Brilliant Visuals but Empty Story

Rating: 3/10 (18 December 2011)

Sometimes a movie is presented to an audience with such a build up of expectation, that when a viewer does eventually manage to see it, their expectations allow them to see a better film than what is actually on the screen.
Such is the case with Hugo.
Visually, the film is a masterpiece. The image of Paris of the mid-1920's is exceptional and stunning. The viewer achieves a level of time and place that is authentic and wondrous. At no point are you jarred into the present by a misplaced phrase or image. No disconcerting 21st century idea or philosophy is found in this scenery. For this alone, Hugo deserves an academy award nomination. As well, the 3D is some of the best ever seen. The illusion of 3 dimension is never lost and it adds to the stunning beauty of the film.
That was what was good about Hugo. Unfortunately, it is not enough to compensate for an empty screenplay, unnecessary characters or a lack of vision.
To start with, there is the character of Hugo himself. A young boy, living in a train station in Paris. Brought there by his drunken Uncle after his father is tragically killed, Hugo continues the joint project he and his father were working on, of trying to get an automaton man to work. Hugo steals parts from the toy seller, Georges, in the station to help with this project. After his Uncle disappears one day never to return, Hugo also assumes the duties of repairing and winding the clocks. In this way, he is able to continue to live in the station.
It is about the midpoint of the film, that the viewer realizes Hugo is not the hero of this story. The true hero is Georges, but we don't realize that until about 15 minutes before the movie ends. And this is the single most disappointing aspect of this movie; so many of the characters have no place or business being there. For example; what is the purpose of the character of Isabelle? Outside of being a vehicle that gets Hugo into Georges home, she doesn't seem to serve a much more useful purpose. It is almost as if the film is commenting on this fact when, while standing on a chair to reach a box she and Hugo have found hidden, the chair begins to break but Hugo remains impassive as Isabelle begins to fall. I found myself midway through the movie wondering how long Chloe Grace Moretz spent perfecting an English accent (couldn't have been easy, given as she's from Georgia and has a Southern twang) for such an empty and pointless role.
This is case for character after character in this film. They serve no purpose to the storyline; even as each is presented to the viewer by marvellously talented performers. The station Inspector as played by Sasha Cohen is without argument the most interesting, sympathetic and engaging character in this film. Energy and interest levels rise every time he appears. Yet, he is ultimately wasted. He serves the purpose of providing a element of danger to Hugo, but nothing more. His dog was as useful to this purpose as he was.
Then there is the character of Monsieur Labisse wonderfully managed by Christopher Lee. Labisse doesn't seem to like Hugo although we are never told why. That Lee breathes life and dimension to the character for the short time he is on the screen is a testament to his incredible talent. But sadly his role could have been replaced by a Dewey Decimal card catalogue.
Ultimately, it gradually dawns on the viewer that even the character of Hugo himself serves no real purpose in the film. We never learn enough about him, about the absence of his mother, how deeply he was affected by the death of his father, his feelings for Isabelle or Georges. In the end, we realize that Hugo himself could just as easily been replaced by just about any other character in the film and it would not have affected the storyline at all. We care more about the story of the mute, metallic automaton that Hugo, supposedly, is desperate to fix and less about the boy who is apparently fixing him. But when the automaton eventually does comes to life, we are disappointed by the result. We expected so much more and it delivered so little.
And that sums up this film. When the story eventually plays itself out and we are delivered the overarching plot of the story, we feel the air go out like a deflating balloon. We had hoped for so much more and what we got was so little. The film was presented to the audience as a magic journey that in the end, was little more than a cliché on the wonders of the cinema.
So, in the end, it is up to the viewer to decide if they saw art or just empty visuals. Saying the film was brilliant because of the visuals is fine; the visuals are indeed brilliant. But that doesn't change the emptiness of the story.