Oscar Watch - Hugo (2011) Review

Visually outstanding, unfortunately, 

Hugo is huge disappointment...

Before I start off this review, let me get this straight - Hugo isn't an adventure film, nor it is a fantasy film. It is a period docudrama - certainly Paramount's promotion team was high when they labeled it an 'adventure' film.

Based on the graphic book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, the film follows the plot of young orphan Hugo Cabaret (Asa Butterfield) and a mysterious 'automaton' (or simply a writing robot) given to him by his dead father (short and swift cameo by Jude Law). The automaton isn't working, Hugo must fix it as he presumably thinks that the automaton is keeping a message  from his father. Alone, working under walls of Paris' railway station for his drunk uncle, Hugo often steals from shop of Papa Georges to fix his automaton. He is caught one day - Georges is certainly baffled when he sees guide book for automation. His guide book is taken by Georges. 

As Hugo hides from station master (wonderful Sacha Baron Cohen), he befriends grand-daughter of Georges,  Isabelle (charming Chloe Moretz). Isabelle is a bookworm, she loves visiting the library. One day Hugo finds heart shaped key from Isabelle's locket. The key unlocks the automaton, and it draws a picture from 'A Trip To Moon' first ever film seen by Hugo's father. Through series of other events, most of them which were boring, they both find that Papa Georges is indeed Georges Melies, legendary French film-maker of early 1900's era. Melies made over 100 films in his entire career. Due to world war, Melies lost all of his finances and he was forced to melt all of his films' rolls and the plastic from it was used to make shoes. From that money he started his shop at the Railway Station and never went back to film-making. 

Hugo melts Melies heart through his dedication and devotion and Georges 'sort of' adopts him. The final scene of the film, we are told that over 90 films of Melies were restored and preserved and a homage is payed to him through variety of scenes from his movies.

Characters in the film are ineffective - let it be 2 minutes turn of Jude Law as Hugo's father or Chloe Moretz as Isabelle. And Asa himself as Hugo, doesn't makes any impact what so ever. 

Chemistry between both the leads is missing - friendship between Hugo and Isabelle hardly develops. For sake of Georges Melies' "crash course on history of film cinema", Scorsese misses many important points - let it be relationship between Hugo and his drunk uncle or his own father.

 

At times, Hugo isn't a film about Hugo but it is about Georges Melies. And yet after few minutes we are back to Hugo's story. Due to all this, the plot is unfocused - script writer John Logan fails in most parts. In the end, we are served tastless mix of historical biopic and whimsical adventure film. The problem isn't subplot regarding  George Melies or history of cinema. But the problem is that the main story of the film does not blends with it.  If Martin Scorsese wanted to make a film about history of cinema, he could have made a biopic - but no, studio wasted 170 Million dollars, just for a mere unfocused, ineffective film on George Melies.

  

Ben Kingsley shines as Georges Melies, he is certainly the powerhouse of the film in terms of acting. The scene in which Georges finds his old concept arts scattered all over is just

stupendous. Sacha Baron Cohen, in his short but most interesting role of station master, is highly amusing.

Technically, Hugo is outstanding.  Robert Richardson is perhaps the only cinematographer along with Mauro Fiore, who understands 3D photography these days. Howard Shore's lovely score, showcasing Accordion, is one of the best things in the film. And the best of the bunch is Dante Ferretti - his sets are work of a genius. He will win this time for Art Direction, hands down.

 Scorsese's so called first take on children's film is probably his most superfluous film yet. It is a huge disappointment. Most of the time the film doesn't works, mainly because of unfocused script and storytelling. You can see the ambition, you can see the hard work but unfortunately, you cannot see the result. It maybe Scorsese's loveletter to cinema to some, but for me, it is merely self-important and pretentious work, albeit well made.

2.5 + 0.5 (for cinematography, art direction and score) = 3/5