Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
My Review of Hugo (I think it's overrated. Yes, I really do)
Ignore earlier comments, I just changed the topic of the thread 
So I really dislike formal reviews that state everything and speak all highly and blahblahblah. That's why no one these days give a flying fuck to what critics think. They act like they know better than you, when in all honesty, everything is opinionated. I prefer typing as I would speak, you know? You'll be able to relate to it better
I saw the movie in 2-D because I didn't want to pay the extra bucks to see it in 3-D. At the end of the movie though, I understand why Scorsese made the film a 3-D movie. There is a scene when, with one of the first movies ever made, makes people jump. A train approaches the screen and when it does, the people jump thinking they were in danger. It shows the evolution of film, and what do you know, the movie has a train that goes towards the camera as well! Funny stuff.
Anyways, there were many shots just made for 3-D. It annoyed me. Numerous shots going around the gears of the clock tower, the speeding train, going through crowds of people, etcetcetc. It was shot after shot of "damn this would look like nice in 3d." It became bothersome after a while.
Now, something you may be asking is: why do basically all critics love this movie whilst Martin, who normally agrees with critics, doesn't like it?
Why? Because this film was made for critics to fall over for. There are scenes just providing history on old movies and the Georges, the character played by Ben Kingsley (who did wonderful) directing career. This long scene just talked about the wonder and magic he felt making movies, how he loved it, how it was everything to him, and how nobody appreciated his movies after the war. It's a homage to the first movies ever made. It's a homage to the century old movies that people today ignore. Of course critics are going to piss themselves over this.
There are meaningless side plots that do nothing to advance the story. We see people again and again at their tea shop, a lady with a dog that bites a man and gets angry at him multiple times, then the man at the end buys a dog and suddenly the other dog is calm. It's like, who cares? I want to know what's happening with Hugo, not random people we have no emotional connection to.
There's the train inspector played by Sacha Baron Cohen as well, and the flower girl he likes. There's a side plot about him catching wandering kids (orphans mostly) and him trying to talk to the flower girl. Again, who cares? All this time could have been spent making Hugo more interesting. And Hugo, well, wasn't as interesting as he could have been.
The most we see of Hugo's father, who is mentioned time and time again, is in small flashbacks. Hardly at all. All that time could've added another scene with his father at the movies as Hugo said they "always did." Why tell us this more than once when you could have simply showed it? I thought the rule of cinema was show don't tell. C'mon Scorsese, you are much better than that.
Right after Hugo's father dies, he sent to live with his uncle. Hugo has no time whatsoever to mourn, but as a child, is sent immediately to work the next morning at 5am. How awful that must have been to work, having to give up school and luxuries. This would have been great to see to make us feel sorry for Hugo and care for him.
Nope, the first scene we see of him is him trying to steal. Great introduction to a character we're supposed to care about, eh?
For the longest time, film isn't even mentioned. When it is, and when it becomes prominent, you begin to lose the sense of the plot. Not to mention, random cuts to these side plot characters.
The whole "magical family adventure" is extremely overplayed. There's no adventure. The most adventure is some chases by the inspector that don't invoke terror or worry in any way. There's no adventure to find the mystery behind the machine; everything comes together by luck and chance.
This really isn't a children's movie. The only thing children will enjoy are the visuals. I saw this with my sister and cousin who both thought it was okay. I could tell neither really enjoyed it. There's a lack of charm. There could have been a romance, but instead, the two leads never move beyond friendship. There could have been a great sense of sorrow for Hugo and he could have been a lovable character. Instead, we see pointless characters that slow down the plot. The movie feels all over the place. The children don't care about the history of cinema or the life lessons in this, so please, stop advertising this as "Scorsese's masterpiece children's" movie. Children aren't going to love this. My theater had two children and one teenager. Yes, that would be my sister, my cousin, and myself. The rest were all adults, and I fully understand.
Hugo lacks the charm, the adventure, and the overall sense of wonder that was heavily advertised. In the end, you end up with a little of everything. A little of everything though, isn't enough.
Final rating: 3.5/10
So I really dislike formal reviews that state everything and speak all highly and blahblahblah. That's why no one these days give a flying fuck to what critics think. They act like they know better than you, when in all honesty, everything is opinionated. I prefer typing as I would speak, you know? You'll be able to relate to it better
I saw the movie in 2-D because I didn't want to pay the extra bucks to see it in 3-D. At the end of the movie though, I understand why Scorsese made the film a 3-D movie. There is a scene when, with one of the first movies ever made, makes people jump. A train approaches the screen and when it does, the people jump thinking they were in danger. It shows the evolution of film, and what do you know, the movie has a train that goes towards the camera as well! Funny stuff.
Anyways, there were many shots just made for 3-D. It annoyed me. Numerous shots going around the gears of the clock tower, the speeding train, going through crowds of people, etcetcetc. It was shot after shot of "damn this would look like nice in 3d." It became bothersome after a while.
Now, something you may be asking is: why do basically all critics love this movie whilst Martin, who normally agrees with critics, doesn't like it?
Why? Because this film was made for critics to fall over for. There are scenes just providing history on old movies and the Georges, the character played by Ben Kingsley (who did wonderful) directing career. This long scene just talked about the wonder and magic he felt making movies, how he loved it, how it was everything to him, and how nobody appreciated his movies after the war. It's a homage to the first movies ever made. It's a homage to the century old movies that people today ignore. Of course critics are going to piss themselves over this.
There are meaningless side plots that do nothing to advance the story. We see people again and again at their tea shop, a lady with a dog that bites a man and gets angry at him multiple times, then the man at the end buys a dog and suddenly the other dog is calm. It's like, who cares? I want to know what's happening with Hugo, not random people we have no emotional connection to.
There's the train inspector played by Sacha Baron Cohen as well, and the flower girl he likes. There's a side plot about him catching wandering kids (orphans mostly) and him trying to talk to the flower girl. Again, who cares? All this time could have been spent making Hugo more interesting. And Hugo, well, wasn't as interesting as he could have been.
The most we see of Hugo's father, who is mentioned time and time again, is in small flashbacks. Hardly at all. All that time could've added another scene with his father at the movies as Hugo said they "always did." Why tell us this more than once when you could have simply showed it? I thought the rule of cinema was show don't tell. C'mon Scorsese, you are much better than that.
Right after Hugo's father dies, he sent to live with his uncle. Hugo has no time whatsoever to mourn, but as a child, is sent immediately to work the next morning at 5am. How awful that must have been to work, having to give up school and luxuries. This would have been great to see to make us feel sorry for Hugo and care for him.
Nope, the first scene we see of him is him trying to steal. Great introduction to a character we're supposed to care about, eh?
For the longest time, film isn't even mentioned. When it is, and when it becomes prominent, you begin to lose the sense of the plot. Not to mention, random cuts to these side plot characters.
The whole "magical family adventure" is extremely overplayed. There's no adventure. The most adventure is some chases by the inspector that don't invoke terror or worry in any way. There's no adventure to find the mystery behind the machine; everything comes together by luck and chance.
This really isn't a children's movie. The only thing children will enjoy are the visuals. I saw this with my sister and cousin who both thought it was okay. I could tell neither really enjoyed it. There's a lack of charm. There could have been a romance, but instead, the two leads never move beyond friendship. There could have been a great sense of sorrow for Hugo and he could have been a lovable character. Instead, we see pointless characters that slow down the plot. The movie feels all over the place. The children don't care about the history of cinema or the life lessons in this, so please, stop advertising this as "Scorsese's masterpiece children's" movie. Children aren't going to love this. My theater had two children and one teenager. Yes, that would be my sister, my cousin, and myself. The rest were all adults, and I fully understand.
Hugo lacks the charm, the adventure, and the overall sense of wonder that was heavily advertised. In the end, you end up with a little of everything. A little of everything though, isn't enough.
Final rating: 3.5/10
Post edited by Martin1 on
Comments
Mysterious thing time.
Their theatre and its a fun filled nostalgia driven
Film (:
Mysterious thing time.
But see muppets eventually it rocks
It's not that I dont like the muppets, I just never watched them, loll.
Mysterious thing time.
I'd pick Muppets if I had to choose.
It's getting rave reviews from audiences and critics; aside from this site?
8-|
Mysterious thing time.
By the way, King's Cross looked more like it did in your signature (theaters), than it did on the DVD.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
It sounded promising.
Mysterious thing time.
I recently watched the Ebert Presents review and the two hosts fawned over the visuals, barely touching upon the script and even admitted that it was a couple of lines of plot, if written out.
Naturally, you can't have a meaningful discussion about this movie with cinephiles who will just attack you for having the audacity to go against the grain. You're probably a troll too. I was attacked at the Blu-ray forums for speaking out against this supposed "masterpiece." I'm not even going to continue to back up my opinions, which for some reason people think I state as fact. Another misconception thrown at "contrarians."
Did you read my review, irlkg?
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I look at the glass half full, so I enjoy just about anything that's not westerns or country music or any of that southern riff raff
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.