Hugo (2011) - Drama, Family, Fantasy

Hohum Score

98

Hohummer

In Paris in 1931, an orphan named Hugo Cabret, who lives in the walls of a train station, is wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.

IMDB: 7.5
Director: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz
Length: 126 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 167 out of 720 found boring (23.19%)

One-line Reviews (711)

It's boring..

Boring .

The image of Paris of the mid-1920's is exceptional and stunning.

Visually Stunning but Ultimately a Bore.

It is also Scorsese's (very fitting) tribute to cinema and the reason I've concluded abruptly is because I believe this fascinating article should be read – thefilmstage.

To conclude, this film is well worth watching.

FINAL VERDICT: A cute kids movie, nothing great, but entertaining enough to catch it on TV.

He also keeps the audience thinking in the movie,and makes it highly entertaining for the audience, making a perfect movie for a family to see.

– after investigating the source of an intriguing automaton left as his father's legacy upon his terrible death – and the world of the Parisian train station he inhabits.

Also Sacha Baron Cohen who gives a more comical approach to his character shows that he has some acting skills instead of doing dull movies.

A beautiful but woeful, empty film .

I also noticed I got a little bored with the 'steampunk' clockworks and machinery that you see in this movie, the golden compass and likes.

but if you want your heart to decrease it's beat to that of a dolphin knocking on deaths door then go with the incredibly boring & pointless HUGO.

This plot is really interesting and engaging, which is why it's promptly dropped in the middle of the movie for a completely different story.

Before seeing the film, I was a little bit worried about being bored as it had a very long running time.

As a children's film, it is undoubtedly going to bore anyone under the age of 10, and anyone over that age is going to have a tough time having their imagination hooked by the bland visuals and overbearing computer effects that permeate the screen.

A topic that most kids (and some adults, you know who you are:tongue:) would find pretty boring.

The film displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Robert Richardson , winning the Oscar's cinematographic category for this film meaning that he and Vittorio Storaro are the only present living cinematographers to win the award 3 times .

The whole time I was thinking, "what he's doing with camera is amazing, but what he's doing with the story is dull".

It invites you into its story web, and lets the tale unwind in a delightful and often exciting ways.

Excellent, star-studded casting and an engrossing movie.

However, if Scorsese wanted to write about the early history of film why didn't he just do a documentary on it rather than put it around this feeble, boring and at times embarrassing story line.

This film can be thoroughly enjoyed by those who can overlook it's drawn out plot line and appreciate it's visual beauty and wonderful cast.

Zzzzzz .

Even with the great acting and wonderful 3D, the film suffers from a horrendous element of boredom constantly.

I thoroughly enjoyed this stunning film .

Ironic for me is that Scorsese wants to portray this magic world of movies with a Boring ONE.

It started, as most movies do, promisingly enough but by the time the end credits rolled, I was left with an empty, unsatisfied feeling.

While it seemed like an intriguing idea, I was a bit skeptical that a man who has spent almost fifty years in the business directing violent gangster pictures and sweepingly violent period pieces would really be well equipped to direct something that was directed at youngsters.

And like a good Spielberg movie, Hugo is exceedingly well crafted, it's just too slow, too predictable and not very entertaining.

Hugo is very long and draggy and ends on some Scorcesseish need to expose some "Cinema Verte" Hollywood cliché'experience to sucker in the "drone" reviewers of Hollywood.

The imagery is stunning and the use of the 3D technology is handled perfectly.

Some people might even call it boring, I could imaging.

i personally enjoyed it watching with my family.

but these scenes which are totally pointless and just make your eye-lids slowly shut....

Take the under 10's to Arthur Christmas and leave this one to the teens and adults - they will most likely find it visually stunning, breathtaking in fact, if a bit lacking in concrete plot - and there are some pretty big holes in this plot too.

It's ABSOLUTELY predictable .

It starts slow (too slow, honestly) but builds consistently to the climax that, for me at least, delivered tenfold on the promises made throughout the runtime.

I knew the movie was over two hours – only because I was trying to coordinate a double feature of this and The Descendants, but alas this went on far too long – and I truly believed the rest of the movie would be an amazing spectacle of lights, sounds and wondrous adventure.

and yes, long and boring!

What I also found interesting was the thought (by the Lumière brothers among others) that movies would quickly become uninteresting to general audiences again.

ZzzZZzzZzZzz .

It was a very slow movie but the movie had some great visuals and some exciting moments.

Visually stunning.

Damn you Martin Scorsese and your boring film for ruining my trip to see women with large breasts and small hot shorts.

In addition to these, those long scenes about Melies'es old movies are a little boring.

The plot and pacing of the film is fairly good; there is enough unpredictability and room for guessing, as well as a few unexpected twists and secrets to keep the story engaging, however there is a lack of any real significance or importance and the scenario's the characters are placed in seem slightly too trivial to be as entertaining as they could have been.

Hugo - Self Indulgent boredom .

A pretentious film of a overbearing point of view which was not very entertaining.

Two hours is way too long for a 'family' film, this felt like some awful self indulgent Chocolat- esque attempt to do a Jean-Pierre Jeunet type film designed for English speaking, trash watchers.

And slow.

Don't even care how it ends, I skipped over the scenes for the rest of it, and the end seemed as boring as the beginning.

Kinglsey is vicious and uninteresting and I have enjoyed many of his movies.

Wow was that Boring.

From its train station to costumes everything is simply stunning.

I really enjoyed it, but a slow first act and weak performances from the kids mean it's far from perfect.

It entangles the soul in a very compelling manner, and I recommend to see it in the original 3D if you can find it in such projection.

So, in the end, it is up to the viewer to decide if they saw art or just empty visuals.

The story is very good but the movie runs too long and has stretches of boredom, especially when trying to develop subsidiary characters.

I felt like I was supposed to be laughing at the absurdity of some of their lines, for example, Hugo often goes on stunningly dull tangents where he says things like "Maybe I like to fix things, because I feel that everything has a purpose.

A hell boring movie, ran for 2 hours and what happened at the last?

SPOILER - When it was eventually revealed that Sir Ben Kingsley's character was an old movie maker the film did get slightly entertaining as we were effectively given a 20 minute documentary on the early history of film.

The story is too slow to get going, even when it does it just became annoying.

This film relies heavily on your own imagination and I will admit, would probably be quite boring if you lacked any.

The scenes, especially those set among the clockworks, would look too busy and confusing without the 3D camera layering the moving objects.

Every character is so engaging and richly developed that I couldn't possibly praise them all.

This isn't an action packed movie or a laugh a minute, but it does have an engaging story and people may get a kick out of the footage from the early days of cinema.

Otherwise, it's an intriguing film about a strange orphan--an orphan that literally lives within the ductwork and walls of a train station in Paris!

Nothing happens, there is no magic like you would expect or anything giving this film a twist.

Robert Richardson's smooth and dramatic cinematography proves the most stunning and extraordinary aspect of the Hugo filmmaking.

  The story and script was bland leaving no room for anticipation as well boring the audience.

This film leaves the viewer watching ninety minutes of stage preparation and bland information before the story starts; and still, a poorly comprised story at that.

I fell asleep 3/4 of the way through it, as it dragged on.

But, if you are interested in the inner workings of cinema and how our current film industry came to be, then this stunning film is for you!

But alas I am no longer a child and I really, really enjoyed it.

It's a boring tale which you get to see with this film.

Sometimes the story feels disjointed and a little bit rushed.

(By the way, a little known reference to Melies, charming and beautifully done, occurs in the otherwise flawed "Klimt" and is worth watching just for those scenes.

Overall, this movie bored me, I didn't find the trailer fitting to the age group, and deserved a 3 or 4.

You will waste your money, do not watch it.

Centering around a train station and Paris, the environment is simply stunning.

Perhaps, ironically, that's what Scorsese was really aiming for: a stunning visual tribute, to the technical wizardry of an early film pioneer.

I was interested for the first 15 minutes and after that it was like watching paint dry.

Because it is aimed at children as well as adults, the script can sound a little trite to matured ears.

And, on its simpler shape of a family film, Hugo fulfills with its intention of touching, entertaining and teaching us.

But that never happens,the movie has a very slow tempo that never seems to find its pace,and while the two children give very good performances, by the end of it I was left wondering why wasn't I more caring of them.

Maybe I missed it when I nearly fell asleep.

Stunning .

Although HUGO's got a splendid cast, the characters struck me as formulaic and lifeless; it's like watching one of those motion-capture Bob Zemeckis movies, such as THE POLAR EXPRESS or A Christmas CAROL, populated by figures not entirely human who resemble animated Chris Van Allsburg illustrations.

The trailers are extremely misleading as to the actual story and with over 2 hrs runtime, and a story that goes nowhere, it is a VERY boring film.

This movie is visually stunning, even in 2D.

Misleading Boring, No Adventure!.

It was a nice story and I'm sure I would have liked it more had I not been expecting anything, but I kept feeling bored and disappointed, waiting for the "real story" to begin.

The movie becomes better and better, and is really fascinating and touching by the end.

Even if I considered the boy whose beautiful blue eyes stare at you from the screen most of the time, it was life-time boredom....

Though different from his acclaimed films, it's damn entertaining.

Still, there is a lot of business involving Sacha Baron Cohen and other denizens of the train station in which Hugo lives and which serves as the film's principal setting that is tiresome.

All in all it was the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater.

Asa Butterfield, who made a solid debut in THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS, gives a focused and engaging performance as our title character, while Chloe Grace Moretz (Hit Girl in KICK-ASS) is charming as Hugo's wide-eyed, bookish friend, Isabelle.

It is so original and so enjoyable to watch.

I looked at my watch more than the screen, and my 6 year old fell asleep!!!

Well, it was worth watching it.

Hugo posthumously honors the artist's under-appreciated oeuvre, complete with stunning recreations of his avant-garde genre flicks.

A true tribute that gave many movie fans a chance to meet their King in such a fun and exciting way.

Stunning visuals, clever & intricate how they wove history with the plot of the story.

It is a novel with some breathtaking sketches.

I was halfway through the movie and fell asleep (and this happens to me with really bad movies).

Endearing and well-crafted, Hugo resounds with themes of love, family and reunion, making it a satisfying and enjoyable watch.

What a waste of time.

Hugo has an pleasant old fashion feel to through, a good natured mystery about children working together to solve a mystery and showing they are mature enough to handle secret and that it works as a coming of age story.

This is such a self-indulgent film -- why would the filmmakers think anyone would want to watch a film about this narrow niche of history without bothering to make the story or characters interesting?

Overall, I feel that despite Hugo being an irritating character at times, and the plot of his film perhaps lacking the sense of real peril it could have done with, the charming, original and enjoyable style of this movie, portrayed by some strong performances and fantastic visual treats, render Scorcese's first family film a success, that is well worth a couple of hours of anybody's time.

Hugo is an excellent movie,and highly entertaining movie, with good acting from the whole cast,specially Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley,who portrayed their respective roles perfectly.

My 12 year old son fell asleep and my 7 year old daughter drifted in an out of concentration.

The story starts off very slow, with no real direction or initiative.

The cinematography by Robert Richardson is stunning and Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is flawless.

I get it that it makes sense for a Roman-era blockbuster like Gladiator (I'm sure I might fall asleep if I had to listen to Latin in that context).

I didn't, and I was immersed in the wonderful story, which felt like a painting to me, that only directors such as Scorsese, and actors such as Christopher Lee, Sacha Baron Cohen, Emily Mortimer etc. can pull through.

I even attempted my own version of a shot-by-shot re-imagining of A Trip to the Moon, achieved by painting 146 individual canvas screens photographed to appear as though they move; an intensive labor of love that has never seen the light of day.

It's a crying shame that so much talent resulted in such a boring movie.

Mind numbingly boring - The Worst film of 2011 and possibly of all time .

This is a sweet and gentle tale, full of unexpected warmth and depth.

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.

The sets looked like expensive lush sets and nothing more, no relationships, no lead character but extremely poor ensemble, confusing story arc with sections of what might as well be a documentary on early cinema - all wrapped in a bow with, count them, 4 happy endings.

The movie dragged on and in different directions.

I fought through the urge to fall asleep toward the end of the movie.

Having said all that, the film is also entertaining (at least for adults), has excellent production values, etc., etc. All in all, a great film.

Directed by Martin Scorsese, the result is a well-crafted, fine, beautiful and engaging motion picture.

The movie is just that boring.

Two hours wasted on the same locations and in a boring script.

The pic is a magic story with rip-snorting adventures , exciting fantasy , state-of-art FX , sensational scenarios and good feeling .

The trailer looks like the movie for the kids but I think they will feel bored watching the movie because it is a family sentimental drama.

The only negative is perhaps the length of the film as it does feel a little long and boring at times.

If I was a kid I probably would have hated this movie, it would've bored me to death.

Beautiful and stunning fairy tale .

The ingenious and breathtaking sets did not overwhelm the human element.

I was oblivious to the premise being central to this Man; my reasons for talking about were because I was showing him primitive versions of Joan of Arc because I'm always interested in Dreyer's version, but I think that the way it branches out is fascinating.

The visual wonders of the film gave way to incredible boredom.

The narrative is a tribute to that thousands of writers who try to sow THROUGH seed Displayand and so exciting and delusional like reading a book and use your imagination as a screen, by the end is to sow in your soul the desire to excel , dream of a better world.

Anyway on the whole for me the story was interesting and unfolded well, though I will be honest there were points at the beginning before the mystery of the automaton man was solved where I was getting bored as it did begin a bit too slowly.

Hugo is a really good and enjoyable film and definitely worth watching.

If so, either he or Martin forgot that clocks are inherently sleep-inducing.

It's tedious.

Around me audience members kept yawning, and they stirred restlessly in their seats whenever a character launched into another interminable nostalgic reminiscence.

Its just plain dull.

The trailer for Hugo was intriguing, and I expected to see an engaging adventure between 2 children and the automaton.

The simplicity of it is amazing, yet you feel completely immersed and attached to all the characters.

Scorsese's children's movie takes an unexpected detour .

I mean if you can forgive it for it's few tiny flaws, it's slow pace and it's lack of plot you will really enjoy Hugo, it does pay off in the end.

An Empty Candy Wrapper.. .

I saw Hugo 3D tonight and found it extremely slow and boring.

Beautiful and stunning film to watch!

If you like a good family sentimental drama film with slow pace then go and watch it, otherwise skip it.

Attention parents: from the director of Taxi Driver, The Departed, Casino, Good-fellas,and even THE WOLF OF WALL STREET comes one of the most fascinating works of cinematic art for families!

A Pedagogue's Guide to Film Preservation -- and Boredom.

The film is so involving and engrossing that this reviewer became completely entranced, forgetting the outside world in favor of Scorsese's take on a majestic 1930's Paris.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Visually engrossing, Stellar performance and a touching storyline, it's all there to make you sit through this enchanting journey of a revolutionary invention.

I went to see New York, New York, despite antipathy to the two leads, because it was about Jazz in the immediate post-war years; verdict: ho-hum.

well just a waste of my time....

Butterfield as Hugo was alright but I didn't really feel his pain or excitement in some scenes, it was quite bland.

Heartwarming, Breathtaking, Beautiful: An Unusual Scorsese Flick!.

Great shots but you ended up staring at them for a good few minutes with no story or dialog happening.

Gets your attention at first, but gets boring really fast.

While Martin Scorses's Hugo was a huge contender at the 2012 Oscars and took home five statuettes, the average audience member will come away from it thinking it was incredibly long and boring.

There are a lot of unexpected developments and evolutions in the film.

Hugo is a boring movie !.

Was it meant for adults who find long boring dialog in movies interesting, or is it simply an attempt for the director to jumble into a film a whole bunch of stuff and cram out a warm/fuzzy "Cinema Verte-Esq" Genre-ee" from the old days, so that the director could pay homage to something and older people would remember the silent films of yesterday...

after delivering hardcore intense drama, what good can he bring from a child story?

Through Georges, Hugo meets his granddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), an extremely precocious girl who loves books, always tries to fit in new learned vocabulary into her sentences, and finds the orphan boy running the station clocks to be a very intriguing friend.

Instead, he is a fascinating and well-developed character in his own right.

Marketed somewhat misleadingly as a children's fantasy movie, the film unfolds according to this very formula before gradually branching off on a wondrous and unexpected tangent that allows the characters to develop across some of the most beautiful arcs I've ever seen in any film.

I knew it was coming, but how would they erect a film that is made up of mostly stunning pencil illustrations.

The visual effects are simply stunning.

Really enjoyable movie.

The story however, was painfully weak and boring.

Most of the activities take place within an engrossing location in Paris and is mostly confined to a train station which symbolizes the importance of the confinement that is experienced within the some of the characters' lives.

It is a very engaging one and you are really sucked into this story and I found myself really caring for different characters in this movie.

Definitely highly recommended fare for everyone itching for an intelligent, heart- warming and entertaining adventure ride.

Scorsese's clever but sycophantic tribute to early film pioneer submerged by tangential, plodding children's narrative .

So before you caught up in the hype and now the Oscars please don't waste your time.

Boring.

I expected a lot before watching this film but was a bit shocked that I found it sincerely boring.

Incredibly boring...

I have to underline thiz, the whole package is visually stunning!

But what this is, is a vivid and refreshing fairytale that is intriguing and even a bit riveting most of the way through.

slow .

The movie's pace is very slow.

an extraordinarily DULL adventure.

*sigh* Most boring movie seen in recent memory.

The acting -- including a surprisingly poignant performance by Sasha Baron Cohen -- is first rate and engaging.

Cinematography is beautiful and i feel those who would have watched it in 3d would have loved it , what else you can say Scorsese is best in shooting from angles , he makes things look stunning , sound track of the movie throughout the movie fit every scene and setting .

A waste of time and effort - in the making and the watching.

I did think that the first hour or so was rather slow, and although I appreciated that Scorsese was trying to encourage the viewers to embrace the visual cinematography of the movie, it did take rather a long time to get to the point.

The humour is predictable and poorly delivered.

Amazing film-making techniques, especially in 3D, but remarkably boring.

(There is nothing objectionable for kids, but some younger children might get bored during certain parts).

What seems really exciting and inviting in the posters and ads is cold and dull in the actual film.

It is a wonderful and engaging film which I will show my children when they are a little older and I am certain they will fall in love with cinema in the same way their father need did so many years ago.

It reminded me of the movie The Road to Wellville (1994) which similarly immersed the audience in another time and period through its visual fineness and its portraying of genuine historical figures like the Kellogg brothers of Battle Creek circa 1900-1910,about the same turn of the century time as Hugo.

Please don't waste your money.

The chief among these lies with the slow, stately pacing which is simply dull in a number of particularly slow spots.

This story drags itself for far too long and does not deliver.

Finally, I Think this is bound to get many Oscars after getting 11 nominations,and anyone will find it highly entertaining.

It was a fast paced trailer, full of CGI and running around.

The Train at least an honorable, if sometimes risible tombeau; Hugo filled with old-fashioned Anglo stereotypes of Frenchiness - so, disrespectful as well as shabby and false, and therefore utterly boring.

The problem is, the magical visuals cannot make up for the drab and very UN-magical story.

This is a thirty minute movie drawn out to over two hours, and that is it's major flaw.

Considering this film is advertised as a family film it is bound to bore children with a short attention span, which is basically every child.

Yet with the misleading advertising, the story that goes nowhere, and with over 2 hour runtime it is one hell of a boring movie.

It is intriguing that at least three movies nominated to the Oscar 2012 have points in common: "The Artist" is a film about the transition from the silent movie to the spoken films; "Hugo" is set in Paris in the late 20's and has references to actors, actresses and directors of the silent movies; and "Midnight in Paris" is also set in Paris in the 20's.

It was sooooooo boring and rubbish that my brain literally went numb - I feel extremely sorry for any children who were forced to sit through this by their parents.

It may simply look like a very gorgeous film, with some intriguing characters and a total lack of a cohesive story.

The movie overuses depth as the convenient excuse for slow pacing like the epic "Benjamin Button" bore did, and sometimes, I really waited for something to happen, and it has nothing to do with violence, explosion, 'kiss kiss' or 'bang, bang' … just some action, drama, and I'm not counting the subplot with the buffoonish police officer (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his dog, probably the most embarrassing moments of the film.

The story is far too slow, and not very engaging.

brilliant 3D - exceptionally dull story telling .

We are hooked by who these fascinating characters are and then with each act their stories and motives unfold with utter clarity.

Hugo is a stunning film; Im a 20 year old journalist working for a company that gives parents suggestive, appropriate entertainment for there little ones.

The background score was very monotonous and boring.

From the breathtaking opening bird's eye shot of Paris, to the inspiring visuals, the film has more than a handful to bargain for.

The station inspector was also a clever and entertaining character.

Why would Scorsese pay tribute to an industry that at this very moment in time consists of nothing but derivative, repetitive trash?

that is true, as in you will be dreaming as you will fall asleep.

But, as time goes on, you see why the beginning started off slow.

Bad interpretation of French culture, horrible horrible boring meaningless dialogs.

The opening scene, as we see the camera 'zoom' through Paris to the intricacies of the train station is breathtaking, and it retains that high standard throughout.

A visually beautiful but boring documentary about an early movie pioneer .

However, Hugo's 3-D effects are stunning and really make you feel part of the scenes.

Baron Sasha Cohen is boring.

Worth the watch.

Scenes from early silent films shown in the movie are Méliès's actual works, such as Le voyage dans la lune (1902), and they are stunning.

I thought that the entire movie was so dull and boring that I actually napped for a few minutes here and there, just to get through it.

But those on Scorsese's wavelength will receive an exciting and elaborate history lesson.

There is a mystery in this movie and watching this mystery slowly get more and more revealed is engaging, interesting, exciting and fun.

Snooze Fest ...

I was honestly excited to see this movie because it seemed very exciting, but it ended up being a movie you could watch in the afternoon and end up falling asleep from boredom.

It does get a little tiresome.

Too bad these potentially interesting characters had an immensely uninteresting story to work with.

He was snubbed when he made Casino and other masterpieces and now the academy is feeling guilty, or they get a cut from the procedures, either way, this was the biggest waste of money since Polar Express.

While it is entertaining there is very little else.

I also found the film rather slow and in places the music was intrusive.

"Hugo," an obvious labour of love for Scorcese, has all the right elements, from excellent performances (yes, even from a handsome Sacha Baron Cohen) to a well-written script to an exceptionally visually stunning 3D experience.

I still found it very difficult to get through the first hour, which was slow-paced and confusing to say the least.

He is caught by a rather glum Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) who runs a toy store while bemoaning his current lack of the thrill of living, despite the nurturing he receives from his wife (Helen McCrory) and his adopted daughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) who longs for adventures.

but the storyline is dead boring.

These are breathtaking, as they play, one after another, showing us the sense of wonder original audiences must have experienced.

Hugo's view of 1931 Paris from on top of the clock tower truly is breathtaking.

Hugo has the rare quality of being boring to both youth and adults.

Reading some of the comments here, it appears the advertising for this was somewhat misleading, so people left the theater disappointed.

The visual effects are top-notch beautiful, the sound is breathtaking, the 3-D puts you right in the middle of the action, and the art direction feels like stepping into a storybook.

The worst film any of the actors have ever taken part in, the accents are just so bad, no attempt to even remotely sound french, Baron-Cohen looks like Arthur Bostrom from 'Allo Allo' but sounds as wooden and boring as he acts in this film, he is just pointless.

Nominations for art direction and cinematography are easily justified with visually stunning aesthetics of 1930's Paris.

It also had quite a slow pacing.

Unfortunately an empty dream.

The story of the automaton that the boy's father left to him is supposed to be touching, but it becomes dreary.

The performances are great, it's visually stunning, and there's a beautiful tracking shot, but this is not enough to carry a long, boring endeavor that will ultimately leave a lot of audiences frustrated.

Hugo was a decent film with stellar cinematography, great actors and an intriguing, almost, fairy tale story.

Annoying characters and an unimaginably boring story .

I guess because I fell asleep after 1 hour watching it.

This boy wizard's talents are rooted in the mundane art of clockwork and Voldemort is a peg-legged station inspector (with an excellent low-key performance from the wonderful Sacha Baron Cohen).

It is so incredibly predictable, of the kind that is only seen in small children's movies.

I would say to save your money on this.

snore .

it will cure your insomnia .

Good-Looking but Dreary .

In 2-color Technicolor, did you ever see anything back-lit or with intense contrast or white glare?

The family crowds will probably enjoy it, but younger children will likely be put off by it's slow pacing and lack of excitement.

Enjoyable.

The movie just strain way too much for effect and instead of swaying people it bores them.

Dull, long and 3D as bad as ever .

I would pay to see him do a documentary on early film makers or his favorite films, because he has clearly dedicated his life to this study, and anything he put together would surely be fascinating.

It tells its story interwoven with a fascinating history lesson about Georges Méliès, an innovative French filmmaker.

Howard Shore has done it again with Hugo, created a wonderful score that aids in putting the audience in this fascinating world and era, similar to what he did for The Aviator and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings saga.

He is best known directing intense dramas like Taxi Driver(1976), Raging Bull(1980), The Departed(2006), and Shutter Island(2010) to name a few.

Mostly, it is a boring movie.

Extremely Entertaining and another masterpiece from Scorsese.

Every time she spoke she talked I wanted to leave the theater, because her tone sounded so mushy and overly-emotional.

It's boring, serious, and just a whole bunch of CGI with no meaning.

The imagery and story itself feel as though you are in a dream which makes the contrived plot acceptable.

His performance in Hugo is hilarious and quite enjoyable.

The cast is solid if somewhat underused in this visual mechanical Parisian extravaganza spectacle, but it well worth watching as pure entertainment - and that is really OK!

It lacks the script to make a compelling narrative out of the basic premise and it goes on much too long.

a film about discover of world in a personal, gentle, fascinating manner.

Superficially entertaining, one-dimensional, simplistic story with amazing cinematography .

The young star Asa Butterfield, with sad eyes and a curiously insightful expression, while looking the part makes for a somewhat bland title character.

Do you want to watch a beautifully written, directed and just in all enjoyable film then I must recommend Hugo.

Of course, the more surprising aspect of this film was how Martin Scorsese was able to make such an entertaining (and family-friendly) film that didn't involve the mafia at all.

In fact, I'd sum up the first half, which revolves around young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) as confusing at best, with a direction and purpose that was mystifying - at least to me.

leads u boring at many places .....

Anyway, I saw this movie in regular old boring 2D at a local theatre which hasn't changed much since its days as a Nickelodeon.

All the action scenes are in it, all the dull and bizarre rigmarole (which takes the other 140 minutes) is left out.

Hugo is dubbed as a family/kids movie, but after seeing it, I believe any child watching it would find it boring and uninteresting.

Hugo is visually stunning piece, even for someone like me, who has no stereopsis and therefore can't appreciate the 3D effects.

For once, the conflict between Hugo and the girl in the movie is just boring!

Boring, Boring, Boring .

Some people find it boring and painful, others are mesmerized and inspired by the story it tells and the way it does so.

worst movie ever .

Nothing more comes of this, making the whole second scene pointless.

To prove the idea that movies are made to carry us away, Scorsese simply creates another world, the world that feels like comfortable and enjoyable to live in.

The story is very slow.

The story is so boring and predictable my wife and I contemplated leaving early.

We have then a simple story but an intense dancing of signs, images and languages, through a timeless and endless story, if you wish.

The most boring, lame, slow and predictable movie ever made .

The story is also not what I expected even though I liked the movie-history lesson, but I wanted something bigger and more exciting.

What it is is a visually stunning 3D ode to the art form Scorcese loves the most: film.

Unfortunately he forgot to give us a compelling story.

It's probably something that is fascinating to Scorsese.

The cinematography was stunning.

This is a slow and ponderous elephant of a film with some interesting 3D technical aspects.

Still, I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed it immensely, and I feel it is the best film I've seen since the film version of CHICAGO hit the screens back in 2002.

The Lumière brothers' invention,the cinema, is a machine and the purpose of this phenomenal and stunning machine is to move our feelings and to amaze us.

Its breathtaking.

Sacha Baron Cohen is a bit subdued, even dull (by his standards), as the Station Inspector - possibly miscast.

It is a very entertaining and very visually pleasing movie.

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.

The cinematography was stunning, particularly loved the winter tundra aesthetic.

The portrait of the relationship between George and the Jeanne is stunning.

Meant to be visually stunning, it fell a little short to my expectations.

The robot was the most exciting character.

The way of storytelling and the story itself is still somewhat lacking, which doesn't always make this a throughout fun, entertaining or compelling movie to watch and you feel that the movie is still lacking a certain edge to it all.

Also the way Paris is being portrayed, the view from clock tower from were Hugo stands is quite breathtaking, he train station itself, and the costumes are all Oscar worthy.

On top of that, it is painfully slow and boring.

Visually Stunning.

Yawn.

This film is just one tired cliché after another of such stuff.

What a colossal waste of Time.

Lush, beautiful to watch, great acting but a tad boring in parts.

But I fear that this movie suffers too much from lack of focus; children will miss the different layers and will probably be bored and the storytelling will leave adults something to wish for.

Immersed every fiber of myself was tingling with vibration only experienced by the first movie watchers.

VERDICT: Both an enthralling mystery and a beautiful love letter to cinema, Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is a visually stunning and emotionally satisfying nostalgia experience for young and old.

Engaging, Wonderful, Entertaining .

Filled with mystery, dreams, fantasy and sleight of hand, this is a film anyone should see with a sense of adventure and/or a passion for cinema and how this intriguing realm unfolded.

Like I said I'm sure young children will be more than fascinated by the movie but older teens, as well as adults, will probably be a little bored.

The movie is supposed to be a "family movie" and Scorsese's first movie for kids, but I find it hard to imagine that many children would have the patience to enjoy a movie so dull that even the climax seemed bland and monotonous.

Filmmaking genius Martin Scorsese takes on 3-D with aplomb in this highly visually entertaining adaptation of Brian Selznick's book about the titularly orphaned young lad (newcomer Butterfield) who discovers a whole new world from his introverted tragic one – cinema!

I've just sat through the film and it kept my attention through every second and enjoyed it thoroughly!

In some aspects the movie seemed to lean more for the adult audiences to the point I can see why the kids might get bored watching this sometimes.

I am offended at how bad this movie is compared to the PR machines propaganda.

A story about two kids adventure and tying in a backstory of Méliès life fascinating.

It's a 20 minute story dragged out for more than 2 hours at a snails pace and with little or no sense of mystery.

While the movie can seem almost too much like a homage sometimes, it still maintains its focus for the most part and delivers a thrilling, inspired, and positive adventure.

Action sequences up the gee-whiz factor, but Scorsese's most compelling use of the gimmick is also among his most subtle; touches like adding the effect to Méliès' films has the revelatory effect of making history come alive.

I do think it was rather predictable in ways, which is to be somewhat expected as a family film.

His parts are the stuff of the "B-plotline", but it's still entertaining stuff, and gives a little time to spare between the tragedy that is Hugo's early life (the death of his father played by Jude Law) and the tragedy of Papa Georges' life (when Stuhlbarg shows the surviving film reels to Hugo and others, it's a bittersweet, touching moment, so rare in films these days in general).

It's boring (I considered leaving a few times), heavy handed, simplistic and slow.

Though the plot is routinely jabbing in unexpected new directions, it's all done with a purpose and everything comes together beautifully in time for the closing credits.

Even from the opening shot of the film, as the intricate mechanics of a clock fade into the stunning night streets of Paris, it becomes very obvious that Hugo is far from a career misfire for Scorsese.

The storyline is nothing to write home about and I don't know how so many people liked this movie, perhaps teenagers did it because to me this was clearly unwatchable.

While the film was semi-realistic, it also had a magic vibe to it which made it much more intriguing.

Therefore, the film's weaknesses are its slow pace and far-from-sharp editing.

The compelling story will resonate with most people.

The cinematography and scenery are gorgeous visuals with some stunning views and the musical scores throughout are pitch perfect.

If your going to take a group of children think again as they may find it boring.

The Scorcese technique of following his actors down hallways, up staircases and through crowds becomes stunning with the 3D camera.

Anyway, how fascinating of the train station will be in my memory forever!

Every single object became part of the story, and the audience became immersed in this beautiful world created by Martin Scorsese and Brian Selznick.

brilliant movie but a little slow to start with .

Yes, "Hugo" is a tale, but it is more a superficially entertaining, unoriginal tale a-la Spielberg than a visionary, thought provoking tale with a deep meaning.

The second time you're just blown away by not only the beauty of the opening scene, but also by the structure and art of it as the breathtaking tracking shot focuses on nearly every major and minor character in the film.

When I told my girlfriend that the film has now been nominated for 11 Academy awards we wondered if we had seen the same film as the Academy members as to our recollection it was self indulgent dross.

It may have been an attempt to bridge any gaps but to me it just felt out of place, self-indulgent and jarred too much with everything else.

Confusing.

The story sometimes gets slow, although it's entertaining throughout, the delightful performances of all the actors spice up the film, it's inspirational, it's wonderfully done, charming and touching.

This movie is also one of the SLOWEST movies in the whole of the history of movies.

The music, at times fast and other times slow were consistent with the tempo of the movie.

It starts boring henceforth.

From there, it becomes a self-indulgent tale about a filmmaker.

The "plot" is confusing, the script seems to be more dictated over a cell phone than written, the lead character looks like an animated corpse, and it is DULL, DULL, DULL, DULL, DULL.

Worst movie ever.

But the film is boring most of the times.

It's too long and it's dull.

After an incredible 3D opening sequence you get the most boring nonsense since AI, If you like AI and Amelie, you'll probably like Hugo to!

Although I was not fortunate enough to view the movie in 3-D, the scenery is breathtaking and the camera shots are equally so.

Adapted from Brian Selznick's book The Adventures of Hugo Cabret is a film in two indistinct halves: one simple, slow and enigmatic, elevated by astonishing visuals, the other more pacey and fascinatingly complex, with more of a focus on story; one exploring the wonders of machinery, the other delving into the rich world of early cinema.

If I was to pick a few words/phrases to describe the movie, I'd choose: cute, nostalgic, unexpected story transition, not about murderous robots, too long

The train station is full of people, it has an intense movement and there is a lot of activities going on, as Scorsese said, everybody is searching for something about their lives.

Aside from the stunning acting and art direction, I wished he hired more French actors and actresses.

Told more like a fairy-tale, it goes on at its own slow pace as it takes you through the characters' minds and situations.

These images overshadow anything remotely important for children to learn and the subplots cause the film to drag even more than it already does, boring them in the process.

You keep thinking the plot itself is going to get deep and interesting, but it just remains shallow and somewhat predictable (even for a kids movie).

Hugo is a visually stunning film.

If you like slow burning mysteries, there's a lot to like here for you.

The directing is stunning and the cinematography (especially in eye-popping 3D) is spectacular.

the splendor or this train station as well as the detailed gears and workings of the clocks - everything was simply breathtaking.

Even to say that "Hugo" is visually stunning is a tremendous understatement.

PLEASE don't waste your money and go sit 2 hours of the MOST BORING MOVIE in history.

I like it much more than "The Artist " which for me is incredibly dull , boring , heartless and soulless movie.

The quick interpolation of clips from Méliès's films in "Hugo", however, may give an impression counter to the actual slow pacing of his tableaux.

The art direction and costumes are breathtaking, immersing the audience in the right period, though it has barely any of the charm and magic that made another film set Paris this year so successful.

In 50+ years of film-going this is one of the most engaging movies I've ever seen.

The visual effects are exciting and awe-inspiring, especially for those dazzled by color and intricacy (read: children).

Director Martin Scorsese's way of bringing this notion to life is labor intensive, to say the least, obsessed with busy-ness and maze-like detail.

The period sets and costumes are flawless, feeling authentic with a slight touch of whimsy that adds to the film's fantastical, dreamlike atmosphere, and the many shots overlooking Paris are simply breathtaking.

In the end I must say, the movie starts off exciting till half way and falls abruptly and ends as an overall boring movie.

first of all, the movie is too long for its scope.

Half of it dragged on about the old man making movies and boring stories.

While the artist is charming, novel, and well done, the story is utterly simplistic and predictable, it was too long and became a bit tedious and for me, like most not worthy of a second viewing.

What I do know is that if you can overlook the story that drags a bit and the unnecessary 3D effects, you will probably find the film to be quite entertaining and fun to watch.

Unfortunately, it was also monumentally boring.

The visuals are beautiful but it is so strangely unwatchable..

At onset, I had great enthusiasm with the opening scene phasing into reality with sumptuous visuals and engaging, intricate set composition.

Martin Scorsese's worst movie ever.

There is no plot change in this movie.

I took the family to see this and we were led to believe this was a fantastic fantasy adventure ( according to the previews ) It started slow, crawled along and fizzled at the end.

The script was unrealistic, the acting of the two young characters was bad, but worse of all is the plot - it is barely there so the whole film is padded out with pointless little stories and scenes.

Moves slower than molasses in January.

Performances are engaging.

The visual effects are stunning, maybe more so in 3D than in normal 2D.

The camera-work is sometimes breathtaking and the replication of Paris circa 1930, although artificial in a CGI way, is nonetheless impressive.

What's left is a confused yawn-inducing hash of a film that should only have won an Oscar for 'Movie most likely to cure insomnia'.

When I am fighting the urge to pass out during one of the most highly anticipated films of the year because I am bored to tears, then there is clearly an issue.

Boring .

But actually what we got was a self indulgent, art-house , overly long, boring film that was a big relief to all including the children when it ended.

While the movie is appropriate for children, how long is too long?

Thankfully, the film fell into the hands of a director who knows the game of cinema inside and out and because of that he gives Hugo the stunning treatment it deserves.

Ben Kingsley is uninspiring.

And that's because this is a BORING film.

Some say it wasn't realistic, but I've seen very few movies that are and were capable of being entertaining as well.

The film was slow and at times seemed uninspired, the film's one dimensional characters and many pointless subplots didn't help bring it back to life.

it seems like a children movie but it has the quality of entertaining everyone.

Cohen has great chemistry with Emily Mortimer, who needed a little bit more screen time to make their relationships more empathetic but doing so may retract from the point of the film, nevertheless it's entertaining.

Initially I found the boy living in a train station intriguing and his automaton fascinating.

It's like a film history lesson made in a very entertaining way.

Visually Stunning .

Boring.

"Hugo" is a magical fantasy/fairy-tale, filled with absorbing characters, earnest emotional story lines, dream- like decors and hi-tech special effects that actually emphasize the plot details rather than diverting your attention from the plot holes.

In that other film, all the scenes in the various periods are evocative and involving.

I found myself bored at many points during the film—the story seems to linger a bit too much, allowing the viewer to appreciate (almost excessively so) the aesthetic and nostalgic beauty of the film.

I found this to be incredibly engaging.

Combine this with the slow pacing, and after an hour I realized I was hopelessly bored.

" Those art shots simply make this otherwise gently entertaining film 20 minutes TOO LONG.

This is the best movie I've seen all year, and I highly recommend it.

Ben Kingsley as Georges Méliès, Asa Butterfield as Hugo, Jude Law as Hugo's father – everybody performed to their best, delivering stunning and breathtaking show.

Overall, the magical, engaging adventure the trailers promised does not exist.

I was lulled to sleep by the first 30 minutes of the film by the slow motion and lack of character/plot development.

The period setting and particularly the workings of young Hugo Cabret's (Asa Butterfield) clock tower home were visually stunning to me; all those gears and wheels working together harmoniously together conveyed a sense of logic and purpose to the unfolding story.

Whereas, on the other hand, it is an empty candy wrapper.

The Minuses: A little slow the first 10-15 minutes, and a British accent, in France??

The cinematography while inside the bowels of the train station are simply stunning.

This all in all makes for a really enjoyable film, the film its self is beautiful, given the chance, i would love to see how good it would look on Blu ray.

It was supposed to be entertaining but I had to entertain myself with cellphone games 1 hour into the movie as nothing happened after a lot of waiting.

I can understand why some children complained and found it boring.

It was beautiful, breathtaking, marvelous,exhilarating, and above all magical.

The beige-orange colour used in the film created a great feel of the 1930s and each set was compelling, showing that a tremendous amount of energy went into creating the film.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz just about sums this one up perfectly.

An Oscar-grab for Scorcese, 2 hours of boredom for viewers .

A resplendently sweeping opening shot that promised of an exceptional film with complex themes completely took unexpected turns for the worse.

Breathtaking .

What self indulgent tripe.

What comes from a sensational story based on the screenplay by John Logan (who last collaborated with Martin Scorcese in 'The Aviator') along with Brian Selznick's novel must come some engaging characters and performances.

This film was a complete snooze fest from about 5 minutes in all the way to the anticlimactic ending.

There is quite a few dark/tense moments in the film as well as, like I said, confusing moments.

Details such as the camera's swift turns and dips in a fast-paced navigation through stylistically designed cascading snow-covered rooftops, jungles of clockwork and fast-moving steam trains make every scene utterly captivating.

Hugo is a unique, visually stunning, and beautifully performed fairy tale that weaves together the true story of a cinematic genius with folklore and fantasy.

I watched this with my 10 year old son who had trouble staying awake.

Everything about it was slow and dragged out, every single dialogue, chase and travel shot.

So as Hugo and Isabelle(Chloe Moretz), George's granddaughter, investigate, the film turns into a film history lesson, and that's only part of what makes Hugo so fascinating.

Quite an ordinary plot blown way outta proportion in a boring manner.

Mechanical and formulaic trash .

Martin Scorsese is a wonderful filmmaker, which just adds to my confusion about how bad this movie was.

They may not be perfect(let's be honest, there's really no such thing as a "perfect" movie, one man's trash is another man's treasure),but they are entertaining and work on a fair level for me, and I am willing to suggest them to others.

It's so slow and its not as if there is anything for it to get going about.

This movie is and easy going, enjoyable movie.

I highly recommend it to everyone!

Disjointed...

I consider it a very personal tribute from Martin Scorsese to the pioneers of cinema but for me it was two hours of sheer frustration, boredom and disappointment.

Hugo is a fantastic film it absolutely nails everything on a technical level and has wonderful performances the central mystery is intriguing and it's so great to see such a legendary director get out of his comfort zone.

Scorsese also has to re-learn the use of editing as the movie is too long by at least a half hour, and the pace limps slower than the villainous station cop's leg.

A long boring wait for something that never came.

Exciting, fun, adventurous, thrilling and inventive.

It is really worth watching just for that.

"Hugo Cabret's story was told so well that it felt like you were right there with him on his stunning adventure.

Based off the book "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", which is a stunning mix of hand drawings and writing, and set in 1920s Paris, the film "Hugo" tells the story of Hugo Cabret, a young orphan who works and lives in the clock tower of a train station, which is ruled by a ruthless inspector, and is also where he has been stealing several toys for their parts to fix a broken automaton, made for the movies of Georges Méilès.

He makes it fascinating to the audience.

There is some stunning cinematography here, all the shots of the automaton are jaw dropping, the station too, and there's some great acting too , Chloe just oozes vibrancy into her role, conveys a sincerity and believable quality to her performance, and Asa has his moments too.

This enjoyable story is lavishly produced by Johnny Depp , Barbara De Fina and the same Scorsese .

It is all at once a poignant family film, a coming of age film, an adventure epic, and an extremely personal homage.

So entirely disappointed by the most boring movie ever.

It's not a soaring, thrilling adventure that we usually get.

Apart from that, as i said, It is an empty candy wrapper !

This film is very enjoyable.

As a fan of cinema, I found it to be fascinating.

It will be studied mainly for its stunning technical achievements, its excellent use of the 3-D medium, and its colorful lessons in film history.

This is one of the worst movies I have seen in my life.

A cinematic wonderland of sterling scenic splendors of Paris, a train station, and Hugo's curiosity that leads to a superb blend of intriguing characters and awe-inspiring discoveries, both for Hugo and the movie audience.

On the plus side this film's set design is quite stunning.

Sometimes that is the death knell of having a movie being enjoyable.

It's draggy and boring.

On a further note, Scorsese noticeably uses the long tracking shot in the film twice more, once subsequent to the one aforementioned where it follows Hugo travelling down the clock (effective because Scorsese is taking the audience on the adventure with Hugo) and once near the end, taking the audience around one room (I won't spoil by describing what happens, because this shot is the conclusion of everyone's story in the film) – this timelessly impressive technique and the cinematography in general is beautiful, it's part of why Hugo is enjoyable.

The movie should captivate most children and the visuals are amazing but it's a little too slow paced and emotionally uninvolving to hold the attention of most moviegoers I'd say.

I'm fan of Scorcese, but this is way too boring.

Soooo boring.

Seeing the mundane jobs of characters who do not have a place in the story takes away from the precious time Martin Scorsese had for character and story development needed to make this a good movie.

" It's flat boring, boring, boring with no substantial storyline to draw you in.

They did good job in some way however it was sooooooo boring and I am sure it cannot be a child movie.

At 2hrs long i was expecting it to drag more but it didn't, the cinematography was fantastic, the story itself was light but enjoyable, doesn't take itself too seriously.....

Apart from stunning visuals, fine acting and a well narrated story, the heart of this film lies in the homage it pays towards movies as an art form.

Scorcese directing a kids movie seems like a weird move, but the master of telling intense crime dramas handles this challenge with ease.

So very slow and boring with no excitement or promise thereof.

*Do* take your children because if they can sit through this they mightn't be as willing to consume the tired, formulaic excuse for films that we get bombarded with nowadays.

With a running time of just over two hours, this film can tend to drag on quite bit with unnecessary scenes that are dragged on.

Enjoyable and visually beautiful .

Having just watched it, I can instead report that it's the director's worst film to date, an overblown and deathly dull outing that disappoints from the outset.

Performances of child actors are also stunning.

It is sooo boring and the acting and storytelling is like watching a robot trying to act.

This film was a big disappointment as it is a very dull and boring story with very bad acting and is definitely not 7.8/10 the most I would give it is 6/10 as even though it is a bad movie, it will be a fun family movie with some good scenes and animations...

As the mysterious, old man, Ben Kingsley provides the gravitas to flesh out a character that at first seems dull and lonely, whose past catches up and reveals a lifetime of hope and genius heretofore forgotten by the public until Hugo and Isabelle rediscover it.

When you take "Hugo" as a whole, I don't know, but you realize that many parts indeed drag too long, that the pacing is slow and not 'Kubrick' slow, it's slow as we're always ahead of the characters, especially the two kids.

This is a rarity - a film that both pays homage to film and is enjoyable for ALL ages.

Picturesque but surprisingly dreary .

Well, it goes down like a very boring high school class in film history.

But I left the theater thinking of similarities with Cinema Paradiso - the clips of film so lovingly edited out and then reconstituted by Alfredo the projectionist shown to Salvatore in CP, and those of Melies in Hugo...

As Robert Richardson's stunning cinematography glides through the platforms, we are introduced to an eclectic group of people, ranging from a sweet flower girl (Emily Mortimer, Shutter Island) to the quiet owner of a bookshop (Christopher Lee, The Lord of the Rings) to Salvador Dali himself (a brief cameo from Ben Addis).

What sets 'Hugo' apart from other 3D movies, and one of the reasons I enjoyed it, is that it's a 3D movie about 3D movies.

My boyfriend actually fell asleep.

As I've said before, the breathtaking 3D imagery of the vague early passages prevents the audience from drifting off or becoming impatient.

Sadly I was extremely disappointed and bored to tears while watching this movie.

Its damned boring!

It seems in many ways to be an homage to the history of filmmaking in the manner in which the rather disjointed story is presented.

The amazing visuals kind of overwhelm the other aspects of it, but it was still enjoyable to watch.

Martin Scorsese's most recent film is touching, exciting, and remarkably beautiful.

It packs amazing fantasy , breathtaking adventures and overwhelming images that convey us a sense of wonder and surprise .

It claims to be some fantastical adventure, but it's boring, and the good-ol' family fairytale that could and should be there takes second billing to Marty's nod to what inspired him as a filmmaker all those decades ago.

It was the most enjoyable theater experience that I've ever had.

I couldn't ruin this film by telling you the ending, it is so bloody dull.

I mean before seeing the movie, looking at IMDb and the trailer, I was expecting a very thrilling fantastic story with wonderful 3D effects.

Before seeing the film I read and loved the stunning and unique book with art that captivated my imagination.

Beautiful sets and costumes, alongside stunning CG/3D technology transport us into the visually wondrous world of Hugo.

Hugo Is Hugely Entertaining .

Hugo Cabret is an exciting and passionate study on the evolution of narrative through images.

They will be bored to tears, they won't be able to follow the meandering, thin story, and there's not any action to get them through it.

For me it was just a colossal waste of time and i am extremely disappointed.

The Time period and The George's problem was unexpected and I loved having a bit of history and old footage from the old films and the "story" from the past.

Worst Movie I have seen in years .

What a waste of time!

The dialogue was weak, and the acting was bland and uninspiring.

I can't remember the last time I walked out on a movie.

The result is stunning and will not disappoint the audience.

I could tell from the trailer she wouldn't be bored to tears and she would be able to understand the movie (with not wanting to see Christmas movies, and the other too inappropriate).

Evocative Cinematography, a Passionate Cast, and Good Direction Add Up To a Modern Classic .

You will find yourself rooting for his character throughout Hugo, due to his engaging performance.

As for Ben Kingsley, when is he ever bland?

I say, an adult film rated U, because, many scenes in the movie may find confusing to young children.

In addition to the lack of emotional magic on the screen, the pacing in "Hugo" is so slow it borders on catatonic, dragging for most of its two hours.

The movie opens with some stunning visuals, the camera panning over the Paris cityscape and eventually showing us around the train station where the protagonist, Hugo, lives.

Watch the movie for the special effects, but a fair warning that the pace is very slow.

The action is slow and dreary for most of the film and the acting by most of the cast is amateur.

We all walked out feeling ripped off although we had paid for half priced tickets on a Tuesday.

Watching the ten films on the list will enhance your viewing experience and make Hugo more enjoyable to watch as you point out the classic film references to the person next to youVerdict: Scorsese has made a masterpiece every decade: 70's - Taxi Driver, 80's - Raging Bull, 90's - Goodfellas, 00's - The Departed.

In one scene, Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays the train station's inspector, leans over slowly as he verbally reprimands Hugo, and though slow and subtle, the way he inches slightly toward the audiences magnifies the anxiety we are to feel in that scene.

For younger children I think it will prove a bit slow.

The movie is quite long and the first three quarters far too slow.

Instead, it adds depth and a stunning realism to the film.

Every single image is arresting, the use of 3D is perfection itself, the story is engaging and thrilling and heartbreaking and uplifting and I never wanted it to end.

Professor Scorsese Educates While Entertaining .

Putting that to one side the story is dire and plodding and there is some very poor acting.

Perhaps Hugo was just too unusual and unexpected to do well at the box office.

a slow and ponderous elephant of a film .

If you want to just have an enjoyable bit of escapist and light hearted filmmaking, this is a must.

" "Hugo" is a well-crafted, well-acted, enjoyable movie that is both humorous and sad, and it pays a wonderful homage to the silent film era.

Ironically or perhaps beautifully, "Hugo" also comes in 3D, and stunning 3D no less.

This is such a self-indulgent film -- why would the filmmakers think anyone would want to watch a film about this narrow niche of history without bothering to make the story or characters interesting?

But then there's the question of you staying awake, amidst the ticking and talking and waiting for the tedious details of the premise to show some pay-off for having been so exacting.

Shacha Baron Cohen's performance will be raved about by critics, when actually it's very predictable.

From the beginning to the end it is breath taking and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Scorsese's use of the camera is stunning, and his use of 3D is even better - here is the only director other than Cameron (so far) who understands that 3D can be both a tool for storytelling and also an artistic addition to the director's toolbox.

Long and boring .

Scorsese does a particularly good job of making every shot absolutely breathtaking.

While Hugo is a positively stunning experience to view, the majority of the story leaves a lot to be imagined.

Within half an hour of the film my girlfriend was completely bored out of her mind and I have to admit I was really struggling with it.

Filled with allegory and fable, the film is enjoyable on a multitude of levels, and is a fun, glorious adventure for people of all ages.

It's a beautiful but very boring movie .

The fact it's so long makes it even more of a chore, I nearly fell asleep.

Another enjoyable performance is Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Georges Méliès was also a highlight as he plays a disgruntled former filmmaker looking for purpose in his life post cinema.

There were so many boring moments in the movie where Scorcesse has you look at him for what feels like hours without dialog.

In addition, "Hugo" turned out to be a little slow, elitist, and bookish that did not bring any additional charm to its already struggling story (John Logan).

Sadly, this film is soulless and boring, and I think it will be something Scorsese will wish he didn't make.

A Fascinating and Captivating Family Mystery Movie .

The closing credits start pretty much exactly after 2 hours and it is two hours very much worth watching.

Well, it goes down like a very boring high school class in film history.

Scoresese did a good job with the 3D, but the story was boring at times.

But, all in all, I found this pointless and boring.

It was a nice, pleasant story that seems a bit contrived and forced forward at times.

Painfully boring .

Boring from the beginning till the end, i couldn't care less about any character, all the scenario makes no sense, and the flashbacks are much more than the "present" in the movie, explaining again and again why & when anything happened.

I found it painful watching this slow movie.

If You Can Get Past A Dull And Slow Paced First Hour This Becomes Fairly Interesting .

Much of it is tediously boring, and too satisfied with itself and its references to old film.

The aspect of Hugo that touched me the most was his curiosity and how he tried so hard to achieve his goal: understand who Melies was… This is also one of the first movies in which Scorsese deal with a happy ending and this is strange because usually he always puts in an unexpected conclusion, maybe also sad.

I'm not even exaggerating here, they are stunning, the part where all of Melies' drawings are falling from the chest is amazing, there are so many memorable scenes in this movie, I mean the dream that Hugo has?

But otherwise, though the story is simple, the film is very engaging visually.

The "story" just plods on and on (did I mention it was loooong?

The station Inspector as played by Sasha Cohen is without argument the most interesting, sympathetic and engaging character in this film.

The pace is sometimes a little bit too slow and the film could have been a bit shorter and tighter with a tad more ruthlessness with the editing, because it does occasionally feel like it is meandering a bit as opposed to getting where it needs to go.

All the rest can be summarized in two words, BORING and CRAP.

Here's a few things that I did not like (the list goes on and on): First, the plot is really boring to begin with.

This film is incredibly boring, mostly because it's plot is set at a crawling speed.

It started out promising with a potential mystery involving the child's father and an automaton with a message but, bafflingly, went nowhere - for a very long time!

The story's thread is slight, but the film is full of such complex images and turbulent events surrounding the boy's precarious situation that it remains an absorbing tale of an orphan who proves to be a most resourceful lad in keeping one step ahead of the authorities.

There were too many boring digital dolly tracking shots, disgusting digital 'dust in the air' shots and infinity digital sets shots that detracted greatly from the enjoyment of the dramatic scenes.

Scorsese avoided the cliché of telling us what each character's future would be.

Then, as secrets are uncovered, characters fleshed out, relationships cemented and dramatic events start to occur, the eye candy is either packed away so as not be distracting, or the audience becomes accustomed the stunning aesthetic – I'm not sure which – and the film takes flight in a very different way.

E-very-thing about this film was too long and too slow.

The exciting parts of the movie are in the previews.

That adoration permeates through every aspect of the movie, from the breezy performances and tone to the absolutely stunning visuals and the love letter to Georges Melies and silent films, an ode that might have come off as ham-handed had its intentions not been so blatantly earnest and pure.

Asa Butterfield as Hugo Cabret and Chloë Grace Moretz as Isabelle are very uninteresting and bland.

The story of "Hugo" is rather predictable and only mildly intriguing, and the acting is nothing special.

Visually stunning, with a poetic and enchanting story .

This movie is extremely boring and there are obvious mistakes, like when Hugo jumps out in front of a train to grab a key, it is in a different spot every time.

The first hour and half of the movie is quite boring.

I really liked it but it is very slow moving and for the casual movie watcher it may seem like nothing happened.

A fantastic mix of comedy and drama, of beautiful visuals and an engaging story, of talented actors and the purest of passion, love, and innocence.

predictable ending .

It is always very slow moving.

Maybe it is because I felt bored by the slow pacing, I could not get into the worlds of Hugo or George.

Slow, slow, slow.

extremely boring, and pathetic, it will make you sleep definitely.. Wow, I am shocked at how misleading all the hype about this movie has been.

I didn't see this in 3D, yet it was still visually stunning.

Even small roles are all far more engaging, even though they aren't really relevant to the plot.

Jude Law, Michael Stuhlbarg and Christopher Lee had minor roles but their presence makes the film all the more entertaining.

But there is no story worth mentioning, just a lot of beautiful pictures...

Immensely enjoyable .

Two people left during the film, so one-quarter of the audience walked out.

The acting was good, the cinematics were good, but the storyline was drab.

who knew the director of Goodfellas, Casino, Taxi Driver, The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island, Raging Bull, Gangs of New York, would the curriculum a film like Hugo, Martin Scorsese, changes mafia movies, police, crime etc., for a lighter and entertaining film, Hugo is a really cool movie, the photography is excellent, the look of the film is impeccable, very good this Paris in the 20th century, the cast is great, Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Jude Law, Christopher Lee and etc, the script has some problems, more is good, the chemistry between the characters are good, I found the pace of the slow middle film, even having good hours, with few unnecessary things, the film has good moments, and has some moments of cool persecutions, the character of Asa Butterfield and cool, Hugo is a film that usually do not see from the Scorsese, even not being your best film, was really cool to see Scorsese in a different genre that usually do.

)Cons: The rather sizable problem with the movie, however, is that the compelling nature of technological achievements in storytelling is completely at odds with the more traditional storytelling devices, like the script and acting.

Boring, way too slow and constantly talking about death, missing families and all that.

Another thing I like about this film, is that, while it is so entertaining, it is also very informative about the history of film, giving the story a feel of purpose.

The movie looks like a perfectly assembled, but lifeless and uninspiring mechanism used to animate the story of life of the French pioneer filmmaker Georges Méliès.

But the story itself is glum and painfully slow.

The story line was pointless and boring, and I could not wait for it to end, like a joke without a punch line.

) Hugo is a thrilling joyous ride into the world of 3-D and the vivid imagination of one of our foremost directors.

While the film is enjoyable overall, with a lot to admire in the technique, there are only sparks of greatness to be found that nail the higher notes Scorsese is capable of hitting.

I believe this film is important for film makers to see due to the beautiful shots and long, fast paced scenes without cuts.

Yet, a simple story and a bit of boring.

The film was shot completely in 3D made it more exciting to watch.

The look of this busy train station that we are given is quite compelling, and extremely well fabricated.

The plot line was utterly boring and pointless, while the acting from pretty much everyone was over-dramatic and cheesy.

But all the sets and visuals were of course stunning and incomparable.

This film was stunning throughout with a lot of scenes that left me wondering how they were accomplished.

Despite all the famous characters in this film including Ben Kingsley and Jude Law,powered by a $170million budget,Hugo will struggle to make the list of the worst movies ever made.

Eventually the artificiality grows tiresome.

In terms of the visual production values, this is a breathtaking film and some of the sets are simply stunning.

However, you can enjoy this beauty for the first 20 minutes and then it gets repetitive, whereas the plot falls apart and never gets back together.

Nothing happens .

Yet it is the sense of vulnerability, loss and emotion that makes him a sympathetic and compelling lead of great conviction.

A visually appealing film but the pacing is too slow .

The most enjoyable thing that Martin Scorsese has done in a long time .

Even in the costuming their seems to be very little gray or other bland tones.

To be honest, one of my friends even fell asleep during the film.

Although the visuals are interesting throughout the movie, they do not back up the lack of story - hence, boring.

Boring!

Now for the bad: Characters: are very cliché and very unrealistic (all of them).

A very well done & entertaining movie that won't appeal to everyone.

I found it a bore.

I enjoyed it.

Or at least, some exciting run and jump scene.

During his adventures he befriends a young girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) and her crotchety Uncle (Ben Kingsley) while trying to avoid being caught and sent to an orphanage by the the station-master, played with humor by Sacha Baron Cohen.. We truly loved this visually sumptuous and fascinating tale for kids and adults

Also, the story lacks surprises and are mostly very predictive which is boring for movie regulars.

The acting is never overdone and although it may be a bit slow for younger children, it is enjoyable from start to finish.

It has some breathtaking cinematography, an amazing story, dazzling special effects.

The pace is slower than paint drying.

Sure, it's visually stunning and beautifully made, but the story and characters are dimensionless and empty.

Then, as soon as you think the movie has climaxed and about to get a little better, they completely scrap the already boring plot they had and pursue and even more boring one.

Mainstream audience will find this film slow and boring with little human pathos.

Trust us when we say that you'll be wowed from the get-go- the opening shot a breathtaking one that begins with the camera swooping over the rooftops of Paris towards the Montmartre station and continuing seamlessly above the tracks inside the station before entering the main hall where young Hugo is making his way through the crowd of commuters.

Today we'd call the story a melodrama; the personalities of the principal characters are exaggerated; and there are plenty of thrilling foot-chases and sight gags.

Overall I think that it was a gripping and fast-moving family movie and that it's a must watch for everyone,old or young.

Boring.

A film that is compelling for most of its runtime collapses on itself at the end when you introduce logic into what you sat through for two hours.

Yes, its slow.

This Movie is extremely well shot, has great special effects and is also a huge waste of time.

While plot has some holes, the elephant in the room is that pretty much nothing happens in the movie with all these mechanical dolls, golden keys, and the visually rich Dickensian atmosphere.

What I'm trying to tell is that the plot is terrible and the storyline is slow, slow, SLOW.

I actually fell asleep waiting for something interesting to happen.

A Bit Boring for Scorsese .

A number of critics on this site have regarded this movie as enjoyable for cinematic fans.

Its set is absolutely stunning, cinematography is just gorgeous, sound tracks are perfect match.

Do you prefer clear or predictable story lines?

It took me awhile to figure out where they were going with these frankly stunning, snowy, fairytale-like shots skimming over 1920-something Paris.

In simple words 'it is boring as hell' !

The storytelling is extremely slow and boring.

Slow....

As the much-maligned Armond White put it: "As with the preposterous celebration of Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels in The Aviator, Scorsese pretends to honor cinema history by exaggerating the importance and wonder of movies that are frankly unwatchable, only notable as historic footnotes.

Unexpected Brilliance .

The acting was competent except for Sacha Baron Cohen who is nearly unwatchable as the aforementioned gendarme - if he would only get a wooden leg it would match the rest of his performance.

For me personally, I think it really is a beautiful and stunning film to see, and the acting is spot on.

Bluntly, I found this confusing and poorly paced.

Instead the plot alternates amazing parts with others quite boring, so it hasn't convinced me a lot.

My own daughter (4, going on 5) gave it an honest try when we sat down to watch it and made it 40 minutes or so before she fell asleep.

I found "Hugo" on balance to simply be too long, and very boring.

Well, I am not sure exactly, but to put it crudely: its just too long and boring.

The most contrived, pointless waste of 2 hours I've had to endure in ages.

Visually stunning.

The finale is as surprising and satisfying as it is unexpected.

Slow paced, from time to time touching and overall deep movie.

The images in Hugo are of course stunning!

Brilliant Visuals but Empty Story .

My children and I spent an amusing hour afterwards picking hole after hole in this contrived plot - I won't go into them.

Even the main target group for this film(Children) will fail to make any sense of this boring and depressing movie and probably pinch their parents to get them out of that theatre before they lose their feeble minds.

slow silent movie for viewers who like history & for kids .

I Loved It My Family Fell Asleep....

Hugo was the dullest film I saw last year.

His cinematography is breathtaking.

The story is entertaining and the child actors are pretty good.

The plot is uninteresting.

Ben Kingsly looks seriously bored all the way through; certainly the film does not stretch his talents at all.

But then the movie turned out to be about something way more boring.

overall it is very conceptual, entertaining and heart winning.

The entire finale and the sub plots happening inside the trains station hall are, albeit clichéd and rather predictable, genuinely heartwarming and moving.