Little read reviews to find out whether the reviews liked the film. They wanted to know if THEY would like the film - to decide whether to see the film or not, and whether to see it in theaters or wait and see the DVD (or download). That's my job to take here.
As the site Rottentomato have shown (that assemble and connect kite reviews from the press and the web, along with reader response), the critics adore this film, the audience is somewhat less so.
This part has to do with managing expectations. Hugo presents marketing as a fantasy-ish Avatar 3D with robot (StarWars) C3P0-type flies. This is actively misleading, although it is not one director.
What Hugo is, is a fable - not fantasy - it's part adventure and part infomercial tween preservation and appearance of an old silent movie. Most importantly - and this is a point that has not been made by most reviewers here and elsewhere - this film about a filmmaker Georges Méliès ex-magician/early that Scorsese made, to a degree, IN STYLE from Georges Méliès film. That part of the honor.
Thus the "Hugo" contains a lot of walking-around adventurer, brilliant exploits of the best 3D film-making technology that still exists, and yeast elements of slapstick - especially of Sascha Baron Cohen's surprisingly restrained.
It is a tale based on real events in the early history of film. "Sleepless in Seattle" is a fairy tale without a happy fantasy elements in addition to end-of-the inevitable, that you feel from start to finish. That is the essence of a fairy tale, not whether he has a fantasy element or not. A myth is a kind of ritual that reaffirms tribal values and faith in the vision of life.
Hugo reaffirm faith in the goodness - it turns out that even in a lot of people have a hard heart that could spread embers into life with the right people. Vibe of the second film was the first to tell you that you ascend to a happy ending.
Two Russian scholars that I saw the movie with hate that fact. They think the film is not realistic unless all people are doomed, and if you grew up in the Soviet Union that may be unrealistic. Especially since the Soviet era fairy-film to ensure the happy ending - "happy" as defined by at least the Soviet ideology. So to my friends. fairy tales are not only wrong but evil Propaganda State. And many Americans who like to own property have the same perspective on addiction yellow Hollywood to be guaranteed in any way criminal ends happily.
I think this problem stems from the legitimacy of ritual myth. I love this film realistic unsecured happy outcome, but I also love a good fairy tale. I am sure my love for my partner and my love for her. I believe our relationship with our closest friends, because they are the reciprocal of us. I am confident of my community law abidingness (especially compared to the third world countries we have traveled in). Good results are expected, within reasonable limits, it is reasonable to believe, in many ways.
So the "
Hugo" is the main predictability's a valid artistic choice. It's not a spoiler to say this because you know it from the beginning and you should know so you do not confuse this with the art of Sundance-type films where everyone is confused and facing an uncertain future, usually alone. I apologize for the "Hugo" is not a loophole - you wristsathon. I also liked the movie, and they usually set your expectations from the beginning also, in this case.
So who will enjoy the "Hugo"?
A. Bright teenager. The film stars a pair of bright teenagers, so it is natural. Many young children will love it too - it's a visual treat, and are based on children's stories. But the dull / many young people / Disneyfied who want non-stop action and / or action of an endlessly cheerful Disney film will likely find their attention wandering in places.
2. Anyone interested in filmmaking history - particularly right at the beginning.
3. Anyone interested in modern filmmaking. This does not represent the absolute state of the art in 3D cinematography - which is integral 3Dness and almost taken for granted, not attached to, do not poke-your-eyes-in-, not multiple layers of 2D images.
4. All persons interested in the good fairy / screenwriting / acting. This is not to say anyone involved in this project can not perform a naturalistic film or fantasy films, or, in the case of Chloe Grace Moretz, naturalistic fantasy film ("Let me in"). So it does not prove a negative here. That said, I believe the casting is spot on for the role of large and small. This is one area where Scorsese did not copy mugging stagey film Méliès' (except for re recreation of the films). The large, close-up intentions of the main characters actually acting their exposed flesh, and all came through. The boy, who had never seen before, keep it smooth, and the other teenage characters, Isabelle (played by Moretz). The young actor in many youth-oriented films tend to be mug - again, Disney style film - and children are expected to be prepared by their parents to look for more live action here.
Who would not like it?
A. This is not Selena Gomez / Demi Lovato / Disney vehicles. It's nothing like the beautiful "Parent Trap," Lindsay Lohan one of the best of good quality movies that normal children. It is also a fairy tale, but not coated with anything about the history of movies and such. "Hugo" ideal children's audience will be like her in the movement - a sweet, nerdy, curious, and not locked into a peer culture as the source of everything that might be of interest to one.
2. People who do not like a fairy tale genre. This embeds the movie is quite naturalistic performances and a perfect set of records show Paris train station circa 1931, where most of the action takes place in a non-naturalistic tale film. There are many non-fairy tale film. See any of them unless you really want to see the state of the art of 3D cinematography and want to ratchet up your suspension of disbelief to watch this.
3. People with zero interest in film history. This is where a lot of film critics err. Of course almost all of those interested in early film history. But this film Verges to be of high quality 2-hour infomercial for the preservation of film, and you know, read it, whether such self-esteem from the filmmaker of the medium will fascinate or disturb you.
4. Adults who do not like the film, starring children. How to detect bias in people who criticize the performance of "Hugo" two's lead junior, who are both exemplary. Also, I do not see the boy before, but I have seen starring in the bleak Moretz, the critically acclaimed "Let Me In," in which he describes - with almost no dialogue and almost no special effects - blood thirsty (literally) but it is so contrary to the child vampire, and where they refuse to clear the tip will get what they want more than satisfied. And where appearance and performance has been compared favorably to a very young Ingrid Bergman. That is, he has gravitas. People in her age group, the only other actor I can think of who has the Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).
My point here is that the meat Moretz's acting now an accepted fact. He has a much more complex character to portray in the "Hugo", but even in her role of wide-eyed ingenue he pre-infuse his character with a kind of luminosity that holds its own even when he shared the screen with great actors like Ben Kingsley adults.
5. Adults who just want to see the very plot-driven film. It's not like "Hugo" is one of kaleidoscopic non-narrative film. It tells a story, for sure. But other than child-centered story there is a film biography of Georges Méliès (and wife) here, told in flashback, along with a visit to the history of film. Some people will find that as rich multicourse meal, others will be disturbed by the "Hugo" is not driven by a single narrative drive. Such people will be sitting there saying "Well, Scorsese - up to that point!"
6. They are really reluctant to pay to see movies in theaters, even if they want to see on DVD. I agree with the feelings of most of the time. However, some of the film is very visual - and, especially, if they are 3D and do it well - you have to bite the bullet and see it in theaters, if only to compare what it's like in a theater in 3D with how it feels in your flat screen TV homes in 2D. Hey, you can always see it on the cheap matinee, as we do. But we probably will get a DVD that will come too, because both make and remind the history of film.
