gave up worrying about. I grant you, I look askance at critics who did not like this film — and, yeah, they’re probably off my dinner party list — but I never expected otherwise.
The funny thing is — long before I studied film — that I can’t remember not knowing who Melies was from seeing A Voyage to the Moon on TV.