A Movie About Movies

Rating: 6/10 (10 March 2013)

Pros: Granted, this movie is derived from a book, which has assumedly fleshed out the world in which the story takes place. I haven't read the book, but I've sampled some of the pictures within it, and there's just no comparison between the illustrations of the book and the visuals of the movie. Coupled with the wonderful visuals is a very deeply interwoven audio track. Each scene practically jumps off of the screen and draws you right into the world Scorsese created. The majority of the plot takes place in a train station in Paris, but given how thoroughly the filmmakers fleshed out that world, you can't help but want to explore more of it.
We're all aware of how Hollywood is jumping all over the 3D bandwagon so that they can charge more for admission. But there are some instances where the technology is actually a useful tool and enhances the storytelling effect. This is one of those instances. The visuals become literally enveloping and greatly aid in the effect of pulling the viewer into the story. They are neither campy and in-your-face nor an afterthought, but instead they create a fully realized world that hugs the viewer in a magical blanket. (...Did I just use the word "magical" in something other than a very literal sense? I'm afraid I did.)
Cons: The rather sizable problem with the movie, however, is that the compelling nature of technological achievements in storytelling is completely at odds with the more traditional storytelling devices, like the script and acting. The audio-visuals are busy sucking me into a world where the story and characters are trying to push me right back out. It's a very conflicting viewing experience, to say the least. The plot is one that I really couldn't care less about, but that could be remedied with a decent script. The main character, Hugo, rarely does anything other than flash those enchantingly bright blue eyes, cry, and say things that are completely void of substance. Little better can be said for the remainder of the ensemble.
The cast sports the likes of Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Sascha Baron Cohen, and Chloe Moretz, but in a vacuum, you would probably conclude that all of these people suck at movies. Moretz plays her character of a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed tyke to an aggravating tee. Cohen falls flat as the comic relief. Kingsley does an alright job, but he suffers from the same problem as the rest of the lot, and the movie as a whole, in that it's aiming to appeal to your average 10 year old. Don't get me wrong; there's a place for movies aimed at 10 year olds. I loved movies when I was 10. But I thought the median age of the Academy votership was 62, not 10. What is this doing as a Best Picture nominee?
Overall: If you really want to watch this movie, I highly recommend forking out the extra cash to see it in 3D. It does the best job in recent memory of completely pulling the viewer into its world, and it's a great example for how 3D can enhance a story. The problem is that enhancing a story from "bad" still doesn't do a whole lot. This is another case where I get the sinking suspicion that the Academy saw a movie about the history of movies and leapt at the opportunity to heap it with praise, even if it was, in some cases, undeserved. While I gag at the fact that it also got a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, I give it a 6 out of 10.