Hugo Cabret Goes "Nowhere" in a Hurray!

Rating: 1/10 (4 December 2011)

Hugo Cabret has been so obscenely overrated by many "Bandwagon" Reviewers that it is sickening! Just because Martin Scorssese directs a movie, doesn't make it "great". He's had plenty of lousy directing jobs. But the Hollywood "elite" jump right on the bandwagon to justify anything that Spielberg, Scorsesse, Abrams, etc. do even when they suck. I went for the "godly" reviews but ended up disappointed.
I saw Hugo 3D tonight and found it extremely slow and boring. After 30 minutes the lady next to me kept asking, is it going to get better. I could only nod in agreement. Being that this is tauted as Scorsesse's first family film, I doubt many families would be able to sit through this too lengthy debacle of boredom. At a price tag of about $170,000,000, your grandfather could have been given 2 months of directing lessons and made just as good a movie at half the cost. They spared no expense in making this movie and probably as much in the "hype-up" money spent on marketing.
Better yet, Paramount should have saved 3/4 of the money and had Marty direct a real "family" movie. With a few of Marty's super duper camera angles, throw in 3D, some subdued lighting and dialogueless scenes and it would become a "Masterpiece".
To show how brain dead the media gets with "A" list Directors, Producers and Actors....It surprises me that no one in the media made a single comment about the fact that here are all the main characters born and living in Paris, France, but none of them speak French, nor English with a French Dialect. Instead, they all speak "Bristish English". In Harry Potter it was understandable. Even the inspector who watches over the Train Station. How "unbelievable" can you get. Even Danny Kaye could do a movie in English with a Frech accent and maintain the image. In Hugo, the reality of being in Paris went right down thru the tubes. I guess the Hollywood Elite can do no wrong. I am not surprised that non of the media reviewers commented on the fact that the movie was very different from the book. If it was someone else, they would have lambasted for that departure.
Nothing can justify the blatant dis-honest and subjective accolades given to this film without mentioning it's so many faults. Reviewers are calling it a "Masterpiece". "3D brought to a new level - beyond James Cameron's Avatar" What kind of falsified "BS" is that.
Lawrence of Arabia is a "Masterpiece", Gone with the wind is a Masterpiece. Doctor Zivago, Ben Her, etc, etc. are all considered "Masterpieces". But Hugo? Not in the same class at all. For the price tag - Is the Cinematography pretty....yes. Are the sets beautiful....yes. Does it have a rather dismal feel to the movie....yes. Is the acting exceptional....NO! Ben Kingsly is good in anything he does, he is a seasoned actor and he was very watchable in this movie although somewhat despicable in the beginning. Jude Law had a "blink" and you missed him cameo appearance...so nothing great there. And the 2 kids, well Asa Butterball was marginally interesting. Any good Hollywood actor of 13 or 14 would have done a great job in this movie. There were so many boring moments in the movie where Scorcesse has you look at him for what feels like hours without dialog.
I didn't feel any kinship with the kids characters, no energy or life in the portrayal by Asa Butterfield. I didn't even feel any sense of "pain" from all his loses and how he lives. Somehow Hugo's pain was less important than Ben Kingsley's. More of a coached neutral acting job and with a British Accent no less. Chloe Moretz must have been picked for her french last name, but she didn't speak french or have a french accent either. Her performance was usable, but nothing dynamic. In so many places the film needed more passion and energy, and a nudge over the top, but most were given only as a flat performance. Not sure what the had in mind with these 2 picks, other than not to have them overshadow the "A" lister actors. Very Disappointing performances in a story that called for much more passion and emotion. I saw the reviews on Sacha Baron Cohen....o.k.what was the big deal? He was o.k. at best, nothing exceptional. Just because he didn't do "Bruno's" characterization, doesn't mean he is suddenly the greatest thing since chicken soup.
Hugo is very long and draggy and ends on some Scorcesseish need to expose some "Cinema Verte" Hollywood cliché'experience to sucker in the "drone" reviewers of Hollywood. Or maybe they were all drugged before they saw the movie or paid off. Personally, I like to think for myself. The marketing of this film was also played out with all kinds of games going on. Initial limited distribution, blitzing articles, ads, exposure bought just about everywhere. They must have spent as much on marketing as the film cost. can't go anywhere and not see something about Hugo. I don't agree with buying audiences.
I never fall asleep in a movie so this is my first. I fell asleep 3/4 of the way through it, as it dragged on. Who was this movie was intended for. Was it made to show in a film class about what you can do with a big budget? Was it meant for adults who find long boring dialog in movies interesting, or is it simply an attempt for the director to jumble into a film a whole bunch of stuff and cram out a warm/fuzzy "Cinema Verte-Esq" Genre-ee" from the old days, so that the director could pay homage to something and older people would remember the silent films of yesterday... To borrow a phrase from the Tom Hanks movie "Big"....I don't get it!