Scorsese's Hugo

Hmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLdndLIIDzs

He finally has his own Francis Ford Coppola's Jack.

Anything's possible, and seeing as I haven't liked a Scorsese narrative since Goodfellas, more of the same is not what I want. But heart-warming Scorsese, geez.

god this looks terrrrible

look it's oversaturated and also has slapstick pratfalls and per the book a recreation of meliés scenes but in vivid 3D and asa butterfield as a cutesy little urchin w/ nary a smear or a speck of dirt

I'm hoping this trailer launches a thousand YouTube mash-ups, with the voices of Peter Boyle, Chuck Low, the "What's a mook?" guy, and all the rest superimposed overtop.

Marty Marty Marty...

not that i'm turning to scorcese for restraint, but at the same time the book is a primer on chiaroscuro technique so why does this look like it was filmed on the surface of the sun?

Was sort of hoping this was Scorsese doing a biopic of Victor Hugo

Or Hugo Chavez--something, anything.

Or Hugo Jassquez.

um what is this

Hey Mods - it's "Scorsese".

Can't wait to hear what old flicks he'll cite as inspiration for this one. I'll prob still see it but it looks "Aviator"-level to me in terms of excitement. More amped for the George Harrison doc.

I don't know how much to get my hopes up for the Harrison film. (I see there's a thread below.) Really loved No Direction Home, wouldn't go near the Rolling Stones film (which I had mistakenly thought was going to be a historical document like the Dylan.)

The Rolling Stones thing is bad because watching the Rolling Stones perform in this day and age is a bad idea, not because the film itself sucks.

and I only watched it because an in-law gave me a copy

i just watched "no direction home" again last night actually. that is a great film.

this looks like horseshit but i've accepted he's now in his dude-trying-some-shit-out dotage.

That's basically what I mean: a Rolling Stones concert film in 2010 would be unsalvageable. It's such a bad idea, "good" and "bad" become moot in terms of the film itself.

what the hell is this

um what is this

what the hell is this

I'm thinking this will be a very good thread for different ways to express this sentiment.

thought this was about him winning a sci-fi award

Thought about starting parody thread "Scorsese's Nebula"

so this isn't a v. hugo biopic

instead it's a

umm

follow up to Truffaut's Story of Adele H?

it's a tale of childlike wonder also french pinnochio

wow this looks awful

Since it's French, is it going to be called Oogo?

The one really exciting thing about this is that Jude Law is one of our finest actors.

yugo see the oogo

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HeqMgaF345U/TBobGffOqiI/AAAAAAAAAsY/MUOfwWxaQ10/s1600/481570497_1180c4622d.jpg

and now, from a director who for a brief window when you were a kid seemed assured of immortality...A BRAND NEW 3D ADVENTURE

that music!

can't believe the trailer doesn't use Gimme Shelter

every single line of this trailer is hilarious

Um, apart from the horrific trailer music I thought this looks pretty great. Pretty much looks like how I pictured the book although obviously they've made the trailer a little lighter and more fun. It looks vastly superior to the Departed at least. Not that that's saying much.

well DiCaprio isn't in it but other than that I'm at a loss as to what makes this "superior"

I thought that was Arthur Bostrom for a bit. Would have been better,

well DiCaprio isn't in it but other than that I'm at a loss as to what makes this "superior"

I'm assuming it's not going to be full of eye-rollingly bad plotholes. And at the very least none of those fucking accents. And even if this somehow turns out to be worse than one of the worst movies I've ever seen, at least I'm sure it won't win best picture, so I won't have to be filled with a murderous rage every time I think about it.

This looks like a Terry Gilliam kids movie.

wow this looks awful

― bros -izing bros (k3vin k.), Friday, July 15, 2011 12:03 PM (2 hours ago)

not that i'm turning to scorcese for restraint, but at the same time the book is a primer on chiaroscuro technique so why does this look like it was filmed on the surface of the sun?

― Капитан ☭ (remy bean), Friday, July 15, 2011 11:02 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

it's 3d, would be the answer

Scorsese in 3D - can't wait to see what Ebert has to say about it.

Joe Pesci would be perfect for this.

The trailer is begging for someone to recut it with "Gimme Shelter" and a "Go get your fuckin' shine box" or two.

duly appointed victorian urchins

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/12/08/sacha-baron-cohen-hugo.jpg http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e87/Shura0107/Humor/allo-allo-arthur-bostrom-as-officer-crabtree--2.jpg

I mean, is it deliberate?

looks great! will see

xp maybe it is a ruse on sbc's part, he saw the costume and hat and thought "i know the ideal moustache for this part!"

"fanny like I'm a clone? I amose you?

The Rolling Stones thing is bad because watching the Rolling Stones perform in this day and age is a bad idea, not because the film itself sucks.

I'm afraid to watch that trailer. I have the book, which is pretty cool and I can imagine leaving a big impression on a kid. But even having not read it myself yet, I did know enough about it - prose mixed with wordless storyboard panels - that I thought it a curious (which is to say, wrong) match for Scorsese, let alone Scorsese in 3-D.

The 3D is a great fit for all of the clockwork stuff and the sweeping long takes. As usual I'm not sure the film needed it.

Also the Méliès recreations look great in that diorama style 3D.

I thought this was now considered a flop. Worldwide gross of $63 mil so far seems pretty poor for a marquee 3D release.

depends how much of a life any Oscar recognition adds. It may still be a flop, but phaps not a disaster.

No, I didn't go

i thought it was okay. some of the scenes with melies were moving, and there were a few nice images (though i didnt find it to be a ~feast for the eyes~ or whatever people are saying). the cinephile crowd seems to have been very receptive to it, but i dunno. just didnt do much for me

some of the sub-stories seem like they're drawn a bit broadly and simply, until you twig onto the fact that they're homaging the early film forms (cop and flower girl love story; tall dignified widow and short fat widow)

oh, thats an interesting take. seems so obvious now that you mention it. that makes me like it a little bit more

what a piece of garbage. people make fun of the transformers movies for being pure visual spectacle with no plot/characterization/script/acting but scorcese gets oscar nods for the same thing.

sets and visual effects were fantastic but so much teal and orange

I have had a screener of this for months but it has sat on my desk and gathered dust. The thought of actually watching it is just totally unappetizing to me.

it's really really long too. i didn't watch the last half-hour or so, maybe it gets amazing then? main kid was irritating

it gets a good deal better in the second half but otherwise meh

I thought it was great.

I was left cold, as I invariably am by sausage-factory Marty, but it helps to see it in a theater, and to the end.

i think this might be his worst movie.

you are kidding

i mean, remember that scorcese made Bringing out the Dead.

I thought this was like a very good Gilliam film.

bringing out the dead had some good gags and cool actors. i'd watch it again.

new york, new york.... i probably wouldn't watch again.

wonderful movie, easily my favorite scorsese film of the last couple decades. great performances and characters, splendid visuals, the best 3D i've seen yet, and a genuinely moving young-adult story. gets a little long towards the end, and perhaps spends a bit too much time establishing the history and importance of mieles, but those are trivial complaints. one of the best films i saw in 2011.

I agree. And also, after wondering whether I could get my 5 1/2 year old to sit through this in a theater, we finally saw it at home last week, and he loved it, and asked to see Voyage to the Moon afterward, which he then watched (twice) on youtube. And then he wrote a little book about it. So, success, in my eyes.

jeez, you ppl. this was wonderful. contenderizer OTM.

kind of think everyone who keeps whining that scorsese doesn't make movies like 'mean streets' anymore should just STFU and go hide under their beds.

ctrl + f "british accents"

(xpost) I don't want more movies like Mean Streets--a lot of Casino and pretty much all of The Departed suggest that that kind of film is a closed book for him. I do want films as phenomenal as Mean Streets. Maybe Hugo is, I don't know; I still haven't seen it. But for me, that's a tribute to Scorsese, how much he once meant to me and not wanting to be let down once again.

completely agree with n/a's earlier comments

watched half of it last night and couldn't stop obsessing over the choice to make paris entirely populated by british people.

Probably better than if they'd all talked like Joe Pesci, though.

this movie would be 10000x better if everyone talked like joe pesci

"Who are you?"
"Hugo."
"Where do you live?"
"What do mean, where do I live? What the fuck kind of question is that, you dizzy motherfucker."

correction: YOOGO

#YOLO

i think this might be his worst movie.

― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Monday, March 5, 2012 6:45 PM (2 months ago)

Yes. What a dreary trudge through a sickly, teal & orange 'wonderland' this is.

http://i.imgur.com/7H6yy.jpg

I think I know what you mean, but Mean Streets/Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/Goodfellas are all funnier than almost any comedy (and not really the same in tone as the other two).

i am kinda floored that anyone finds anything in 'raging bull' funny, let alone 'funnier than almost any comedy.'

If you don't like Raging Bull, that would make sense--Kael, it would seem, did not find the film funny. But if you like/love Raging Bull, your statement is as baffling to me as mine is to you. (I'd make a list of 50 lines that make me laugh, but it defeats its own purpose.) I find every Scorsese film I really love funny. When he stops being funny--Cape Fear, Gangs of New York--I generally find him dreary.

bigoted Bronx Italians = hilarious

bigoted Lower Manhattan Italians = Mean Streets
bigoted Brooklyn Italians = Goodfellas

Is that really a disqualifier?

gangs of new york is very funny whenever DDL is onscreen

hugo was really pretty bad, i'm glad some other folks agree.

sometimes i feel like i'm living in a different world from a lot of folks i imagined were living in the same one as me.

Taxi Driver aside, I can't think of another world-class filmmaker where I can't stand most of his commonly accepted masterpieces and like so many of his "misfires."

i wouldn't say i dislike many of his accepted masterpieces, but i probably enjoy after hours and king of comedy (if "enjoy" is the right word for that one, it's obviously intentionally very grating) most of all. i have a soft spot for the nutty ambitions of last temptation.

Finally got around to watching this last night. Can't believe Sasha Baron Cohen got Scorsese to film his LOL Cripples! comedy.

I saw this lat night too. It was no better than average. Too much subtext and not enough text. Very pretty snow. Two best things were well-shot clockwork and C.Lee's voice. Posh street urchins need to gtf. Quite liked SBC's turn. He made me chuckle - none of the chuckles coming from his busted leg btw.

i thought this was all right but kind of inert. i could kind of get with scorsese's love of the WONDROUS MAGIC OF CINEMA, but that isn't much to hang a story on, turns out.

I thought this was like a very good Gilliam film.

― akm

more like jeunet/amelie surely

but not very good. ok, i thought.

depressed at the number of directors/screenwriters who seem to think that movies for kids need to have such stupid adult characters, but maybe i just cant remember being a kid and how stupid all adults were

Between this and his Harrison doc, I can't think of another example of a great director contributing so many boring hours of film in one year.

lol, so glad i wasnt the only one who couldnt take that harrison doc... maybe if i was a beatlesmaniac i would've loved it idk

this movie is dogshit

I have no idea what an average preteen would think of Hugo, but I suspect it wouldn't really impress them, except maybe as a visual spectacle. The plot and characters didn't seem as if kids would identify much. If this movie was aimed at adults under the pretense of being a kid's movie, it failed for me. Too didactic and stiff-jointed. Too conscious of its message.

It seemed like Scorsese decided he would make a film that was the equivalent of a trumpet fanfare, followed by a Jeeves-like butler in full dress, delivering an ornately calligraphed note on an engraved silver platter, which, when opened, read: "Oh, the WONDER of it all!" Then you and the butler just sort of stand there and you think to yourself, "Why the fuck didn't this bozo bring me a glass of champagne."

The Intro to Film course I'm assisting with showed this (alongside A Trip to the Moon) for its first class. I actually found it less annoying this time around, though its still no good. Thematically, it makes no sense: so, it is a celebration of the craft of early filmmaking (and artisanal craftsmanship in general, I suppose), but the whole thing is done in the aggressive and impersonal 3-D, CGI-heavy, swirly-camera mode of every other contempo "family" blockbuster?

And though it tries to make nice with the SBC character in the end, the disability humour still strikes an uncomfortably sour note, especially since Scorsese would go on to pull some similar shit in The Wolf of Wall Street.

Aimless's comment right before this two years back is deeply underappreciated.

otm