When I first saw the trailers for Martin Scorcese’s new movie, Hugo, I wrote it off as a kid’s film.  The director’s name caught my attention, of course, as did the cast, which includes Ben Kingsley and Jude Law, but I dismissed it as a home viewing at best.  Then the reviews started coming in.  I knew the film was based on a book as well (by Brian Selznick), but I knew little of the story of either.  When NPR recommended the movie, they did so mentioning it was a movie for movie lovers because it is based on some true events surrounding the life of one Georges Méliès, a French filmmaker from the silent era.  That name probably doesn’t ring a bell, but this should:

Yeah, that’s Méliès.  And because I consider myself an amateur film enthusiast, I decided that perhaps I should view it in the theater after all.  But there’s more to it.  Méliès was quite an innovator in his time.  Having worked previously as a stage musician, he treated his films as works of magic and achieved special effects unparalleled by other film makers in his time.  This was undoubtedly the motivation behind Scorcese making Hugo his first 3D movie.

Those who know me know where I stand on the whole 3D fad; I think it’s a gimmick that has been artificially hyped because it makes movies harder to pirate.  Of course, I hadn’t actually seen a movie in 3D (not including the old school 3D red and blue stuff or Captain Eo at Disney World, nostaglia!).  And all the reviews I had heard were saying that not only was the 3D in Hugo the best application of the technology to date, but it was actually part of the story in some way or another.  So I figured it was time to stop knocking it until I had tried it.

I went to see Hugo in 3D.

First, my thoughts on the movie.  Hugo is the story of a boy played by Asa Butterfield, see title for name, who lives alone in the tunnels and backrooms of a train station in Paris in the mid 1930′s.  His mother is long dead and his father, played in very brief flashbacks by Jude Law, perished in a fire some months prior to the start of the film.  Hugo was taken in by his callous drunkard uncle as labor at the train station.  His uncle was responsible for winding all the clocks in the station and Hugo, whose father himself was a clock maker, was already a prodigal mechanic and quickly took to the task.  His uncle, played also briefly by Ray Winstone, disappeared shortly after.  So, by the film’s beginning, Hugo is all alone and continues to maintain the clocks in the station because nobody else is doing it and, for whatever reason, nobody every thinks to check on him.  So he’s basically invisible to the world at large.  He survives by stealing bits of food here and there.

But his real driving motivation is in repairing an automaton rescued from an old museum storage room by his father shortly before his death.  The small humanoid machine is built much like a clock and, when functioning, has the ability to write a message of some sort on paper.  However, it is in disrepair.  Before his death, Hugo’s father had made a project of repairing the machine to see what secrets it held, working with his son.  Now the machine is all Hugo has left of his father, and he pilfers small mechanical items to salvage gears from them for the machine.

One such target of these endeavors is a small toy store in the train station which is run by an old man, played by Kingsley.  In an attempt to snatch a small mechanical mouse, Hugo is caught red handed by Kingsley’s character.  He treats the boy with some level of cruelty, taking from him a notebook with instructions for repairing the automaton left to him by his father.  He accuses the boy of having stolen it and threatens to burn it if the boy won’t tell him where he got the notebook.  Hugo refuses but cannot convince the man to give him the book back, even after following him all the way to his home.

It is here that he meets the man’s god daughter, Isabelle, played by Chloë Moretz.  She agrees to help Hugo in trying to get his book back and they end up becoming friends and working together to solve the mystery of the automaton when Hugo discovers that Isabelle has a key that operates the machine.

Both Butterfield and Moretz own their roles, refusing to allow other actors to steal scenes from them which is quite a feat when you act opposite Ben Kingsley.  This is no disrespect to Kingsley, though, because his character is really the heart and soul of the film and the center point around which the whole story revolves.  Other key roles are filled by Helen McRory, Michael Stuhlbarg, Emily Mortimer and Christopher Lee, all of whom are welcome.

The antagonist of the film is the station inspector, played by Sacha Baron Cohen (Ali G, Borat, Bruno).  He operates as a villain and as comic relief, but also to some extent as a sympathetic character, all of which becomes too much for the role to bear, making his character the only part of the film that is out of tune.  It’s no fault of Cohen’s, though, he does well with what he’s given, but the character seems to be someone you are supposed to hate one minute and love the next, then pity, then love, then hate again, and all in the course of mere minutes.

Overall, though, the film’s flaws are few and it’s appeal is great.  It’s certainly a kid-friendly movie but it’s not just for kids and I think most will find something to like about it if they give it a chance.

You will like this movie if: you are a Scorcese fan but not just looking for violent R-rated movies, you are a fan of fantasy movies that can appeal to kids or are family friendly, you enjoy something lighthearted with a happy ending that is also a bit quirky, you liked the book, or you are looking for a good Ben Kingsley performance.

You will not like this movie if: you aren’t into movies driven by childhood fantasy, you are looking for something serious and realistic, you never liked old movies at all, or you want either a more traditional narrative or a more challenging story that is less about homage and more about standing on its own originality.

Now, some commentary on the 3D.

I wear glasses to see.  My vision isn’t horrible, but it is blurry without it.  So even in a theater with a huge screen, I need to wear my glasses to get a sharp view of what is going on.  My initial fear with the 3D was that the 3D glasses would not fit over my normal glasses.  Luckily, that proved to be mostly unfounded.  The fit wasn’t ideal and it took a little tinkering, but I was able to wear the 3D lenses over my normal glasses without any real issue.

What I didn’t expect was the considerable amount of time it took for my eyes to adjust to the 3D.  It took about 15 minutes before I was able to view it without feeling ill.  In particular, scenes with a lot of fast or sweeping motion with the 3D gave me distinct motion sickness and a headache, and this coming from some one who has never experienced those types of symptoms on boats, planes or thrill rides.  Eventually, it settled down though, but it made me a little distracted during the early portions of the film.

Those minor inconveniences aside, I won’t lie, I enjoyed watching this movie in 3D and it really was well done.  As I pointed out, this is the first 3D movie I have seen since the fad started to take off, so I don’t have much to compare to, but I found the technology’s application to be exceptional and appropriate.  It wasn’t overdone but it did add a sense of wonderment and immersion.  That said, I have to disagree with other reviews I heard that implied the technology was somehow integral to the story.  I understand why they said that and you will too if you watch the movie, but I’m just not on board with it.  I could have enjoyed this movie just as thoroughly without the glasses and added depth (meant in the strictly physical sense; there was no depth added to the story).

I’m not going to say 3D should go away.  If you feel like paying more for a ticket and wearing clunky glasses to have that added dimension, then I can’t tell you you are wasting your money.  There is probably something there for some viewers and kudos to the movie industry for finding a way to charge people more AND curb piracy at the same time.  But I probably won’t see another movie in 3D myself.  It’s just not necessary.  Maybe it the technology evolves to not need glasses anymore, or if they start charging closer to the same price, I’ll change my tune.  For now, it’s still a gimmick, albeit a clever one.

If you’re going to see a movie in 3D, Hugo is probably the best candidate for it yet, and likely for some time to come, but you aren’t missing anything without it.