For some reason, I find the phrase "love letter to..." (fill in the blank) highly annoying. Perhaps because it has become overused. In any case, I have heard Hugo described as Martin Scorsese's love letter to film. Gag. Just writing "love letter to film" sounds so pretentious. However, I don't want to let that prejudice my opinion of the film, which I finally watched this week. Despite Scorsese's obsession with Asa Butterfield's blue but not particularly magnetic eyes, and a propensity to shoot him peeking from behind clockwork machinery, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I thought it was beautiful and I found the story interesting and engaging, though somewhat hacky at moments. To me it seemed Scorsese's aim was to convey the imagination and creativity that is poured into making films and to revere the audience who is filled with wonder and delight at their magic.
Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is the story of a young orphan, who lives in a Paris train station, taking care of and winding all the clocks. He observes the interactions of the shopkeepers and regulars in the train station, while stealing food and mechanical parts from them, to feed himself and to repair his precious automaton, a mechanical man who draws pictures, discovered by his late father in a museum basement.
He meets Isobelle (Chloë Mauretz) the god-daughter of a shopkeeper in the station who quickly becomes his friend an ally in his quest to repair the automaton. Hoping to find a last message from his father, Hugo will stop at nothing to repair the automaton, even when he begins to butt heads with Isobelle's god-father Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley), who sells and repairs toys in his shop. When Hugo and Isobelle discover an incredible secret about Georges' past, they decide to try to help him, to "fix" him as well as the automaton.
Hugo is certainly easily described by that also overused term "a visual feast." Gorgeous set extension and visual effects add do the romantic and automatically beautiful location of a Paris train station. Asa Butterfield's performance was satisfactory and Chloë Mauretz, who I usually like, was good as well, though her British accent was a bit annoying. While it seems like much of the story might be over the heads of most children, I think there is enough slapstick comedy and spirit of adventure for the average 8-12 year old. Adults may find parts of it cheesy, but some of the film history is very interesting and I found myself laughing out loud at some of the old silent films from very early days of moving pictures. Overall, a fun family flick. Not one of the best movies I've ever seen, but definitely above average.
No comments:
Post a Comment