Martin Scorsese loves films. He has made a lot of them, and has dedicated his life to being one of the greatest film makers the industry has ever seen.
Not all his films are to everybody's taste, and so he has finally made the kind of film that his kids can see. But Hugo is different.
Hugo is the kind of movie that kids can see.
But I don't know if they will love it.
This film is sumptuous in design. It is full of pathos and beautifully drawn (if two dimensional) characters. It draws from a rich history of film archetypes and devices. The threat of an orphanage. A mean, crippled ex-soldier. A child with a secret. An old man with a secret.
There is two stories in the narrative. Hugo Cabret and his attempt to reconnect with his dead father through repairing a clockwork man. And then there is the mystery of the angry old man. I am reluctant to really spoil it too hard, though of course all of the reviews I have seen tend to lay it all out on the table. Suffice to say, Scorcese gets to get down and dirty and play around with the history of early cinema. Each of these stories is emotional and deep, but bizarrely lacking connection to each other. There is a slow build to the arc of the combined narratives, but by the end, I was thoroughly invested and entwined with each of the characters.
My prejudice against the futility of the 3D fad meant that I missed out on seeing the magic that Martin created with the new form of cinema. My HT reckons I should have gone back to see it again, it made that much of a significant difference to the experience. But I didn't.
For me, the most magical parts of the film are the flashbacks and example of first generation stories on celluloid. I also loved the sumptuous colour, and the way Paris and the whole Art Deco design make this film so joyful to emerge yourself into.
Mr S said that he wanted to make a film that his kids could watch. And as a film nerd who is pretty immature, I really loved it. But I know kids, and I don't reckon they could sit through it.
Not all his films are to everybody's taste, and so he has finally made the kind of film that his kids can see. But Hugo is different.
Hugo is the kind of movie that kids can see.
But I don't know if they will love it.
This film is sumptuous in design. It is full of pathos and beautifully drawn (if two dimensional) characters. It draws from a rich history of film archetypes and devices. The threat of an orphanage. A mean, crippled ex-soldier. A child with a secret. An old man with a secret.
There is two stories in the narrative. Hugo Cabret and his attempt to reconnect with his dead father through repairing a clockwork man. And then there is the mystery of the angry old man. I am reluctant to really spoil it too hard, though of course all of the reviews I have seen tend to lay it all out on the table. Suffice to say, Scorcese gets to get down and dirty and play around with the history of early cinema. Each of these stories is emotional and deep, but bizarrely lacking connection to each other. There is a slow build to the arc of the combined narratives, but by the end, I was thoroughly invested and entwined with each of the characters.
My prejudice against the futility of the 3D fad meant that I missed out on seeing the magic that Martin created with the new form of cinema. My HT reckons I should have gone back to see it again, it made that much of a significant difference to the experience. But I didn't.
For me, the most magical parts of the film are the flashbacks and example of first generation stories on celluloid. I also loved the sumptuous colour, and the way Paris and the whole Art Deco design make this film so joyful to emerge yourself into.
Mr S said that he wanted to make a film that his kids could watch. And as a film nerd who is pretty immature, I really loved it. But I know kids, and I don't reckon they could sit through it.
No comments:
Post a Comment