The Director's Chair > Martin Scorsese
The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sleepless:
Watched it again last night and it held together much better the second time round. Definitely one of my top few movies of the year and hopefully destined to be a classic.
MrBurgerKing:
--- Quote from: Alexandro on January 28, 2012, 06:43:13 PM ---I'm still pretty vague about how I feel with this movie. I don't know wether to celebrate it's obvious disregard for traditional structure or go with my initial feeling, which was unsatisfactory. Also, the 3d was so good it was distracting. Really, it was just too fucking good. Scorsese has always been flashy and I've always love his films for that so I don't have a problem with the way he really thought out all these shots in 3d to make them work in 3d. But damn it was hard to keep track of things when most of the time I was thinking "holy shit that is so cool".
Beyond that, I agree with the comment about the long pauses between dialogues. That surprised me and put me off because it's so weird coming from the Scorsese-Schoonmaker team. I would bet you could trim 20 minutes of this movies with just those pauses. And most of the Sacha Baron Cohen's stuff was superfluous, particularly his coming back as the bad guy at the end. Some of it was not funny at all.
Yet I also share the sentiment and the experience of being about to cry for at least three times when the movie became about cinema itself. The honesty of the whole thing is almost heartbreaking, and I think Kingsley was really good in this performance. Don't know if anyone has read Ebert's review of this movie but his take on how this could be Scorsese's most personal film, almost autobiographical is pretty spot on.
--- End quote ---
I agree w/the negative side of your review.to me aviator said much more about his love of film and filmmaking. it showed it was a passion. a compulsion. hugo shows it's a diversion. it seemed to be all 'surface' level. it is lecturing you all the time rather than showing you what the movies actually meant to people.
and where did the budget go? aviator lasted 50 years and had tons of detail, a lot longer running time, more locations, actors. hugo somehow cost substantially more than the aviator. I agree that the SBC stuff sucks. I hate how filmmakers are trying to make him into the new Peter Sellers. he ain't that good. maybe I've gotta see Hugo again though.
PS: chicken sandwiches. jkjk
BB:
--- Quote from: MrBurgerKing on April 08, 2012, 08:40:33 PM ---
to me aviator said much more about his love of film and filmmaking. it showed it was a passion. a compulsion. hugo shows it's a diversion.
--- End quote ---
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps that's why Hugo has been so embraced by those who are not "movie people." They don't understand movies being anything more than a diversion. Also, that Hugo tells and tells loudly, where The Aviator shows. It's a more accessible film. Not that The Aviator is really inaccessible. I don't know if this is true of most people, but my non-cinephile friends find The Aviator really boring and/or stupid. The ones who have seen Hugo all liked it a lot.
Jeremy Blackman:
The Aviator was a disaster for me. It managed to be excessive and boring at the same time. DiCaprio's performance annoyed me to no end... "Hey, I'm an actor acting! Look at all my fascinating actorly ticks! Are you prepared for my descent into madness? Check out this awesome accent and all my interesting mannerisms, which cause me to BECOME the character. See how many things I can fit into this deeply affecting performance? I'm basically the new Marlon Brando."
I could be misremembering why I disliked it, though, because of how instantly forgettable it was.
matt35mm:
I wasn't a giant fan of The Aviator, either. I'm not gonna say it was a disaster, as a Scorsese film is always going to be filled with tremendous skill and creativity that will, at the very least, make for some exhilarating moments, even when the script is a big old dumb piece of dumb. But I haven't really fully liked anything that Scorsese has made since Casino... until Hugo, which I love completely.
I don't understand what the hell you guys are talking about regarding it presenting cinema as a diversion. I thought it presented cinema as a magical thing that creative people like Méliès could throw themselves into fully to move and thrill people and invite them to dream.
I'm kinda sad that nobody seems to love this movie as much as I do. I've talked to people who say they like it, but I think it's really really great. Even the people who had fond feelings about it will probably forget about it, but I won't. This is a movie that will stick with me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version