A conceit wrapped in beautiful affectation.

Rating: 3/10 (11 March 2012)

We all have the power to intuit when something is "off"--a skill discussed at length in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink." With this in mind, there is something more than a little "off" about Hugo. The characterization especially rings untrue, whether it's the kids who are way too advanced for their years and whose actions seem motivated only by the impulses of the scriptwriters; the keystone cop there for slapstick comic relief and a hint of menace; or Papa Georges who is at turns a prick and a pal.
What's also wrong is the way the story reveals itself. It doesn't unfold like a flower, of its own innate potential. It's painted onto the screen (not unlike the picture of the man in the moon drawn by the automaton), purposely confusing but then when it's all suddenly pulled together, we're all expected to gasp in amazement.
The problem is: it's all too unnatural. And at the heart of it all is a giant conceit about how glorious is the "art" of movie-making. "Hugo" is beautiful to just our sense of sight. But with all our faculties engaged, the self-importance of this film's machinations are (in the blink of an eye) annoying.