Quite overrated, but still good for reference nerds

Rating: 7/10 (9 December 2011)

When I went to see Hugo, I was surprised to see the cinema almost empty. When I left, I was no longer surprised.
Hugo is not exactly an entertaining film. Much of it is tediously boring, and too satisfied with itself and its references to old film.
Part of the problem in this film is the 3D. It simply doesn't need it. In fact, I felt it pushed me out of the film. In this sense, Hugo is the anti-Avatar of 3D. Its worst moments recall Turner's colourization of black-and-white film, by 3D-ifying silent film. Ugh. Have some respect, Scorsese.
And, while I was surprised to read about of all the true references the film made, the fact remains that if you don't know about these particular references beforehand, they add nothing to the film. It's like watching Scary Movie. Audiences (particularly audiences of film reviewers) are made to feel smart for getting all the references. But when it comes to plot and character, the film never knows what it wants to be about. Is it about reconnecting with a memory? Is it about making a friend? Is it about restoring a career? Is it about promoting silent film? It feels very much committee-made, devoid of heart, save for a metal one in the form of a key, another gimmick.
There is a thin plot here, about an orphan boy evading forces out to catch him, and finding a new family, rejuvenating it.
I love silent film. I love 3D film. I only sort of like, or tolerate, this film. But I wouldn't say it's bad -- just seriously over-hyped.
So, my advice: DO NOT see it in 3D. But DO see it on cable.