3.5 stars out of 5
Are Hugo and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close the same movie? A boy, a key, a search for a message from a dead father. And, if I can trust the reviews of Extremely Loud, both disappointments. What? A disappointment? But you gave it 3.5 stars! And you love Martin Scorsese. You loved Shutter Island, fer crissakes! What can I say, I was underwhelmed.
Not for the first hour, though. There is some magic here, and I was under its spell. I had been a wee bit concerned with Scorsese directing a kids’ movie. He hadn’t even done a lighthearted film since 1985’s After Hours (which I loved, loved, loved). But this has a great feel at the beginning. It was the mood I wanted from the first couple of Harry Potter movies. Likewise, the 3-D early on is handled masterfully, not in a “ooh watch out for that red-hot poker coming right at us!” sort of way, but in giving the film a beautiful sense of depth, as we walk down corridors and enter large spaces. We’ve got our requisite tousle-haired orphan boy, behind-the-scenes clockworks at an old train station, and all is right in the world.
For me, the spell was broken in the movie’s second half. I blame both the source material and Scorsese being too close to the topic at hand. Some stories focus on character, some on plot. This has neither!! (The book won a Caldecott? Really?) The movie’s second hour feels like a Disneyland attraction on the history of motion pictures. Yes, Scorsese, we know you’re obsessed with film preservation. It’s important and we appreciate it. But you don’t have to shove it down our throats, especially after making us pay the 3-D surcharge. (Coincidentally, there seem to be more inside-small-room scenes later in the movie, where the 3-D is generally pointless.) They actually have a character say, “Time has not been kind to old movies.” Oh for crying out loud!!
Performance-wise: Harry and Hermione, er, Hugo and whatever the girl’s name is—are portrayed by Asa Butterfield (whose blue eyes currently have more depth than his acting ability) and Chloe Moretz, whose character loves big words and loves adventure and this all becomes tiresome pretty quickly. There’s no real spark between the two, maybe because the Moretz character seems destined to mature into a lesbian intellectual. Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee add gravitas and do decent work. Borat is here, and has some amusing scenes. Scorsese must like Serious Man Michael Stuhlbarg’s work on Boardwalk Empire, because he shows up smiling and bearded. The usually great Emily Mortimer has very little to do here beyond look adorable. (“Why yes, Mr. Scorsese, I’d be honored to play this important role in your upcoming movie. What’s that? Call you Marty? Well, OK then, Mr. Scor—Marty!“)
It’s a well-made movie. It looks great. There are moments of wonder. Ultimately though, I’m thinking Hugo is best for its intended audience: kids. Maybe some will seek out old-time movies as a result. Perhaps a handful will grow up to be film preservationists. That’s all good. But I don’t know, it all felt a little self-congratulatory to me. Brian Selznick the author giving lip service to the majesty of books but Selznick the lesser relative of silent-movie moguls really playing up the power of film, and Scorsese just lapping it up. A Selznick-Scorsese circle jerk, if you will.
Martin Scorsese has made his love letter to the movies. Few other current filmmakers have earned that right. But grown-up audiences may prefer to just rent Cinema Paradiso instead.
Jack Silbert, curator