Hugo

Paramount Pictures | Release Date: November 23, 2011
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 854 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
670
Mixed:
122
Negative:
62
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
4
TheHygienistDec 29, 2012
A pretty film in blue-ray, and one of few movies a parent can take a kid to without the inevitable F-bomb. Entertaining but slow to the point and a bit overacted.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
pegasusDec 27, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is beautiful to look at, has a good cast among the adults, and has some nice moments with the train station setting. But the plotting and pacing kills it. For one thing, the two plots seem to be forced together in a non-credible way. That may be the fault of the source material, but a good director ought not to reproduce strained plotting out of some sense of faithfulness to the text. It was just too abrupt for me the way Hugo is all about the automaton and then suddenly he's all about movies. Too much coincidence, not well integrated. Then, there are two places where the movie basically stops for a lecture about film history. Nothing against the topic, but voice-over to explain it is a poor dramatic technique in a non-documentary film. Finally, the secret behind Papa Georges' reaction to Hugo's notebook and to seeing his old drawings didn't have sufficient dramatic heft. "He went bankrupt because tastes changed" is sad, OK, but hardly the tragedy presaged by all the preceding build-up. He didn't change with the times so his studio failed. This happens all over in every industry. I was left with a big feeling of "Is that all there is?" He seemed pitiful (and self-pitying) rather than tragic. I realize we are meant to view the melting of his films as an awful warning about preserving the classic films we know and love, but the point was laid on with too heavy a hand. Besides all this, the screenplay was uneven, sometimes awkward, there were too many extraneous bits such as the bookseller and the wicked uncle, and the pace was very slow. All these factors kept me from becoming fully involved. I can't imagine a child having the patience to try to follow this. In short, for a movie about the magic of movies, there just wasn't enough magic.… Expand
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
6
tenmusesNov 26, 2011
Beautiful to look at and the acting was above average (although not stellar). I thought the story was bland and the vintage cinema theme in the second half of the movie just didn't do it for me. Ultimately, my reaction to the movie was oneBeautiful to look at and the acting was above average (although not stellar). I thought the story was bland and the vintage cinema theme in the second half of the movie just didn't do it for me. Ultimately, my reaction to the movie was one of disappointment.

To be honest, I think the main appeal of the movie lies in a somewhat taboo area of discussion - nostalgia for a lost time and lost homogeneity of society. That "all in it together" feel was used effectively to add complexity and empathy for a particular character. There is a loneliness in today's society and a longing for that sensation of shared goals and tribulations. The vintage cinema element is a related theme but misses the mark. People are mourning a lost society, not lost movies.

This movie is ultimately chocolate box art. People are hungering for this though and we are going to see more movies like it. I hope the stories get better.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
BKMDec 17, 2011
Hugo has a potentially interesting and moving story to tell, but it gets lost in what turns out to be a history lesson on early cinema with an endorsement for film preservation thrown in for good measure. It is taylor made for awards seasonHugo has a potentially interesting and moving story to tell, but it gets lost in what turns out to be a history lesson on early cinema with an endorsement for film preservation thrown in for good measure. It is taylor made for awards season and you can feel that in every frame of film.… Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
4
marsiliaNov 27, 2011
I fell asleep for a moment watching this movie. Much too slowly paced. Lots left undeveloped. Surprising to see other reviewers comments about the performances. Except for the child, all the other characters were quite undeveloped. SomeI fell asleep for a moment watching this movie. Much too slowly paced. Lots left undeveloped. Surprising to see other reviewers comments about the performances. Except for the child, all the other characters were quite undeveloped. Some quite good actors had very little to work with here. Humor is lame, groin injuries and dog bites. Characters that you thought might have some interest were left dangling and unfinished. And even the child's most dramatic moment in the movie is poorly integrated into the story. He shifts on a dime, or rather the director does. This is not a story Scorcese should have directed. And I certainly would not take children, unless they need a good nap! Contra shibumi, there isnt much to get. And whatever there is takes so long in the getting. Visually it is stunning, and the paean to the beginnings of cinema are appreciated, but it was too much of a good thing.… Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
5
hevatinNov 23, 2011
I went in looking forward to seeing this movie and hoping it would be another Scorsese classic. I'm a big fan of Scorsese's past greats, such as Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Good Fellas - and the idea of him doing a children's movie wasI went in looking forward to seeing this movie and hoping it would be another Scorsese classic. I'm a big fan of Scorsese's past greats, such as Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Good Fellas - and the idea of him doing a children's movie was intriguing to me.

I left the theater with a nagging reminder that, as great as Scorsese is, he's only human and even he can fall into the same trap that so many directors fall into when making big budget visual films; so much energy is put into the visuals that the story and characters get left behind.

This movie is no exception to that sad Hollywood norm. The characters are lifeless and wooden, the dialogue is far too on the nose, and the plot is so slow moving that it trips over itself.

The music is annoying and far too omnipresent. Instead of being used to heighten a mood or intensify a feeling, it's just constantly in your face. It's so superfluous that it loses it's meaning and impact.

There were no humorous moments. I didn't laugh once. Sacha Baron Cohen is a lifeless, boring Station inspector and doesn't compare to other great children movie bad guys, such as the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Gene Wilder in Willy Wanka. From a visual standpoint it is a stunning movie. The best 3D movie I have seen. It makes Avatar look wimpy. Clearly Scorsese put a tremendous amount of thought into the visuals created each scene for 3D. But I think that is actually where he went wrong. He focused so much on that aspect that the story and character went dead. There should have been two directors on this movie - one for the visuals and one for the story. That might have created what I was so hoping to experience when I came out tonight.

I really wanted this to be great. But it was just average.… Expand
9 of 17 users found this helpful98
All this user's reviews
4
real1gNov 29, 2011
Not enough words can be said in terms of how much I love Scorcese's work, but Hugo is a near-total flop. The idea that Scorcese would take on the daunting, film-crippling fad that is 3D, came as a surprise to me. But it was Scorcese, so INot enough words can be said in terms of how much I love Scorcese's work, but Hugo is a near-total flop. The idea that Scorcese would take on the daunting, film-crippling fad that is 3D, came as a surprise to me. But it was Scorcese, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and went into the theatre with high hopes. Boy, was I disappointed. The storyline, writing, and acting by the main character who plays Hugo are put together producing a flat product. The movie is boring. The only true part of the movie I liked was Scorcese going through the history of film periodically, which had nothing to do with the main story-line at all. Wait for it on DVD, don't see it in 3D. Disappointed!… Expand
9 of 17 users found this helpful98
All this user's reviews
5
CanisrahJan 12, 2012
Any film directed by Scorsese is automatically awarded a place on my 'must see' list. I was somewhat dubious about Hugo, but went along anyway. My views on the film are mixed - I'd say it had high aspirations, and occasional flashes ofAny film directed by Scorsese is automatically awarded a place on my 'must see' list. I was somewhat dubious about Hugo, but went along anyway. My views on the film are mixed - I'd say it had high aspirations, and occasional flashes of brilliance, but ultimately it fell short for me. The story was functional, and it had some moments which bordered on the profound, but the plot was somewhat mechanical (like the subject matter) and ties between various elements were wafer thin such that the conclusion was not as satisfying as it could have been. The environments and the cinematography were beautiful throughout, but the pacing was a bit off - leading to several patches were I was bored (and feeling guilty for being so), in spite of the beautiful visuals and breathtaking recreation of a bygone era.

Sir Ben Kingsley was magnificent - as was the cast generally; although the young lad playing the lead was sometimes annoying for me. But the most disappointing aspect of the film for me was where it crossed the line between plot progression and telling a story into the realm of self-serving indulgence. Film critics will lap it up given it spends a great deal of time lecturing the audience on events of historical significance if you are a film buff. The film tries to weave this into the story by tying it to the characters but it comes off forced and grating. Would I see it again? No. Would I recommended it... probably not.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
5
lblJan 20, 2012
Too long. Do film makers today believe that every movie they make has to be more than two hours to qualify as a good film? Hugo needed at least twenty to thirty minutes cut out of it. I was so bored in the middle I didn't think I was going toToo long. Do film makers today believe that every movie they make has to be more than two hours to qualify as a good film? Hugo needed at least twenty to thirty minutes cut out of it. I was so bored in the middle I didn't think I was going to make it to the end of the film. It got good in the end, but it took SO long to get there.… Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
JamesLJan 29, 2012
I found it beautiful and thought it was well done in 3D. However, I was bored throughout and went to buy M &M's so I would not keep staring at my watch. The story simply did not interest me in the slightest. "Hugo" summed up what a mediocreI found it beautiful and thought it was well done in 3D. However, I was bored throughout and went to buy M &M's so I would not keep staring at my watch. The story simply did not interest me in the slightest. "Hugo" summed up what a mediocre film year 2011 was. When "The Descendants", "Moneyball", and "The Tree of Life " are Oscar nominees , it is a poor year. I hope 2012 brings me a substantial improvement.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
BikerjamesNov 30, 2011
I wonder how Roger Ebert feels about this movie? He has trashed the 3D format for years and now his favorite director, Martin Scorsese, has made one! Unlike Ebert, Scorsese has totally embraced 3D technology, as the 3D is the star of thisI wonder how Roger Ebert feels about this movie? He has trashed the 3D format for years and now his favorite director, Martin Scorsese, has made one! Unlike Ebert, Scorsese has totally embraced 3D technology, as the 3D is the star of this film. For me, the movie would have been a failure without it. It is the best non-animated 3D I have seen in the theater, and nearly all scenes were filmed with the format in mind. The opening shot of the camera moving through a crowded train station is fabulous. It's a great looking movie. Unfortunately, the movie's plot and story did not match the visual delights for me. This is a slow, plodding movie, lacking humor, saved only by the visuals. Unfortunately, I just didn't care about any of these people, and the dialogue seemed stilted and unnatural in parts. I can't imagine a kid keeping his attention to this film. The little boy just seemed devoid of personality. Not sure I ever saw him smile until the end of the movie. I rate this film a 6 in the theaters, but only a 3 or 4 at home unless you have a 3D television.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
lahaineDec 19, 2011
This is was an interesting one, though something was highly questionable about it. Hugo was a very meaningful movie that gets into the heart of the characters and the meaning of cinema itself. Any movie buff should see this, as its aThis is was an interesting one, though something was highly questionable about it. Hugo was a very meaningful movie that gets into the heart of the characters and the meaning of cinema itself. Any movie buff should see this, as its a testimonial to the history film making and film preservation, which is evidently very important to Mr. Scorsese. This is one of Scorsese's most technically lush films, boasting exceptional art direction (which needs an Oscar), nice cinematography and some decent costume designs. And finally Asa Butterfield did well and the supporting players were all good, particularly Chloe Moretz (as usual) and Ben Kingsley. With all that said, something that I genuinely questioned was the true quality of the movie's screenplay. It was very unbalanced, and the first half was a quite drab (despite having an interesting premise). The movie could have definitely used a a serious rewrite, but overall it was a good, and well made film.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
RobinsNestMay 10, 2012
Yet another 2011 film receiving rave reviews that I don't get. While it is interesting to see Mr Scorsese defend his not selling out to SFX, that's exactly what he did. Watching at home, without 3D, the movie falls flat. A movie should haveYet another 2011 film receiving rave reviews that I don't get. While it is interesting to see Mr Scorsese defend his not selling out to SFX, that's exactly what he did. Watching at home, without 3D, the movie falls flat. A movie should have been made about Mr Melies but this is not about him, but about things that fly off the screen. And what's the story with the dust or snowflakes that drift around the entire film? Is everyone in a snow globe? Is this Dr Suess? Disappointing on so many levels. The director needed long explanations about the characters, their families, the evil cop, etc. instead of "showing" us some background-this is a visual medium. The best part of the film is the flashbacks on how movie making got it's start. Now that would make a good film. Mr S should get back to developing strong characters, fierce relationships, and de-emphasize the SFX. Poor outing from a usually brilliant director.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
ScovernDec 2, 2011
I went in to see Hugo after seeing it advertised as a film about adventure, mystery, and possibly sci-fi. I ended up scrutinizing these overemotional actors and short-lived story lines that eventually came to mean nothing once I realized theI went in to see Hugo after seeing it advertised as a film about adventure, mystery, and possibly sci-fi. I ended up scrutinizing these overemotional actors and short-lived story lines that eventually came to mean nothing once I realized the whole thing was a setup to explore the history of early film making.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
AdvocateDec 26, 2011
The movie was overall sappy and slow. I took a young girl about the same age as the one in the movie, and there was no connection felt by her to that character. I can tell that the content of the movie meant a lot personally to Scorsese; heThe movie was overall sappy and slow. I took a young girl about the same age as the one in the movie, and there was no connection felt by her to that character. I can tell that the content of the movie meant a lot personally to Scorsese; he did an excellent job of transmitting his personal zest for the old films shown in the movie. You could see him romanticize some personal childhood experiences quite well.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
AquophisDec 28, 2011
I don't think I can even remember the last time I've ever been subject to such a stagnant, passive viewing experience. Such a slow, sluggish plot that I found myself silently urging along. The film felt like all twinkling lights andI don't think I can even remember the last time I've ever been subject to such a stagnant, passive viewing experience. Such a slow, sluggish plot that I found myself silently urging along. The film felt like all twinkling lights and tenderness, almost never jumping out at me. Watching it could be compared to trying to swim through a lake of honey - there's warmth and sweetness, sure, but it's very slow going. The main boy actor hardly shows any emotion on his face - to me, he looked either creepily indifferent or morose and sullen.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
nandopJan 28, 2012
Extremely visually wonderful (the opening scene is such a masterpiece take), in a beautiful 30's Paris, but a bit long, a bit too much of a homage (although deserved) and, for me, with a story and main character uncomfortably showingExtremely visually wonderful (the opening scene is such a masterpiece take), in a beautiful 30's Paris, but a bit long, a bit too much of a homage (although deserved) and, for me, with a story and main character uncomfortably showing harrypotter-wannabeism.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
axelkochSep 3, 2012
A great experience in sound and vision. 'Hugo' deserved all 5 Academy Awards it won, but not more. Asa Butterfield was very disappointing, for my opinion he should only play in horror movies in young age. Also the dialogues are sometimesA great experience in sound and vision. 'Hugo' deserved all 5 Academy Awards it won, but not more. Asa Butterfield was very disappointing, for my opinion he should only play in horror movies in young age. Also the dialogues are sometimes faint and the whole story is extremely predictable. It mixes the love to inventions with the love to the cinema. The plot is slightly boring and only the hunting scenes with Sacha Baron Cohen are really exciting. All in all a well-made homage to the initation of films, which disappointed me here and there and will definitely be boring for kids!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
oblique15Mar 16, 2013
It`s an interesting film, It was kind of slow at times but has a good message. I like the music and time of this movie, it adds a nice feel to it. I kind of wanted more from the movie but it`s worth watching.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
Annoymous1Jul 10, 2013
Nice, cute, Hugo is a nice film and a bit tedious and um, hilarious in itself. Its too long though and it was extended. Though its good it won a few Oscars, though its kind of odd
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
G_Thomas_BostonApr 25, 2013
Hugo is directed by either Spielberg or Scorsese. I think it's Scorsese, but it felt like Spielberg. The film even had some John Williams-style big music, composed by Howard Shore (yeah, that's right! the saxophone player from the bandHugo is directed by either Spielberg or Scorsese. I think it's Scorsese, but it felt like Spielberg. The film even had some John Williams-style big music, composed by Howard Shore (yeah, that's right! the saxophone player from the band Lighthouse!)

This fantasy is about a boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station. Not since The Legend of 1900 have I heard of anything this screwy. Inside these walls are the guts of the station's clocks. The guts consist of cogs, gears, counterweights, pinions, springs, and inexplicably steam.

During the course of the film, we learn that Hugo is the dude that built C3PO (or some C3PO prototype). C3PO reveals to Hugo that the local old grump (played by Ben Kingsley) is in fact a forerunner to movie wizards like Spielsese or Scorberg.

Anyway, I saw this movie in regular old boring 2D. I didn't realize it was a 3D film until the scene where some pages with drawings go flying from the kids' hands and drift all over the screen. At first I was thinking, "What the hell is this all about? Am I supposed to be mesmerized by fluttering stationery?" Then I realized that this was intended to be seen in super-duper 3D. "Ahh," I thought, "Now I see. Ooooh, that would have been so cool to see all that paper flying around in 3D." We haven't witnessed anything like this in cinematic history since the famous bolo-bat scene in the 1953 film House of Wax.

Hugo does a lot of hiding and running, primarily from a train station cop played by Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen's character is an amalgam of Inspectors Javert and Clouseau. He and his trusty Doberman Pinscher cannot seem to track down the elusive boy who knows the station and its walls like the inner workings of an automaton. During one climactic scene, Hugo gives the Inspector the slip by doing a Harold Lloyd impression from a clock tower.

Once the Inspector catches up with Hugo, they have a talk. During the conversation, the little urchin makes the Inspector laugh. The Inspector tells him that he's funny. Hugo then says, "I'm funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f____n' amuse you? What do you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny? What the f__k is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!"

Wait a minute. I might me confused. That dialog might be from a different movie a real Scorcese film.

All in all, Hugo isn't such a bad movie. But in retrospect, I think I would have preferred watching the Harold Lloyd film, Safety Last.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
McLaughlinViewsAug 19, 2013
Hugo tells the story of young Hugo Cabret and his journey to try and find a message from his late father. Scorsese uses great imagery with vibrant colors to throughout the film giving the entire film a bright and hopeful view on life. HoweverHugo tells the story of young Hugo Cabret and his journey to try and find a message from his late father. Scorsese uses great imagery with vibrant colors to throughout the film giving the entire film a bright and hopeful view on life. However in spite of this view of a brighter and ore hopeful life the colors sometimes distract, finding yourself looking more at the old and attractive architecture in comparison to what is occurring on the screen.

The story of Hugo is a roller-coaster of ride where at one point the story is just but Hugo trying to find a message from his father after his tragic loss. Then the story quickly adapts to a journey of discovery and to rekindling people's dreams.

Sacha Baron Cohen is hilarious in this film, from his in chase scenes to his failures at attempting to secure a lover. Cohen plays the simpler minded police officer whose confusion in conversation is leads to bags of laughter. Moretz delivers an incredible performs as the twelve year old, Isabelle who lives to read the great novels of the day and who is already up for an adventure.

However despite the strong performances from the entire cast the film Hugo fails to keep the attention of the audience, apart from the funny Cohen or strong lines of dialogue delivered by an incredible cast can’t bring the film back from the rather dull narrative that is the plot of Hugo.

Unfortunately a film that had so much going for it, an incredible cast, director and writer. The film fails to entertain past the usual slapstick humor of a children’s film. Despite this the visuals of the film is stunning which I suppose is an upside if you aren’t easily distracted by grand architecture then this will be a major upside to your cinematic experience.

In hindsight I will remember Hugo but not for it’s narrative I will remember it for it’s stunning visuals and superb acting, but I do not think that this is a film which I will remember with fond memories or frankly even remember at all. In hindsight this is not a film I would likely watch again.

I would like to reiterate that my score is nothing against the acting. Moretz and Bohen were great. My score is more against the story and the general feel of the film.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
cbeers2513Dec 4, 2013
I was expecting to be dazzled by Hugo, as critics across the board praised the movie and it won several Oscars for its achievements in cinematography and art design. However, Hugo let me down. The massive praise clearly stems from itsI was expecting to be dazzled by Hugo, as critics across the board praised the movie and it won several Oscars for its achievements in cinematography and art design. However, Hugo let me down. The massive praise clearly stems from its purpose, a mushy love letter to the art of cinema. The acting is perpetually bland, the effects were underwhelming, and the story isn't as endearing as several other 2011 releases. Hugo is not a bad film, and I do enjoy some moments. But when people cite Hugo as a year-defining film and an instant classic, I can't help but disagree. Hugo is a decent family movie, but does nothing new or inspiring other than glorify Hollywood. In the end, it's a sweet and simple appetizer for all the delicious cinematic entrees 2011 had to serve.

6/10

Follow me on twitter. @cbeers2513… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
shaunmedMar 6, 2012
visually pleasing and a not all together unpleasing 2 hour distraction, but FAR from a masterpiece. characters are two dimensional and their interactions are unbelievable. ben kingsley's portrayal is unconvincing and sasha baron cohen isvisually pleasing and a not all together unpleasing 2 hour distraction, but FAR from a masterpiece. characters are two dimensional and their interactions are unbelievable. ben kingsley's portrayal is unconvincing and sasha baron cohen is plain terrible. if it wasn't for the high production value, this movie would be merit-less.… Expand
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
5
MikeRGDec 13, 2011
Prepare to be underwhelmed, due to its overlong running time. If it had been 30 minutes shorter (and it could have been), I would give this an 8 or 9. Sasha Baron Cohen is dreadful, and the lead kid is not very good either. The little girlPrepare to be underwhelmed, due to its overlong running time. If it had been 30 minutes shorter (and it could have been), I would give this an 8 or 9. Sasha Baron Cohen is dreadful, and the lead kid is not very good either. The little girl is excellent. Kingsley is one-note, but Christopher Lee is good. The recreations of Georges Melies studio are the best part of the movie, but there are endless chases through the train station that wear one's patience down.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
ExKingJan 23, 2014
Martin Scorsese is one of my all time favorite directors and this movie was good,
i liked the visuals and the plot, and i like the details about movie making and all that stuff,
however i didn't like the way this movie addresses it'sMartin Scorsese is one of my all time favorite directors and this movie was good,
i liked the visuals and the plot, and i like the details about movie making and all that stuff,
however i didn't like the way this movie addresses it's audience,
it seems as the story was for kids not for adults, come on if you seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about
that's my only problem with this movie.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
4
KivaJun 11, 2013
I didn't really like this film. It was too long and boring, lame. I didn't get the message of that movie and i didn't even bother to look for it through the internet or watch the movie again. A waste of my time.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
JM23Mar 28, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hugo is a film that is technically brilliant but almost every other aspect fell short in my opinion. The cinematography is incredible and is one of the main reasons why the movie pulls you in initially. However, the story eventually let me down. Chloe Moretz is a great up-and-coming actress and she does well in this role, but Asa Butterfield isn't quite ready for a main role and in certain moments he comes off as awkward. The story is just too slow and uneventful for most of the movie. Also, moments that could be powerful are dramatically downplayed, such as Hugo's relationship with his father and uncle. When Hugo learns that his father died, he literally has no reaction and shows very little emotion. The father is a large part of the story, and he doesn't even shed a tear? The movie shifts halfway through to a story about the history of movies, which is probably why the critics praised it so much. The movie has it's moments, but I feel like it is predictable. I can't imagine kids really getting into this and enjoying it, though the blame is more on the marketing (who tried to sell it as a kids movie). Martin Scorsese is an all-time great director, and it's great to see him experiment so late in his career. However, Hugo was a big disappointment for me. I still recommend seeing it as it does have it's moments, but I definitely feel like this could have been so much more.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
VidsRuleMar 11, 2012
WOW. I did not in a million years expect to be this bored during a movie that is held in such high regard. The technical and artist acheivements and acting were top notch, but dramatically this film does not exist. Why not do more wierdWOW. I did not in a million years expect to be this bored during a movie that is held in such high regard. The technical and artist acheivements and acting were top notch, but dramatically this film does not exist. Why not do more wierd things with the robot? Why not have some chase scenes that are more than a kid running up steps while a man with a dog follows? The train station/clocks look amazing, why not use this to more avail? The came close to being the first movie that i paid for in years that I simply walked away from 2/3rds of the way. But I wanted to review it fairly on Metacritic so I sat through the whole thing. It was tough. The incredible look and feel of the film gives it a 50%, the lack of drama adds a big zero.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
andres200jMar 7, 2012
I do not like this film is well done technically and artistically, but it is a film that has given me rage that has won many Oscars, because if you stop to think, has won many awards just because it is American and the director is MartinI do not like this film is well done technically and artistically, but it is a film that has given me rage that has won many Oscars, because if you stop to think, has won many awards just because it is American and the director is Martin Scorsese, if it had been a British film, directed by a director not well known, had won an oscar or no, so like what happened to Harry Potter this year, a film score of 87 on Metacritic, and great reviews in every newspaper and review websites in the world and only had 3 nominations and did not win any prizes.
I still say: There were many injustices in the Academy Awards this year… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TyranianFeb 11, 2020
A class above most kid films but still a fairly meagre effort from Scorsese.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BehdabraFeb 28, 2012
First of all, I'm a big fan of Great Scorsese, but this film is absolutely one of the most overrated movies of all time. well of course the visual effects are awesome, also with fantastic 3D effects, but the story is extraordinary boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
skyminsterMay 26, 2012
Hugo is alright, it's nothing special, I can't say anything bad about it, but I can say a few good things about it; its got a good and fairly interesting plot, exciting and tense chase sequences, good acting, great character building (youHugo is alright, it's nothing special, I can't say anything bad about it, but I can say a few good things about it; its got a good and fairly interesting plot, exciting and tense chase sequences, good acting, great character building (you really get to know what the characters are like) and strange music that's kinda catchy. I don't recommend watching it if your into action and sci-fi films, but I do recommend watching it if you like touching dramas or mystery movies.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014
I certainly commend Marty's attempt at making a film for all ages; however, Hugo doesn't quite pack the punch any of his other films do. It's an epic story--one that is lost along the way.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
csw12Mar 30, 2012
Hugo is an okay not great. Except for the flashy visuals the kids and everyone around were over- acting. The movie was too long by 15 mintues. The magic for the movie wasn' there entirely and that is were the movie goes off course the most.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AlanoSilvaPBFeb 25, 2023
A parte técnica desse filme é um show a parte, e a história é simplesmente cativante. Diante disso, afirmo sem dúvidas que A Invenção de Hugo Cabret é uma aventura belíssima.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
akshatmahajanSep 1, 2020
I was excited for this movie but it was disappointing for me. Directed by Martin who is famous for gangster type movies, this movie was not for him.
It was hard to see who this film is aimed at. The storyline was too childish. The action isI was excited for this movie but it was disappointing for me. Directed by Martin who is famous for gangster type movies, this movie was not for him.
It was hard to see who this film is aimed at. The storyline was too childish. The action is slow and dreary for most of the film and the acting by most of the cast is okay. Only cinematography is good. Overall, it is a big disappointment.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
NemethLFeb 16, 2022
A mediocre imitation of Wes Anderson. Big names, but the movie is too long and unnecessarily aloe.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

83 Critic Reviews

7.7 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL