Oscar season has kicked off with Martin Scorsese’s Hugo being nominated for 11 awards; since I had to review something else the week it came out, I thought I’d better pull some overtime and get down to the theatre to see it before I have to start talking about it.  So this weekend, my wife and I headed down to brave buck theatre and see this movie, which is based on Brian Selznick’s (sort of) children’s book (The Adventures of Hugo Cabret).

First of all, I should mention that I saw the 2D version.  Had there been a 3D version, I probably would have avoided it, as I got sick of being burned by bad 3D and decided to only bother with any given film’s 2D version.  However, I have also heard that the 3D in Hugo was the first time since Avatar that any movie has used it well enough to warrant its existence.  Since I didn’t see the 3D, I can’t comment, but I can definitely see where it would have stood out and I would hope that a master like Scorsese wouldn’t do it if he couldn’t pull it off well.

The movie itself is a coincidence too big to believe while keeping a straight face story about an orphan boy named Hugo who lives in a train station in Paris in 1930.  Before his father dies, they are restoring an automaton (a clockwork robot of sorts), which we find out, many years before, belonged to man named George who also happens to work in the train station (if you can swallow that, I’ve got some land I want to sell you).  Joined by George’s ward Isabelle, Hugo sets out to solve the mystery of who George is, and what message his dead father left with the automaton, amongst the characters that populate the train station, the past, and the city of Paris.

I’m hearing a lot of split reviews on Hugo, with some people loving it and some people not liking it at all --- I think the truth lies somewhere in between.  The movie is as brilliant as it is frustrating.  It is a magnificently conceived, eye-poppingly fun, and well acted love letter to the medium of film itself.  However --- most of the story, especially the first 40 minutes or so, simply fails to engage.  It feels like it’s going through the motions, and for all its beauty and wonder, the story and the characters feel hollow and sometimes clichéd (at least earlier in the film).  Near the end, when we start to find out about George, things pick up considerably, but you could re-edit this movie and completely change the first half of the film to considerable improvement.  Hugo takes a heck of a long time to get where it’s ultimately going.

Oddly enough, the movie is actually very factually responsible when it comes to the treatment of George --- I won’t give it away here, but let’s just say George was a real person and his history in the movie is pretty close to real life.  He’s played well by Ben Kingsley.  In fact, all the actors do well, with Asa Butterfield playing the title character and others like Chloe Grace Morentz, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jude Law, Ray Winstone, Helen McCrory, Emily Mortimer, and Christopher Lee peppering the screen with their collective talent.

While I can’t rant and rave about this movie, I do think it’s an amazing family recommendation.  It is a movie that manages to balance an erudite approach with the fun spectacle of movies.  It’s not afraid to teach us about film history or remind us of the books that young children read back in that period --- most Hollywood fare would deem that too pretentious and dumb it down for kids in North America.  Hugo refuses to stoop to that level, while still providing the chills and spills that kids of all ages can respond to.

It’s worth seeing, and it’s double worth seeing if you have kids.  But even with it’s sheer audacity and brilliance, it’s problems with pacing and story in the first half keep it from being the movie of the year.

4 Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.