Scorsese on Auto-Pilot

Rating: 3/10 (16 March 2012)

As an avid follower of Scorsese films, I was eager to see his recent film "Hugo". Surely it wouldn't be a bad way to spend two hours, as he is considered to be America's greatest living director. Unfortunately, that claim may be refuted after having witnessed his latest decrepit blunder that is The Invention of Hugo Cabret.
A film revolving around the mystery of an orphaned boy in a 1930s Parisian train station and an old toy shop owner who works there (Ben Kingsley), along with an automaton, has very little in the way of inspiration. What little plot there is could have been told in about five minutes, resulting in a slow-paced drama that ground my interest to a halt less than halfway into the film. What was marketed as an adventure film has almost no elements of excitement either. Most of the action comes from cringe-worthy, slapstick gags that involve a bumbling station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) chasing Hugo. Much of the scenes with this character are rather daft, and I would have considered the child-pleasing antics here to be above that of Scorsese's usual movie-making fare.
During his quest, Hugo is aided by the toy maker's daughter, Isabelle (Chloë Moretz). The chemistry between the two is almost non-existent, with Ms. Moretz' acting being considerably below-par. Every time she uttered a clunky line in her stilted accent caused the inner-viewer within me to wince. Indeed I was unable to find much in the way of redeeming acting here. Just about everyone is shoeing in their performance here, and why a Paris train station is filled with cockney-speaking English people puzzled me.
The art direction in Hugo is nothing to write home about either. The depiction of Paris is nothing you haven't seen before, with much of the imagery revolving around clockwork inventions and old snapshots of early films. The Paris train station predictably has plenty of computer generated smoke and steam to add the required mystical aura to the proceedings. The colour scheme is embossed in Hollywood's usual churn out of teal and orange, and much of the film's visuals are derivative of previous Scorsese works, such as the scenes in "The Aviator" (2004) set in pre-1930.
Thelma Schoonmaker's editing leaves much to be desired as well, and this aspect was the most disappointing for me. Much of the editing lacks any real flow, and causes a disconnect between some scenes. I was confused during some moments as to what was happening and why. The clumsy editing is most apparent in a convoluted dream sequence that makes little to no sense in the context of the story. At times I find it hard to believe this is the same work as that of the wizards who won an Oscar for their editing in "Raging Bull".
Perhaps my main issue with Hugo is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. As a children's film, it is undoubtedly going to bore anyone under the age of 10, and anyone over that age is going to have a tough time having their imagination hooked by the bland visuals and overbearing computer effects that permeate the screen. Indeed, the problem with almost all 3D films sans Avatar is their reliance on the three dimensional medium to bring any sort of merit to watching them. When stripped of this, the lack of interest in the characters, the story, or this world they inhabit causes the film to become a pastiche of what it is supposed to be celebrating. There is little in the way of magic or adventure to be found in here, but if you're looking for a by the numbers trivia on early film history, then "Hugo" might peak your interest.