Hugo
Martin Scorsese loves movies. It proves, moreover, with “Hugo”, a tale for the whole family when he pays a sincere tribute to the cinema. Although the film impresses on the visual level, it sometimes lacks magic, often arriving too little to dream.
In Paris, where everyone speaks is Hugo (Asa Butterfield), an orphan of 12 years. Having made steal his notebook by an old man (Ben Kingsley), he tries to recover by winning the favor of his god-daughter (Chloe Grace Morentz). There he discovers a magical world that allows you to ask for more: film.
A bit like Roman Polanski with “Oliver Twist”, Martin Scorsese has taken the challenge to tell a simple story which is for children who are still in the bodies of adults. So he feels the memories, the nostalgia of a bygone era, overlapping childhood to infancy of cinema at a time when everything seemed better, without consequence. This is a story that seeks to move in and to impress, while educating about the virtues of the fundamentals of cinema.
It is true that the movie is a wonderful film, at least from an aesthetic and technical. The art direction is impeccable, any use of special effects and beautiful music by Howard Shore. Three-dimensional rendering is probably one of the grandest ever used, beating hands down “Avatar” only in terms of ingenuity and the development of the different layers of depth. It is difficult to imagine any 2D as this would hardly make sense.
The story is adapted from a book by Brian Selznick is not as rich. The first part drags on and the many repetitions are sealed by a rate that is rarely developed. We feel that Scorsese has fun Plogue the maximum loan, tributes and winks, ranging from Dickens to Tati, through Melies. An avalanche of references that may hide holes in terms of the script, developing characters just in passing. They are camped by very good actors (Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Jude Law), but two kids (Chloe Grace Morentz especially Asa Butterfield) who are not always invested in the project. As a result, the attachment is much more difficult.
Having in his hands a rich raw material, the filmmaker uses to good effect, especially in its second half. This gives the only real moments of magic, enchantment and excitement, when the legends of the past emerge from the screen. Chills are many and deserved. The rest of the time, the feeling of being in front of a didactic course on the cinema is too much feeling. In this regard, why not using the voice / channel documentary?
Recalling the above “The Artist” and “Midnight in Paris” in his obsession melancholy to remember times past, “Hugo” could have been a classic or a masterpiece if he could build on its subject rather than simply recreate it so applied, but no genius. But as everything is so beautiful to see, it will be easier to ignore its flaws and promises never made.
