Kristin Reviews Hugo

When I originally saw the preview for Hugo, I wrote it off, in spite of Scorsese’s involvement. When I heard Hugo was getting all manner of nominations and awards, I was bewildered. I mean, yeah, there’s the Scorsese element, but . . . huh?

Martin Scorsese obviously set out to make a celluloid love letter to cinema. This was not even remotely clear in the preview. Once the motivation was clear, I, at least, understood the surface of the critic-love. The last 20 or 30 minutes of Hugo are definitely a heart-warming nostalgia-surrogate for film-lovers. I admit, I had a little tear in my eye myself. But a tear in the eye does not make a film award-worthy. (No, all you people who selected Forrest Gump for Best Picture, it does not.)

It’s true, the majority of Hugo is beautiful in a grand, and surprisingly steampunky, way. And I have no issues at all with the technical nominations the film received. But the story is clumsy, and the journey to the nostalgic and touching conclusion is not strong enough to support the payoff. Asa Butterfield fails to bring enough charm or cuteness to his character to earn the “awwwww” vote, and the script is too weak to make the audience care about him, his little orphan plight, or his magical journey.

So, what did I love about Hugo? I loved the steampunk elements – the gears and the automaton and the windup toys. I loved the idea of the mystery, even if the reality of it was poorly executed. And Scorsese’s recreation of those early films was inspired. It really was.

But, those elements could just as easily been shared in some kind of Melies appreciation retrospective. Why make the audience sit through an hour and forty minutes of fail for twenty minutes of nostalgic satisfaction. It just isn’t enough. And that’s frustrating, because so much work went into the construction of the film, it really should have been better.

-Kristin
12.1.2011