tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post5918458014842337109..comments2022-03-24T16:11:50.124-04:00Comments on The Man From Porlock: A Dream in the Middle of the Day (Hugo)Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-56819991346343744602011-12-08T19:57:06.173-05:002011-12-08T19:57:06.173-05:00Thank you, Sam. I hope the kids enjoy the film as ...Thank you, Sam. I hope the kids enjoy the film as much as the ones I saw, and from other reports that I've heard about. "The Artist" hasn't arrived here yet, but I'll be seeing it when it does.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-75644988138207561632011-12-08T14:54:20.929-05:002011-12-08T14:54:20.929-05:00It is a great achievement, and a film I have cease...It is a great achievement, and a film I have ceaselessly promoted in our school's lower grades, where a field trip next week is imminent. The terrific reviews and awards in this instance are warranted, and much like it's recently released silent movie homage counterpart THE ARTIST it is an infectious, buoyant and exuberant piece that you right celebrate as a definitive 3D achievement. From the dazzling opening, when a camera zooms in past a snowy Paris and the Eiffel Tower and follows a path between two trains to settle on the face of a young boy behind an overhead clock, it's a film that exudes a breathless energy and a ravishing visual progression. The fact that teh film is doing poorly at the box office seems to bolster my perception that Scorsese wanted to do this his way. Indeed, Brian Selznick's exceedingly imaginative Caldecott Medal winner seemed tailor made for the film lover and historian, and he projected his own special appreciation for the origin of film and the magic that influenced so many.<br /><br />Even as we marvel at Selznick's new book WONDERSTRUCK (which again will be considered by the American library Association for Newbery and Caldecott Awards) we can be thankful to the movie Gods and Martin Scorsese for giving "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" such ravishing and infectious screen transcription.<br /><br />Needless to say this is a splendid essay in every sense. I applaud you for it.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-27610050723176697662011-12-04T19:25:14.533-05:002011-12-04T19:25:14.533-05:00I think Steven and I are in agreement that the twi...I think Steven and I are in agreement that the twin Spielbergs look humdrum. I am, however, learning not to trust poor trailers any more than advanced glowing notices. (The early reviews are positive; with all that marketing muscle behind it, how could they not be?) I may go see <i>Tintin</i>, even though I hate motion-capture more than I dislike 3-D, just because I have low expectations and it's win-win regardless if the movie's better than expected or my loathing is confirmed. <i>War Horse</i> we'll have to wait and see; I'm still laughing at our friend Jake Cole's assessment of the end of the trailer from a few months back: "Is that horse supposed to be <i>wistful</i>?"Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-37301768963135251642011-12-04T17:43:27.763-05:002011-12-04T17:43:27.763-05:00In the light of the comments about Spielberg, we h...In the light of the comments about Spielberg, we have two Spielberg movies coming up.<br /><br />I'm mildly interested in <i>Tintin</i>, a little more so after reading a couple of articles about it and seeing, in the preview, its similarities with <i>Raiders</i>. I'm more looking forward to <i>The War Horse</i>. I tend to like historical settings, World War I, great! I predict some similar discussions about <i>War Horse</i>: will the sentimentality work or not? <br /><br />We shall see. We shall respond and write. And some of us will agree and some will see it differently.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-67139038271863146612011-12-04T16:41:33.177-05:002011-12-04T16:41:33.177-05:00Thanks, Hokahey. The teachy-to-touching ratio can ...Thanks, Hokahey. The teachy-to-touching ratio can be tricky to determine in a movie like this. I don't think the transition was seamless, but the subject matter and Scorsese's enthusiasm and energy put it over for me.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-72225394444851975422011-12-04T14:45:35.185-05:002011-12-04T14:45:35.185-05:00I found this discussion very interesting. I side w...I found this discussion very interesting. I side with Steven in that a lot of this movie felt flat to me and I was not touched, but I agree with Jason in that this is a very carefully calibrated and well-made film though it's calibrations didn't always work for me. On the other hand, this one certainly works better than Shutter Island, and I totally see how how you, Craig, found a lot to admire here. The parts that pay homage to film are well done. Just, for me they felt too teachy to be touching.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-56549261832880968112011-11-29T21:01:50.970-05:002011-11-29T21:01:50.970-05:00On that point, in case it wasn't clear, when I...<i>On that point, in case it wasn't clear, when I pointed out that the "retroactive analytical takeaway" in regard to Hugo, I wasn't doing so as a rebuttal of Steven so much as illustrating that reviews that put too much emphasis on what Scorsese is saying about cinema might not be accurately representing the movie's magic.</i><br /><br />I knew that's what you meant. It's what I meant too. There are good cinephile critics and bad ones; we know who they are, and I don't value the opinions of the bad ones any more deeply when we happen to like the same movies.<br /><br />I agree with Jason that these kinds of arguments can easily devolve into "Uh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!", resting on differences of interpretation that can be difficult to articulate. Jason does a good job at articulating why <i>Hugo</i> brought me so much pleasure. I'll only add that there was something about how Scorsese combined the most sophisticated of technology with the greatest purity of emotion that I found incredibly moving. I wasn't aware of this on a totally conscious level, or that would have interfered with my enjoyment in watching it. Yet it wasn't so unconscious that the feeling came back to me only retroactively. It hit the sweet spot in between that movies which deeply affect me usually hit. Uh-huhhhhhh!Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-61285754799818080872011-11-29T07:40:37.476-05:002011-11-29T07:40:37.476-05:00We're all wired differently, so all I can wond...<em>We're all wired differently, so all I can wonder is why a film that's been called "magical" I found so damn uninspired.</em><br /><br />Right, and that's why we analyze and have these conversations. We're all on the same page there.<br /><br />On that point, in case it wasn't clear, when I pointed out that the "retroactive analytical takeaway" in regard to <em>Hugo</em>, I wasn't doing so as a rebuttal of Steven so much as illustrating that reviews that put too much emphasis on what Scorsese is saying about cinema might not be accurately representing the movie's magic. (Not that it isn't possible to love <em>Hugo</em> precisely as a comment on cinema, because that's possible, too.)<br /><br />Articulating the magic of movies might be the most difficult part of criticism. I found much to enjoy in <em>Melancholia</em>, but I keep reading reviews that suggest a profound emotional reaction to the film's conclusion, which for me felt flat. I keep asking questions about it, trying to get someone to help me see the magic, but it hasn't happened, either because I'm incapable of grasping it or because its fans are challenged to express or even pinpoint why it's magical, or probably a bit of both.<br /><br />Which leads me here: I was put under the spell of <em>Hugo</em> but I admit I struggle to articulate why -- especially when it comes to responding to Steven's criticisms. To name just one, Steven finds Cohen "painfully unfunny and annoying," to which I can pretty much only respond, "Is not!" Don't get me wrong, Cohen's performance doesn't rival the genius of Chaplin or something, but it fit for me, it didn't offend, and I can't really explain why.<br /><br />Maybe the best I can do to explain why <em>Hugo</em> works for me, and honestly this just came to me, is to compare it to the many gears of the clocks to which Hugo tends: everything felt perfectly calibrated to work together to create an effect. Now, I realize Steven had the opposite response, but that for me was <em>Hugo</em>'s strength, whereas some of Scorsese's other works of late have too many moments for me where one of the gears stops doing its job and the machine begins to hitch and groan.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-10730318743174992702011-11-28T23:58:42.843-05:002011-11-28T23:58:42.843-05:00When someone like myself doesn't respond to wh...When someone like myself doesn't respond to what's onscreen, a retroactive analysis is inevitable, as it would for a film I did respond to. Expressing my feelings about how I feel about films that essentially reaffirm the beliefs of cinephiles was, for me, not much different as when Jason has, at times, wondered why certain elements of Clint Eastwood films aren't challenged more or when Craig feels that Pixar films are given a pass. <br /><br />When you read writers justifying their opinions by declaring "Hugo" is somehow a litmus test for loving film itself (not Craig's review obviously, but many of them have gone down this road and it's the kind of argument that made me write that "Basterds" piece two years ago), then I can't help feel that's false based on the quality of the film and trying to express why. While I don't want to imply everyone wasn't emotionally affected by the film, it is these days in film discussion where listening to these superlatives that then inspires me to question them. Not unlike what I did for the raves for "Tree of Life", which I often found vague in reasoning, but clear in their paranoia that anyone daring not call the film a masterpiece was somehow incapable of thinking about film properly. Thankfully, the reaction to dissenting opinions from those who liked "Basterds" and "Hugo" was nowhere pitched at that level of hysteria.<br /><br />Talking about the film's take on cinema is important to the discussion. While I admittedly found the story of Hugo himself rather dull, even the film abandons his story for the Melies' story and makes cinema its focus, more directly than "Basterds" did. It is clearly what made Scorsese make this film. While the Melies' story was more interesting to me, the way it's presented I felt did it a disservice, basically a montage that invites pity. I don't object to Scorsese doing a children's movie, but it didn't mean his choices in story and imagery had to be this easy. I found the production antiseptic and the emotions forced and I can't help but have to think about why, as well as what others saw it in it that I didn't. I'm not going to change minds, but I couldn't help but express my feelings of disappointment, which is only a fraction of what I discussed with two others I saw it with, who were left just as cold by the movie as I was. We're all wired differently, so all I can wonder is why a film that's been called "magical" I found so damn uninspired.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571206086671634525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-5752465313991768912011-11-28T22:10:29.464-05:002011-11-28T22:10:29.464-05:00J-Bell,
You're probably right about the retro...J-Bell,<br /><br />You're probably right about the retroactive analysis. What I responded to while watching the movie was more of a direct throughline of emotion: to name just one scene, when Emily Mortimer gives Sacha Baron Cohen a flower to wear in his coat. Steven sees that as a half-assed attempt to humanize the character, and I respect that point-of-view, but for me it was simple and elegant.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-51263154241253770042011-11-28T12:46:50.380-05:002011-11-28T12:46:50.380-05:00Yum. This discussion is tasty.
As I said above, I...Yum. This discussion is tasty.<br /><br />As I said above, I was charmed by this picture. And I suppose it's worth noting that while I appreciated the sentiment, I was least moved in the flashbacks that Hokakey aptly described as the "didactic documentary" overview of Melies' career. Now, does that disqualify me from cinephile wish fulfillment? No. But the point is that I was thoroughly engaged within the world Scorsese created independent of any deeper meaning.<br /><br />So, as for sentiment and wish fulfillment: that's still OK, right? I haven't read many reviews, but the chatter on Twitter suggests that there's been a lot of discussion of the ways Scorsese steps into 3D while looking back on the filmmaking format of old, and that's worthy of discussion but it doesn't have a lick to do with what I'm responding to when under the movie's spell. I think that's the kind of retroactive analytical takeaway more than an of-the-moment feeling, but maybe that's just me.<br /><br />Of course, none of this can put Steven under the spell of the film, and I wouldn't begin to try to talk him into it. But <em>Hugo</em> does that for me, it takes me within its world and holds me there, at least on a first viewing.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-89974735311922960712011-11-27T20:22:21.964-05:002011-11-27T20:22:21.964-05:00Very well argued as usual. I guess where we disagr...Very well argued as usual. I guess where we disagree the most is the degree of sentimentality: I didn't feel it nearly as much as you did. It may be sentimental by Scorsese's standards, but by the standards of the genre it's fairly restrained. Certainly more so than Pixar's pictures, which always make me feel like my eyeball has been placed over a pan for a good squeeze. I almost never cry at movies, but I did at "Hugo," and I never felt like Scorsese was crowding my emotions. His camera's gaze is too eye-level -- and Shore's score too idiosyncratic -- for that. I didn't feel Scorsese was pandering; I thought he was being genuinely heartfelt, and that's what I responded to.<br /><br />I have no intention of ending the discussion here (you or anyone else is free to continue), I just want to say I enjoy our debates because you make me work harder. I said that during our last big debate, over "Inglourious Basterds." Other than "Hugo," "Basterds," Spielberg (sometimes) and Pixar (nearly always), we tend to agree more than not, so I genuinely appreciate your counter-perspective.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-78147884703158365032011-11-27T18:45:08.622-05:002011-11-27T18:45:08.622-05:00I wasn't arguing whether Scorsese should make ...I wasn't arguing whether Scorsese should make a kid's movie or a gangster movie, to boil down what you're saying to something more simple. I still believe his last great film was "Kundun", the beginning of which is a far better children's picture than all of "Hugo". And I would prefer he stay away from doing any gangster films again because I think he's worn out that subject matter.<br /><br />It's that "Hugo" I found to be rife with sentimentality, most of it completely unearned. I'm basically trying to wrestle with all the positive reviews I've been reading, which seem to contain repetitions of phrases like "love letter to the cinema", but often feel like self-vaildations for the critics themselves. For me, cinema doesn't deserve this level of cheap sentiment than the Serious Subjects you feel Spielberg applies his own brand of sentimentality to.<br /><br />We've all probably seen Scorsese talk about other films in interviews, as well as his docs about the history of cinema, which we can also all agree that he is one of the most passionate and intelligent voices on the subject. I don't even see a hint of that in this film, which reduces Melies to a symbol whose story is told in a montage with treacly music. I was generally surprised how heavy-handed and lumpen this film was or that he chooses to express his love for cinema through such cliched images and story choices that I would expect from lesser directors. <br /><br />I'm still not shaking the feeling that, much like Scorsese's recent films as well as "Boardwalk Empire" the series he produces, that Scorsese's work has turned into a series of well-shot museum exhibits. The cinematography and production design is pristine and fussed over, but the emotions exist in a vacuum. I sat there during "Hugo" feeling absolutely nothing for anyone on the screen then feeling that I was being pandered to with his big statement about film. Was this whole movie supposed to just give me reason to be flattered because he wants to announce it's okay to love movies? <br /><br />Since you brought up "Drive", the reason I would hold that over "Basterds" and "Hugo" was because I saw the character of Driver as someone who didn't distinguish between a movie world and the real world. As a viewer, you don't know whether to admire him for his moral code derived from movies or whether he is insane. To me, that's a more daring comment than anything in "Basterds" or "Hugo", which preach to the choir and seem to function as little more than wish fulfillment for cinephiles.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571206086671634525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-37984236658828749022011-11-27T16:22:56.622-05:002011-11-27T16:22:56.622-05:00Where it seems we part ways is the different betwe...Where it seems we part ways is the different between subject and approach. I don't want to turn this into a Spielberg bash, but the reason why some take issue with his work (and not as many as I think should) is because he offers a <i>veneer</i> of reality that covers the cliches. He doesn't want to comment on "the power of cinema," he wants to go down as the Homer of his era, and a lot of people buy into his Serious Subjects as evidence alone that he should be taken seriously. (The exception over the last decade was "Munich," not coincidentally the recipient of some of his most polarizing reviews, but for me is a rare Spielberg film where it feels like he's grasping a difficult subject intuitively and is surprised by his own responses.) Similarly, I'm not convinced that indies like "Shame," for all their heavy-breathing about being grim and uncompromising, are telling us anything beyond the usual cliches about The World We Live In.<br /><br />Which brings us to "Hugo," a film I watched fully cognizant of its flaws and yet came out completely enraptured, those same flaws evaporating into trivialities. For me, it's Scorsese's approach to the material that makes it work. He showed, back in "Kundun" (especially the early scenes with the young Tibetan non-actors) a gentle touch he'd rarely shown before, and I was delighted to see it come to full bloom in "Hugo." He seems both looser and more disciplined, more attuned to the narrative than he's been in a long time. I think the 3-D can be justified in thematic terms as experimenting with special effects now as Melies was then; in practical terms, it's also Scorsese's way of challenging himself, like Hitchcock did back in the day. It's been obvious in his last few movies that Scorsese had become so accomplished that his technical proficiency was beginning to calcify. And as far as subject matter is concerned, I think he's said everything about gangsters that's left for him to say; I don't care if he never makes another "hard-hitting" film ever again. I want him to do what excites him and interests him and affects him emotionally; if that happens to be "the power of cinema," so be it. (Just curious, but how does "Drive," a movie also drenched in cinephilia, work for you as opposed to films like "Hugo" or "Inglourious Bastereds"?)<br /><br />"Hugo" is about that, yes, but on a larger level it's also about books and trains and other "old things" that, through his ecstatic eye, feel alive and new again. I'm not trying to use "the child's response" to the movie as a final arbiter for its quality. I'm only pointing out the collective reaction of the kids in contrast to their reaction to films that don't work. I'll never forget the complete, wholly justified lack of attention the young audience gave "The Phantom Menace" when it came out, just as I'll always remember the hushed silence that greeted "The Black Stallion." We can disagree about the functioning of Scorsese's bullshit detector, but kids usually have theirs on and I never heard it go off.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-76652679637994900302011-11-27T16:22:38.716-05:002011-11-27T16:22:38.716-05:00Steven,
When you tweeted that you were seeing thi...Steven,<br /><br />When you tweeted that you were seeing this, I was seized by a dark premonition: "Kids + 3-D = Steven No Likey." I'm joking, of course. Your argument is much more substantial than that, and I was hoping you'd weigh in with it, even after it became clear you didn't care for the picture.<br /><br />I'll focus on the "power of cinema" part of your argument since it's at the heart of it, and the part that I struggle with the most whenever I see (and find myself responding to) one of these types of movies. It seems we're to the point where the "Movie Brats" of the 70s are in their self-referential twilight-of-the-gods phase, that they've progressed (or regressed) from depicting a heightened sense of the world to the movies becoming their world entirely. We can see this most blatantly with Lucas (from "American Graffiti" to "Star Wars" ad nauseam), but also with Coppola (from "The Godfather" to his last three movies) and, lately, Scorsese. I would argue that their films, taken individually, have different merits and are of varying quality, but altogether I agree with you that the lack of drawing from the real world is problematic in cinema today. Those films are not getting made anymore, probably because they can't get made. And our movie experience is unquestionably suffering because of it.<br /><br />(more)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-38957816590580991892011-11-27T13:05:48.326-05:002011-11-27T13:05:48.326-05:00Yeah, my blogs got crossed are something.
Hugo i...Yeah, my blogs got crossed are something. <br /><br /><i>Hugo</i> is definitely a better film than <i>Immortals</i>, but at the time I was more enthusiastic about the latter. As I say in my review of Scorsese's film, it's so well made; just something kept me from full enthusiasm. Should see it again.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-1807791207621628272011-11-27T12:42:18.508-05:002011-11-27T12:42:18.508-05:00I will just come out and say that, while I respect...I will just come out and say that, while I respect your position on the film, I found this to be the same type of lumbering, bloated film Scorsese has been making the last decade or so. Many of the reviews have been so focused on how kids would see it, but I am quite getting bothered by what I felt was Scorsese's easy, cheap sentimentality not getting called out for what it is because it panders to cinephiles. It reminded me of the worst of Spielberg, though Spielberg has been called out for it on much lesser offenses than "Hugo". Not unlike Tarantino's somewhat self-serving ode to the "power of cinema" in "Inglourious Basterds", I still feel that the true power of cinema can be felt through truly great films rather than film directors feeling the need to pay tribute to their art and, in turn, themselves.<br /><br />The film does come alive a bit during the Melies segment, which made me wish the movie was about him. And that it would be a movie that would present him as a human being rather than force us to learn his story through a glaze of mawkishness. I found most of what leads up to Melies to be leaden and flat. Hugo is a wide-eyed cipher, perhaps the dullest central character in a Scorsese film as well as the cleanest orphan in the history of cinema. The overly polished Moretz seems to have been directed to smile incessantly, as if trying to earn a gold star by the end of the film. Cohen was painfully unfunny and annoying, proving he's little more than someone who puts on funny hair and an accent and calls it a day in terms of characterization. This was made worse by the half-assed attempt to humanize him by having the Inspector announce his injuries and then return to being unfunny and annoying. When Kingsley and Stuhlbarg came onscreen, I felt I was finally dealing with real people, as opposed to moppets and walking schticks.<br /><br />The last few films have been the most plot-heavy of Scorsese's career and "Hugo" and "Shutter Island" shows how flat-footed he is when trying to build a story around uncovering a mystery. In fact, both films (which happen to end with Kingsley explaining everything) made me wonder why these stories needed to be presented as a mystery to begin with, especially when their reveals are telegraphed and then run into the ground through exposition. And, visually, I found the movie to be pretty, but the shots to be in service of providing eye candy rather than emotion. Everything has this pristine, antiseptic look that I often find to be the look preferred by unimaginative directors with way too much access to CGI. I did not even find much of a reason why the 3D was needed, which, once again, seems to be in service of making the film look superficially pretty rather than using the space to tell the story. (And converting Melies' films into 3D seemed to be missing the point.) And Scorsese's homages to old film seemed to be merely uninspired copies. The sequence where Hugo hangs off the clock hand just sits there, as if making the visual reference was enough.<br /><br />You bring up Scorsese talking about how not everyone needs to make the films Spielberg does. I remember when Scorsese would talk about how it was important to have a bullshit detector to make the types of films he wanted to make. I kept wondering throughout "Hugo" why that detector seemed to be malfunctioning for every choice he made or whether he has become content making the kind of bloated Hollywood movies that his greatest films were often a response to. Those great films are about the power of cinema, not "Hugo".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05571206086671634525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-86911729553224064012011-11-26T20:20:05.353-05:002011-11-26T20:20:05.353-05:00Nice to have you weigh in, Hokah- er, Richard. I r...Nice to have you weigh in, Hokah- er, Richard. I read your review. The part of the film you're referring to - the Melies/birth of cinema stuff - didn't fall flat for me at all. A little slack, maybe, but Scorsese pulled it all together beautifully. It's a children's story, and all children's stories have morals to them, and film preservation seems a refreshing change of pace as far as morals go.<br /><br />I also read your review of <i>The Immortals</i>, which I haven't seen. You didn't actually say this in either review, it's more of an implication based on levels of enthusiasm, but do you think it's better than <i>Hugo</i>? Really? Because Scorsese's picture has the all the tingles of a classic to me.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-346040741266014002011-11-26T19:49:37.592-05:002011-11-26T19:49:37.592-05:00Well done, Craig, especially in suggesting that th...Well done, Craig, especially in suggesting that this is the kind of family movies kids and adults deserve. The sense of wonder captured through the eyes of Hugo and Isabelle is very well done. The opening prologue is wonderfully done, taking Hugo through the fabulous train station set. But while I see how Scorsese is passionately presenting his passion for film in this movie about the magic of filmmaking, I lost contact with that sense of wonder. Something fell flat for me, which I try to explain in my post.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10804805265666268756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-54045318488248676412011-11-26T11:01:13.047-05:002011-11-26T11:01:13.047-05:00I'm glad you mentioned Stuhlbarg (whom I didn&...I'm glad you mentioned Stuhlbarg (whom I didn't recognize from "A Serious Man"), who gives the movie a lot of its emotional weight. He makes up for Kinglsey, in my opinion, who, as Edelstein pointed out, sells the chill of the character more convincingly than he does the warmth. Christopher Lee, whom also should be mentioned, makes the transition more deftly in less screen time. The love of books in "Hugo" is almost as strong as the love of movies.<br /><br />Still, even though I had issues with the performance, and even though I knew what was coming, I welled up when Kingsley shouted, "This child is mine!" (I welled up a few other times, too.) You mentioned the over-plotting of the "Potter" series, but what's amazing about "Hugo" is Scorsese's unusual attention to the narrative. Plot normally isn't his strong suit, but he brings all the strands and characters in a way that's deeply satisfying.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211112229982829419.post-58772456973611891882011-11-26T07:40:17.546-05:002011-11-26T07:40:17.546-05:00This does feel to me like Scorsese's Spielberg...This does feel to me like Scorsese's Spielberg movie. But ain't nuthin wrong with that.<br /><br />What a charming picture! And while I, like you, enjoyed the later <em>Harry Potter</em> flicks, wow, this shows the richness of spirit that those often lack -- probably because they're trying to deal with so much damn plot.<br /><br />Kingsley, I thought, was the best he's been in years; but he's one of those actors that you go for or don't, and he rarely bothers me. And the so-quiet-you-almost-miss-how-great-it-is performance of the year has to be Michael Stuhlbarg as Tabard; he really sells the significance and the magic of the moment -- a crucial performance at that point of the film.<br /><br />I can't know for sure, but I think I would have loved this film as a kid. Certainly the kids in my audience seemed less fidgety than their parents, who appeared to be going through smartphone withdrawals, even if they didn't all succumb to the itch.<br /><br />If I have a gripe, it's that the film becomes a history lesson in the final act. And there's magic there, too, but that piece doesn't quite fit the rest. But that's a small gripe. Glad to be in the hands of a director who can sustain a mood.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.com