Technically marvellous, yet unfortunately disappointing

Rating: 6/10 (2 January 2013)

Maybe I missed something, but this should have been a truly great. Yes, I'm well aware that many have proclaimed it to be exactly that, with numerous critics placing it on their 'top 10 of 2011' lists, however, I cannot say that I was so taken with the 22nd film from Martin Scorsese. The book, by Brian Selznick, upon which this film was based was quite wonderful, an inventive mixture of the graphic novel and the children's book with flourishes no doubt indebted to early cinema. Once it was announced that Scorsese (a favourite of mine) would be adapting it and making what was essentially his first children's film, I was rather excited.
It follows a young orphan named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives alone in a Parisian train station. In his possession lies a mysterious automaton, which arouses the curiosity of the bitter old toymaker Georges (Ben Kingsley) and results in our hero going on an adventure of sorts with Georges' granddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), whilst simultaneously trying to avoid the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen).
It is clear to see that the great director poured his heart and soul into this film, most notably through its exploration of silent films. We see Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd et al, in fantastic clips from old classics. Then we have Georges Melies, who Ben Kingsley's character is revealed to be. He delivers quite possibly the film's best and most touching scene, where he takes Hugo and his granddaughter through his history as filmmaker, making countless silent pictures including his best known work 'A Trip to the Moon'. With all this, Scorsese is paying deep respect to these filmmakers and stars, and subsequently acknowledging the lasting influence they've had on his work. It's just a shame then that film feels so, well, emotionless. Sure, it was a joy to see such classics of the silent era once more, but what does that matter when the main characters aren't engaging on an emotional level? I only found myself longing to watch those films as opposed to the one at hand. Did I care for Hugo? No, not really, and that's what ruined it for me. I knew I was supposed to like these characters and connect with them, but I just didn't.
On the plus side, the film looks absolutely beautiful, as Robert Richardson's cinematography has a consistent majestic elegance throughout, seen no better than in a sweeping opening shot which takes us on a brief trip through the station concluding in a nice introduction to the titular character. Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is as reliable as ever, while the similarly reliable Howard Shore adds another impressive score to his repertoire and John Logan delivers a more-than-solid screenplay. The acting is all fairly consistent also, whether it's Sacha Baron Cohen's moustache-twirling Inspector, Ben Kingsley reflective turn as the brilliant French filmmaker or even Asa Butterfield who successfully holds his own as the lead. It also had a lovely level of innocence, something unfortunately missing from so many children's films today.
So with all aspects of the film so well done, why don't I think it's great? Because it feels as if something is missing, some vital ingredient to give that extra oomph. Similar to a functioning automaton, all its parts work very well and competently, but in the end it's just a bit too mechanical. As I stated earlier, it is clear that this is a movie which means a lot to Scorsese, with it essentially being a well- crafted love letter to early cinema. Unfortunately, he has delivered an odd beast: a deeply personal yet impersonal movie.