Hugo

The original book has turned into an unoriginal film in which every added thing is just excessive. A lot of scenes seem to have been made just for the vaunted 3D (especially the completely unnecessary train accident), the story is strangely sloppy, too set-up, and Sacha Baron Cohen makes too big a fool of himself... Yes, the direction is skillful, the love for Hugo films is also very nice, but I certainly didn't see anything groundbreaking. Which is quite a shame. I don't tend to do that, but this time I really want to scream: Read the book, it's so much better! (04/02/2014)

A movie about movies for people who like movies. Nothing earth-shattering in terms of story, but Marty reminds me of Méliès himself in terms of technical implementation and eye for detail. The same applies to the old captivating images hidden throughout the picture. Movies used to be a way of creating dreams, while today the audience wants to see reality. And isn’t there enough room for both? (02/25/2012)

A wonderful tribute to cinema as such, which could only have been made by a filmmaker for whom cinema is truly the one and only purpose in life. In his amazing career, Scorsese has produced many successful and legendary films that have rewritten and greatly influenced the history of cinema, so he decided to pay homage to the man who started it all. And it wouldn't be him if he didn't embellish the story with a special atmosphere, if every detail wasn't perfectly executed and on point, and if he didn't shape the entire film in a way that's simply unforgettable. Hugo is sweet as a family film, charming as a playful fantasy, and as a whole incredibly wholesome, funny and harmonious. Though it’s true that they could have gone a bit easier on the sugar and that all the motifs don’t quite fit together as intended, but these are slight flaws perfectly masked under Scorsese's precise direction. I didn’t like Butterfield very much, but Kingsley and Cohen in particular are brilliant. 4 and 1/2* (01/13/2013)

Martin and his big movie. Not his best, but undeniably his most personal. Here Scorsese (Hugo is him) professes his lifelong love of stories in the form of a melancholic kids’ movie which isn’t so much for kids, after all. And in addition to this he was the first to prove that 3D has its rightful place in cinema, where it can be something more than a mere good-looking bolt-on. Mainly and primarily this is a darn good movie; and that is all that is important in the end. (02/03/2012)

It's a fairy tale, a fairy tale that even adults can go to the cinema and enjoy. Even I enjoyed it; but I still couldn't help feeling like something was missing. What was missing? Suspense. It looked beautiful, you would almost like to go for a walk there, the actors acted, the music worked (of course, I can't remember it anymore, so it must not have been that memorable), but it just didn't flow. Plus, the death of Hugo's father was such an empty thing, it must have happened just so Hugo could go to the station where he met... Plus why did he get the book? Why didn't he get his notebook back? Why was the key in his dream lying in the rocks in one shot and on the railroad track in the next? And why....? I don't know, basically the overall experience was a bit spoiled by all the questions and the unsatisfied longing for the kind of suspense or adventure that makes you forget to breathe. There was nothing in the movie I wouldn't want to forget. It's a beautiful film. Visually well done. But it didn't have to be in 3D, even 2D would have looked great (unfortunately my local cinema only offered it in 3D). I left the cinema a bit disappointed, but I still know I watched a beautiful film aimed at younger viewers. It's a film without violence and a film about fixing things. Just the thing for a gentle soul. If I had a little kid, I'd let him watch it. But I wouldn't watch it with him, I wouldn't join him in front of the TV like I do sometimes when I'm walking by and something interesting is on. I'd be more likely to go do some cleaning instead. (02/07/2012)