Hugo finally came out on disc yesterday. With the amount of awards it garnered, I was eager to watch it last night.
It left me feeling unsatisfied, the anti-Snickers bar of cinema. I understand why critics love it, but it was such a boring movie. All the parts were there for a great film: terrific set and costume design (especially the latter half of the movie), pretty good acting - especially the strong supporting cast of Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Christopher Lee, the cinematography was very good for the most part, and the dialogue was serviceable, if unremarkable.
The best scenes were the brief glimpses we get of the remarkable films produced by Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley). They showed far more ingenuity than anything else on screen.
I think Hugo got so much love because it incorporated a few elements that critics are absolute suckers for:
a) it took place just after World War I
b) it dealt with the origins of cinema
c) an orphan kid was the main protagonist
For an estimated 170 million, it better be a good looking film - and it is. But the basic story driving the action is just that. Basic. Nothing of worth really happens for the first half of the running time. When I finally abandoned the movie to go do something else for 10-15 minutes I apparently missed all of the important plot movement that there was to see. I came back to the couch and the story was wrapping up. If you missed those crucial few minutes, like I did, you find it hard to believe in the outcome.
Again, Hugo had the parts to be a great movie. They just fit together in a way that I found unappealing. In that way this reminds me forcibly of Super 8. The same lesson could be learned here. Story first, kids.
2.5/4