CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Here is one of those 'don't know' movies, which has all the elements of a good film (great source material, incredible cast, good director) which can still go horribly wrong because it is such tricky material (or because of executive meddling or lapses in competence). This movie is based on The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, a book known for its lavish illustrations and strange, slowly winding story (with elements of 'clock punk' in it) about a young boy whose dad finds a strange clockwork man and tries to fix it. After his father dies the boy, Hugo, ends up living in the walls of a busy Paris railway station, where he meets a girl with some sort of connection to the clockwork man. Unfortunately the trailer makes it look like just another sappy Holiday movie (or worse - The Polar Express) which I sincerely hope it isn't, but something a little more.

Shiny Happy Trailer

Hugo Cabret is played by Asa Butterfield (who played a difficult role in The boy in Striped Pyjamas), Cloe Moretz (Hit Girl from That Films Whose Title Gets Filtered Away) while the adults cast is rounded of by Ben Kingsley as her eccentric Grandfather, Sacha Baron Cohen as the vindictive station inspector and Jude Law as Hugo's father. Supporting cast goes to Christopher Lee, Ray Winstone and Emily Mortimer. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one, as I enjoyed the book for its story, its dabbling in film history (which obviously attracted Scorcese) and its haunting pencil illustrations.

(Sketches from the Book)

Yeah, I am hoping that this is one of those cases where the studio just doesn't know how to sell the movie. After all, Scorsese has made a family film for what I believe to be the first time, so who knows what it actually looks like.

Anyways, the cast is solid, and the book is one of the few things that I've only heard praise for. Hopefully this will be a great movie.

Yeah, I am hoping that this is one of those cases where the studio just doesn't know how to sell the movie.

Me too.

I see Scorcese played with the colours of the film a bit like he did in The Aviator. He adjusted the colour of the first half of The Aviator* to have greens and blues appear somewhat turquoise and pale red; this is to reflect the Technicolor process of the time which could only render two colours (as shown below). Although its less pronounced in Hugo it seems he played with that technique again (though I may be wrong).

* To be honest it annoyed me the first time I saw the movie.

The Aviator


The original Phantom of the Opera


Edit: Hugo trailer

I saw a trailer for this last night, and I think it looks like it could be pretty good. XD That's a pretty strong cast, and I'll be interested to see Scorcese's take on a children's story. That said, clearly I need to get my hands on the book somehow, because those illustrations look super fantastic. XD

The book looks interesting. I noticed it's at my local library. I'll have to reserve it.

This has been through some test screenings, and was screened at the New York Film Festival. Impressions and reviews are going up all over the internet, and as far as I have seen they are overwhelmingly positive.

Most say that the trailer isn't indicative of the movie, and that they movie will likely bore most children. However, Scorsese's statement that "every shot is rethinking cinema" apparently is true, and is something that many of them came to understand through the course of the film.

If this is all true, then this, for me, represents 3D's final test as a cinematic tool. Or at least, until the Hobbit comes out with it's fancy 48 FPS.

Something that particularly excites me is that many have said that it has a lot to do with film history. I love seeing references to important works, and this is apparently packed to the brim with them.

Anyways, here is a review that attempts to be as vague about the story as possible.

There is also some new footage of the movie here, which makes me very, very excited to see it in 3D.

And here's an overview of the reactions to the early screenings.

Here's the review for Hugo from Roger Ebert, He gives it an extremely good review, but he does give away the 'reveal' of who Ben Kingsley's character is, which was a surprise in the book (though unless you have a true knowledge of cinema history the name might have no meaning, which may not be such a bad thing since the movie will probably tell you who it is).

Edit: as for me, this movie is only released here at the end of February, so I have a long wait ahead of me.

I saw it and didn't like it at all. I seem to be in the minority though.

First of all, it is too long. Two hours is way, WAY more time than the story needed. A good chunk of the running time is made up of these really awkward filler scenes that have no baring on the main plot. HEY LETS STOP THE STORY FOR A SEC AND CHECK OUT THAT FAT GUY! WHOA HE LIKES THAT OLD LADY BUT HER DOG HATES HIM! WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?? FIND OUT NEXT TIME WHEN HUGO IS ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING INTERESTING! And the inspector guy was one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen. Any scene he was in dragged on for ages and was super awkward.

So, you've got half the movie with pointless stuff where you have no idea where the story is going and then, suddenly, it's all about film history! Parts of the last half are pretty interesting but were lost to me because I had to sit through an hour of mostly stupidity and even then there was STILL terrible scenes that went on for far too long.

ARGH THAT MOVIE.
/rant