Hugo clocks in with major raves from top critics
4-star reviews from The New Yorker, Variety, Box Office Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter. 4 stars from Roger Ebert. No fan of 3-D, Ebert says, “Scorsese uses 3-D here as it should be used, not as a gimmick but as an enhancement of the total effect.”
David Denby at The New Yorker says, “Reality, filmed illusion, and dreams are so intertwined that only an artist, playing merrily with echoes, can sort them into a scheme of delight.”
At the moment of greatest rapture in Martin Scorsese’s 3-D “Hugo”—a film with many moments of happiness—a twelve-year-old Parisian boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), and his pal Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) are leafing through a book of film history, when images from the pages start to move and then spring to full motion-picture life. The time is the nineteen-thirties, and Scorsese and his technicians are looking back to the pioneers, jumping through restored versions of films by the Lumière brothers, Edwin S. Porter, D. W. Griffith, and, most centrally, Georges Méliès, the inventor of fantasy and science fiction in the cinema. For Scorsese, the early movies are a procession of miracles: the directors realized that sixteen frames passing through a camera every second could yield illusions, disappearances, transformations, magic. In recent years, while making his own movies, Scorsese has dedicated himself to film history and preservation. He has put this ardent attention at the center of a beautifully told and emotionally satisfying story for children and their movie-loving parents. “Hugo” is both a summing up of the cinematic past and a push forward into new 3-D technologies.
Selznick’s book begins with a series of pencil drawings that feels like an introductory film sequence—establishing shots, medium shots, and closeups. Scorsese begins the same way, but in color, and instantly we get a sense of the film’s characteristic look. Working with the cinematographer Robert Richardson, from a screenplay by John Logan, Scorsese shoots from the children’s point of view as often as possible. He brings the third dimension into play not only in action sequences but as an enlargement of everyday life. The grownups pushing past the kids as they rush to make a train are as threatening as the Roman legions; at one point, Isabelle slips, and impatient feet trample on her. Narrow spaces and hidden places would naturally matter enormously to a furtive child, and Scorsese chases after Hugo down tunnels and along passageways and up a stairway to his room—the view up the stairway keeps telescoping in depth. Hugo is a spectator, always peering out at something, and the Paris he sees from his aerie is tinted dark blue, with glistening white lights—the colors of wonder. Parts of “Hugo”—the station, interiors of apartments—were shot on sets, but the movie depends on painted and digitized backgrounds. They are intentionally artificial, like something in a children’s book, or, more to the point, like the fanciful sets that Méliès used in his movies. In a flashback, Scorsese re-creates Méliès’s glass-walled studio and his films, with their exuberance of creatures, “natives” with spears, nymphs hanging from the stars—sheer exultant zaniness, part magic show, part burlesque, and all cinema.
Pete Hammond, Box Office Magazine:
Hugo is not only a great family film—it is a great film, period. Magical and imaginative, this eye-popping masterpiece from director Martin Scorsese will transport audiences to a place they won’t believe. Based on the Brian Selznick children’s classic, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan have crafted a remarkably vital adventure about an orphan who takes care of the clocks in a massive Paris train station that’s also a valentine to the dawn of movies. In doing so, they’ve made a movie that transcends nearly every other film ostensibly aimed at kids (but clearly, they aim much, much higher). Because Hugo is a period piece that doesn’t hit all the obvious beats of the kidpic genre, it may require, wait for it—patience—from younger viewers. It could lag behind its stiff competition for family dollars this holiday season, but it certainly deserves to be a success and hopefully Paramount will back it with the faith that there’s a cultivated audience who will show their appreciation…
There hasn’t been a more competently and stunningly crafted motion picture to come along in years with ace cinematography by Robert Richardson, expert editing by longtime Scorsese editor Thelma Schoonmaker, Ferretti and Francesco LoSchiavo’s sets and design and Howard Shore’s exquisite music…
For cineastes, Hugo is truly heaven and its recreations of the making of Melies’ A Trip to the Moon is inventive and breathtaking. Along with the new black and white silent The Artist, silent movie lovers are in for a rare treat—and, indeed, Hugo is a rare movie.
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times:
“Hugo” is unlike any other film Martin Scorsese has ever made, and yet possibly the closest to his heart: a big-budget, family epic in 3-D, and in some ways, a mirror of his own life. We feel a great artist has been given command of the tools and resources he needs to make a movie about — movies. That he also makes it a fable that will be fascinating for (some, not all) children is a measure of what feeling went into it.
…Leave it to Scorsese to make his first 3-D movie about the man who invented special effects. There is a parallel with the asthmatic Scorsese, living in Little Italy but not of it, observing life from the windows of his apartment, soaking up the cinema from television and local theaters, adopting great directors as his mentors, and in the case of Michael Powell, rescuing their careers after years of neglect.
The way “Hugo” deals with Melies is enchanting in itself, but the film’s first half is devoted to the escapades of its young hero. In the way the film uses CGI and other techniques to create the train station and the city, the movie is breathtaking…
For a lover of cinema, the best scenes will come in the second half, as flashbacks trace the history and career of Georges Melies. you may have seen his most famous short film, “A Trip to the Moon” (1898), in which space voyagers enter a ship that is shot from a cannon toward the moon; the vessel pokes the Man in the Moon in the eye.
Scorsese has made documentaries about great films and directors, and here he brings those skills to storytelling. We see Melies (who built the first movie studio) using fantastical sets and bizarre costumes to make films with magical effects — all of them hand-tinted, frame by frame. And as the plot makes unlikely connections, the old man is able to discover that he is not forgotten, but indeed is honored as worthy of the Pantheon.
“Hugo” celebrates the birth of the cinema and dramatizes Scorsese’s personal pet cause, the preservation of old films. In one heartbreaking scene, we learn that Melies, convinced his time had passed and his work had been forgotten, melted down countless films so that their celluloid could be used to manufacture the heels of women’s shoes. But they weren’t all melted, and at the end of “Hugo, ” we see that thanks to this boy, they never will be. Now there’s a happy ending for you.
132 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
3 1/2 stars from Peter Travers. Since 4 stars are so rare for him you might as wellcall that a rave.
3 1/2 stars from Peter Travers. Since 4 stars are so rare for him you might as wellcall that a rave.
Well it seems Harry certainly has company, but Potter should have the full strength of Warner Bros. campaign now considering what I just read…
“some weird news concerning WB’s last Oscar-bait film, ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’.
As we know, Contagion has zero buzz and J.Edgar is a flop so the only film to get a BP nomination is Potter. But ‘Extremely Loud…’ is still unseen and it’s been canceled from the screenings that will take place in the end of November, in order to be in consideration for the New York Critics and National Board of Review awards. Which is strange. The mention of the NYC circle was ‘Draw your conclusions…’ which is suspicious. The film might not be good. So if it flops, I guess that Potter will be WB’s only chance for a BP nomination and I think that it will eventually be a sure bet.”
Well it seems Harry certainly has company, but Potter should have the full strength of Warner Bros. campaign now considering what I just read…
“some weird news concerning WB’s last Oscar-bait film, ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’.
As we know, Contagion has zero buzz and J.Edgar is a flop so the only film to get a BP nomination is Potter. But ‘Extremely Loud…’ is still unseen and it’s been canceled from the screenings that will take place in the end of November, in order to be in consideration for the New York Critics and National Board of Review awards. Which is strange. The mention of the NYC circle was ‘Draw your conclusions…’ which is suspicious. The film might not be good. So if it flops, I guess that Potter will be WB’s only chance for a BP nomination and I think that it will eventually be a sure bet.”
I hope folks are finally taking this film seriously as a Best Picture nominee.
It will definitely be nominated for several awards:
Set and Costume (both of which it will probably win)
Cinematography and Editing
Score and Sound
Maybe make-up.
Six or seven nominations, plus Best Picture.
I hope folks are finally taking this film seriously as a Best Picture nominee.
It will definitely be nominated for several awards:
Set and Costume (both of which it will probably win)
Cinematography and Editing
Score and Sound
Maybe make-up.
Six or seven nominations, plus Best Picture.
What about the closing credits song that Shore co-wrote?
What about the closing credits song that Shore co-wrote?
Sounds like 8-10 nominations. I know I will love this – in 3D (which I hate).
So, movies with 8 or more nominations are probably War Horse, Hugo and The Artist.
Sounds like 8-10 nominations. I know I will love this – in 3D (which I hate).
So, movies with 8 or more nominations are probably War Horse, Hugo and The Artist.
I’ve always felt that Hugo would be up for a number of Oscars. These reviews are encouraging to me simply because I want the film to be a great experience.
I’ve always felt that Hugo would be up for a number of Oscars. These reviews are encouraging to me simply because I want the film to be a great experience.
I’ve been predicting the oscars for twenty years and I’ve never been wrong!
I’m tipping twelve noms for Hugo, and 9 each to The Descendants and The Artist
7 for The Donkey
Actually I don’t think I’ve been right often…scrap that
I’ve been predicting the oscars for twenty years and I’ve never been wrong!
I’m tipping twelve noms for Hugo, and 9 each to The Descendants and The Artist
7 for The Donkey
Actually I don’t think I’ve been right often…scrap that
Seven predicted nominees for BP:
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse
08. Moneyball
09. Midnight in Paris
10. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Seven predicted nominees for BP:
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse
08. Moneyball
09. Midnight in Paris
10. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
It’s started dawning on me that Best Picture may not ultimately come down between The Artist and The Descendants. I mean, is The Descendants being loved by the Academy members or general audiences? It may end up with a similar narrative to Moneyball: it’s admired/liked by critics, Academy members/general audiences, but not “loved”. On the other hand, I can definitely see the Academy expressing their love for The Artist or Hugo despite its minor flaws (but then, what film doesn’t have flaws? Films as positively reviewed as The Artist and Hugo don’t have to worry about those small flaws hurting their Oscar chances, IMO.) So I now consider BP still wide open, and there’s always the possibility of a dark horse bursting into the conversation as a surprise frontrunner… among Hugo, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Young Adult and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
My current BP predictions based on the assumption there’ll be 8 nominees:
1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. War Horse
4. Extremely Close & Incredibly Close
5. The Help
6. Hugo
7. Midnight in Paris
8. The Tree of Life
or Girl with Dragon Tattoo
alt. Moneyball
alt2. Young Adult
It’s started dawning on me that Best Picture may not ultimately come down between The Artist and The Descendants. I mean, is The Descendants being loved by the Academy members or general audiences? It may end up with a similar narrative to Moneyball: it’s admired/liked by critics, Academy members/general audiences, but not “loved”. On the other hand, I can definitely see the Academy expressing their love for The Artist or Hugo despite its minor flaws (but then, what film doesn’t have flaws? Films as positively reviewed as The Artist and Hugo don’t have to worry about those small flaws hurting their Oscar chances, IMO.) So I now consider BP still wide open, and there’s always the possibility of a dark horse bursting into the conversation as a surprise frontrunner… among Hugo, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Young Adult and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
My current BP predictions based on the assumption there’ll be 8 nominees:
1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. War Horse
4. Extremely Close & Incredibly Close
5. The Help
6. Hugo
7. Midnight in Paris
8. The Tree of Life
or Girl with Dragon Tattoo
alt. Moneyball
alt2. Young Adult
after seeing The Artist, The Descendants, Moneyball, The Help, The Tree of Life, J Edgar and The Ides of March among many other films, I still feel like Harry Potter deserves not only a Best Picture nomination but the win itself.
Looking forward to Hugo now tho.
after seeing The Artist, The Descendants, Moneyball, The Help, The Tree of Life, J Edgar and The Ides of March among many other films, I still feel like Harry Potter deserves not only a Best Picture nomination but the win itself.
Looking forward to Hugo now tho.
Hugo is a dark horse. There are many many reviews left. To be honest with you, I watched the clips and found the acting cringe-worthy and wooden. Yes, the art direction, visuals and feel might be perfect, but this doesn’t look like something they’ll vote for Best Picture. It will get some #01 votes from avid Scorsese lovers, but I just see it grabbing some tech nominations (Score, Costumes, Cinematography, Art Direction, Visual Effects) and that’s it. I can’t see this being a BP contender.
Hugo is a dark horse. There are many many reviews left. To be honest with you, I watched the clips and found the acting cringe-worthy and wooden. Yes, the art direction, visuals and feel might be perfect, but this doesn’t look like something they’ll vote for Best Picture. It will get some #01 votes from avid Scorsese lovers, but I just see it grabbing some tech nominations (Score, Costumes, Cinematography, Art Direction, Visual Effects) and that’s it. I can’t see this being a BP contender.
Very much for a children’s movie winning BP. They are bread and butter for Hollywood. When a worthy candidate comes along it should be seriously considered. Oscar is overdue to recognize this enormous category with its highest honor.
Very much for a children’s movie winning BP. They are bread and butter for Hollywood. When a worthy candidate comes along it should be seriously considered. Oscar is overdue to recognize this enormous category with its highest honor.
I think it funny that people assume there is going to be a Warner Brothers film in the BP race. I wasn’t aware that there was a quota.
On a more topical topic, I wish all of these reviews would downplay the “silent film history” aspect of Hugo. Yes, it’s a major part, but some of the reviews make it sound more like a documentary.
It’s important to note that all of that stuff grows organically out of the characters and the plot and that even if you don’t care about that stuff on your own, you grow to care about it because it flows seamlessly from what happens in the first half. the viewer/reader comes upon it because the kids in the story do, and we learn everything as they learn everything. It’s quite affecting because the story taps into an appreciation of these film pioneers we never knew we had. It’s all very affecting.
I think it funny that people assume there is going to be a Warner Brothers film in the BP race. I wasn’t aware that there was a quota.
On a more topical topic, I wish all of these reviews would downplay the “silent film history” aspect of Hugo. Yes, it’s a major part, but some of the reviews make it sound more like a documentary.
It’s important to note that all of that stuff grows organically out of the characters and the plot and that even if you don’t care about that stuff on your own, you grow to care about it because it flows seamlessly from what happens in the first half. the viewer/reader comes upon it because the kids in the story do, and we learn everything as they learn everything. It’s quite affecting because the story taps into an appreciation of these film pioneers we never knew we had. It’s all very affecting.
On a separate note, I’ve been thinking on and off how the likely nominees Hugo, The Artist and Midnight in Paris will fair if all get nominated. I’ve mentioned this before and no one took a bite but I think it’s going to be a real factor. People always talk about “splitting the vote” without really knowing what the term means. But in this case the phrase may truly be applicable as all three have such an early 20th Century Parisian flavor. Not only that, they seem to have similar target audiences, a somewhat elite/intellectual bend but not hipster. I wager there is a big chunk of the Academy Audience that this describes, but is it big enough?
My second thoughts are that after seeing Hugo, people’s appreciation of The Artist may increase. There might be a certain nostalgia for silent film created by Hugo that could cause people to be emotionally drawn to voting for The Artist.
I still think this race is for The Descendants to lose. It’s a crowdpleaser that critics are loving. It’s got major star pull, and it’s director has an impressive pedigree and is certainly prestigious enough to win. It’s the kind of film that appeals to nearly everyone in the voting block and by all accounts it doesn’t seem to disappoint them.
On a separate note, I’ve been thinking on and off how the likely nominees Hugo, The Artist and Midnight in Paris will fair if all get nominated. I’ve mentioned this before and no one took a bite but I think it’s going to be a real factor. People always talk about “splitting the vote” without really knowing what the term means. But in this case the phrase may truly be applicable as all three have such an early 20th Century Parisian flavor. Not only that, they seem to have similar target audiences, a somewhat elite/intellectual bend but not hipster. I wager there is a big chunk of the Academy Audience that this describes, but is it big enough?
My second thoughts are that after seeing Hugo, people’s appreciation of The Artist may increase. There might be a certain nostalgia for silent film created by Hugo that could cause people to be emotionally drawn to voting for The Artist.
I still think this race is for The Descendants to lose. It’s a crowdpleaser that critics are loving. It’s got major star pull, and it’s director has an impressive pedigree and is certainly prestigious enough to win. It’s the kind of film that appeals to nearly everyone in the voting block and by all accounts it doesn’t seem to disappoint them.
I am starting to get the impression this is emerging as a real legitimate contender. Could this be Scorsese’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN Oscar (in that the Academy gives him another Best Director Trophy and reward Best Picture to a film like THE ARTIST or THE DESCENDANTS) ?
I am starting to get the impression this is emerging as a real legitimate contender. Could this be Scorsese’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN Oscar (in that the Academy gives him another Best Director Trophy and reward Best Picture to a film like THE ARTIST or THE DESCENDANTS) ?
Reading the Ebert review it sounds like this is his favorite film of the year.
Reading the Ebert review it sounds like this is his favorite film of the year.
Rufuss, I still agree with you though. I think that the Directing Oscar is Alexander Payne’s to lose. While I personally found The Descendants to be his weakest film (I am a die hard Payne fan) it is still a fine film. He really is a brilliant American filmmaker and despite already winning a screenplay Oscar (he very well may add another one this year), I would love to see the Academy give him his moment in the sun and reward him Best Picture and Director. It’s how I felt when the Coen Brothers won Best Director for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (though, granted, by that point their filmography was much, much longer then Payne’s).
Rufuss, I still agree with you though. I think that the Directing Oscar is Alexander Payne’s to lose. While I personally found The Descendants to be his weakest film (I am a die hard Payne fan) it is still a fine film. He really is a brilliant American filmmaker and despite already winning a screenplay Oscar (he very well may add another one this year), I would love to see the Academy give him his moment in the sun and reward him Best Picture and Director. It’s how I felt when the Coen Brothers won Best Director for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (though, granted, by that point their filmography was much, much longer then Payne’s).
Here is a list of children’s movies that have been nominated for Best Picture:
1. Skippy (1931)
2. The Wizard Of Oz (1939)
3. Miracle On 34th Street (1947)
4. Mary Poppins (1964)
5. Doctor Dolittle (1967)
6. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
7. Babe (1995)
8. Up (2009)
The Champ (1932), The Yearling ((1946) and Oliver! (1969) might also be considered in part children’s movies, though they were skewed toward a wider audience mix. Aside from Oliver! none of the above movies won the top prize. All of them (except Dolittle) were major box office hits.
Hugo has gotten the critic’s respect. I think now it has to prove itself at the box office.
Here is a list of children’s movies that have been nominated for Best Picture:
1. Skippy (1931)
2. The Wizard Of Oz (1939)
3. Miracle On 34th Street (1947)
4. Mary Poppins (1964)
5. Doctor Dolittle (1967)
6. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
7. Babe (1995)
8. Up (2009)
The Champ (1932), The Yearling ((1946) and Oliver! (1969) might also be considered in part children’s movies, though they were skewed toward a wider audience mix. Aside from Oliver! none of the above movies won the top prize. All of them (except Dolittle) were major box office hits.
Hugo has gotten the critic’s respect. I think now it has to prove itself at the box office.
^Two letters – E and T.
T’was nominated.
^Two letters – E and T.
T’was nominated.
Where are all the little miss sunshines in 2011?
Hugo – boy (friend is a girl)
War Horse – mostly boy
The Tree of Life – boy(s)
We Need to Talk About Kevin – boy
Tintin – boy
Extremely Loud – boy
Harry Potter – mostly boy
Super 8 – boy, girl and more boys
In Hollywood it’s not only hard for women to get roles, but young girls, too. I would be pissed if I was a 10-year-old would-be-actress: “sorry, we’re gonna go with your brother”.
Where are all the little miss sunshines in 2011?
Hugo – boy (friend is a girl)
War Horse – mostly boy
The Tree of Life – boy(s)
We Need to Talk About Kevin – boy
Tintin – boy
Extremely Loud – boy
Harry Potter – mostly boy
Super 8 – boy, girl and more boys
In Hollywood it’s not only hard for women to get roles, but young girls, too. I would be pissed if I was a 10-year-old would-be-actress: “sorry, we’re gonna go with your brother”.
It has to be guys’ fault. In general it has to be like this: boys can watch other boys (something to relate to) and girls can see boys for eye candy. It’s not the same if you switch the genders.
It has to be guys’ fault. In general it has to be like this: boys can watch other boys (something to relate to) and girls can see boys for eye candy. It’s not the same if you switch the genders.
girls can see boys for eye candy. It’s not the same if you switch the genders.
maybe deeply ingrained in society for girls to be spectators while boys show off — nowadays easy to forget how female sports teams are a relatively new invention in civilization.
in fact, might be deeply ingrained in the DNA of most species — aren’t most mating rituals all about the males flaunting plumage and stunts to get the female’s attention?
girls can see boys for eye candy. It’s not the same if you switch the genders.
maybe deeply ingrained in society for girls to be spectators while boys show off — nowadays easy to forget how female sports teams are a relatively new invention in civilization.
in fact, might be deeply ingrained in the DNA of most species — aren’t most mating rituals all about the males flaunting plumage and stunts to get the female’s attention?
Of course, Tero. How could I have missed that little gnome
Of course, Tero. How could I have missed that little gnome
good list, robert k
Little Women (1934) might be the first and only tween girl’s story nominated for Best Picture (…until Titanic?)
just as we’ve always known the 1970s was a decade for the most intensely grim and mature BP nominees in history, there’s a big gap there between Doctor Dolittle in ’67 before Beauty and Beast in ’95
don’t forget one Best Picture nominee from the ’70s did have a scene loosely adapted from The Three Little Pigs
good list, robert k
Little Women (1934) might be the first and only tween girl’s story nominated for Best Picture (…until Titanic?)
just as we’ve always known the 1970s was a decade for the most intensely grim and mature BP nominees in history, there’s a big gap there between Doctor Dolittle in ’67 before Beauty and Beast in ’95
don’t forget one Best Picture nominee from the ’70s did have a scene loosely adapted from The Three Little Pigs
Hugo is seriously the dark horse now. I can totally see it winning over The Descendants (slightly smug message that incredibly rich people are just the same as the rest of us, and love the environment too!, too small and mainstream, essentially a TV movie), War Horse (sheerly from the trailers, it looks nauseatingly sentimental and old-fashioned, and it is about a horse, after all) and The Artist (B&W, silent, no “names”, and it is, ick, French!). People may want to get behind giving Scorsese and his movie another pair of Oscars for a movie they genuinely love and that embodies filmmaking magic, as opposed to the cold, intellectual response many had to The Departed, which was basically that we have to give a Scorsese movie, and Scorsese himself, Oscars some time.
Hugo is seriously the dark horse now. I can totally see it winning over The Descendants (slightly smug message that incredibly rich people are just the same as the rest of us, and love the environment too!, too small and mainstream, essentially a TV movie), War Horse (sheerly from the trailers, it looks nauseatingly sentimental and old-fashioned, and it is about a horse, after all) and The Artist (B&W, silent, no “names”, and it is, ick, French!). People may want to get behind giving Scorsese and his movie another pair of Oscars for a movie they genuinely love and that embodies filmmaking magic, as opposed to the cold, intellectual response many had to The Departed, which was basically that we have to give a Scorsese movie, and Scorsese himself, Oscars some time.
Looks like Hugo has moved to the front of the line with critics. The line “there hasn’t been a more competently and stunningly crafted motion picture to come along in years” is hardly faint praise and these guys don’t throw compliments like that out like beads at mardi gras.
I don’t think anybody expected this, which makes it all the more exciting. To call it a kid’s movie is doing it a disservice, I think, as it sounds like so much more considering the knowledge of film history, directorial expertise and technological skill that was required to cobble this together. A real achievement that I cannot wait to see.
Looks like Hugo has moved to the front of the line with critics. The line “there hasn’t been a more competently and stunningly crafted motion picture to come along in years” is hardly faint praise and these guys don’t throw compliments like that out like beads at mardi gras.
I don’t think anybody expected this, which makes it all the more exciting. To call it a kid’s movie is doing it a disservice, I think, as it sounds like so much more considering the knowledge of film history, directorial expertise and technological skill that was required to cobble this together. A real achievement that I cannot wait to see.
Considering the numbers of posts about Hugo… I’m beginning to feel that Hugo = The Social Network of 2011 here at Awards Daily. If it is as good as the 2010 film, great for me. I’ve read the book and it’s fantastic.
Considering the numbers of posts about Hugo… I’m beginning to feel that Hugo = The Social Network of 2011 here at Awards Daily. If it is as good as the 2010 film, great for me. I’ve read the book and it’s fantastic.
To some of the previous comments.
I think WB will try to get it this way (obvious strategy):
Extremely Loud for biggies (BP, BD, SCR, EDIT, possibly SUPP. ACTRESS)
J. Edgar for actors (ACTOR, SUPP. ACTOR & SUPP. ACTRESS)
Harry Potter for technicals (VISUAL, SOUND 1 & 2, MAKEUP)
After all WB won’t win more than possibly ACTOR (Leo) and maybe 1 or 2 technicals for Potter. In studio game, this year belongs to Weinstein (once again) and Dreamworks. Also Fox and Paramount should do pretty well.
Reminds me of this Billy Crystal joke that went sort of like this: “Willie (Fulgear) got 50,000 for finding the 55 missing Oscars – which is not a lot of money considering that Dreamworks and Miramax are spending millions of dollars just to get one.”
With all them HP “consider” -ads WB is promoting their blu-rays more than Oscars now (it’s too early for real Oscar campaigning). Same with Edgar and Extremely – they are promoting the theater releases (when that will happen). If they are being CONSIDERED, fine, great, that is a plus. But it has been proved time and time again that these trophies cannot be bought (unless for reasons mentioned earlier). If they could be bought, a film with 1,4B BO should win most categories. Avatar got three awards, and that film made twice the HP8 BO.
To some of the previous comments.
I think WB will try to get it this way (obvious strategy):
Extremely Loud for biggies (BP, BD, SCR, EDIT, possibly SUPP. ACTRESS)
J. Edgar for actors (ACTOR, SUPP. ACTOR & SUPP. ACTRESS)
Harry Potter for technicals (VISUAL, SOUND 1 & 2, MAKEUP)
After all WB won’t win more than possibly ACTOR (Leo) and maybe 1 or 2 technicals for Potter. In studio game, this year belongs to Weinstein (once again) and Dreamworks. Also Fox and Paramount should do pretty well.
Reminds me of this Billy Crystal joke that went sort of like this: “Willie (Fulgear) got 50,000 for finding the 55 missing Oscars – which is not a lot of money considering that Dreamworks and Miramax are spending millions of dollars just to get one.”
With all them HP “consider” -ads WB is promoting their blu-rays more than Oscars now (it’s too early for real Oscar campaigning). Same with Edgar and Extremely – they are promoting the theater releases (when that will happen). If they are being CONSIDERED, fine, great, that is a plus. But it has been proved time and time again that these trophies cannot be bought (unless for reasons mentioned earlier). If they could be bought, a film with 1,4B BO should win most categories. Avatar got three awards, and that film made twice the HP8 BO.
JP, get ready for the unavoidable storm that is Dragon Tattoo. The owner of this site is the biggest Fincher fan on earth.
JP, get ready for the unavoidable storm that is Dragon Tattoo. The owner of this site is the biggest Fincher fan on earth.
JP, get ready for the unavoidable storm that is Dragon Tattoo. The owner of this site is the biggest Fincher fan on earth.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Scorsese ain’t half-bad either. Also go to bat for Coens. Bigelow. etc.
JP, get ready for the unavoidable storm that is Dragon Tattoo. The owner of this site is the biggest Fincher fan on earth.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Scorsese ain’t half-bad either. Also go to bat for Coens. Bigelow. etc.
I’ve read the book and it’s fantastic.
The book is wonderful. (I even love how it smells — so inky!)
From what we’re hearing, the latter half where it focuses on Méliès and his films has been expanded from the book into something far more visually lavish.
I’ve read the book and it’s fantastic.
The book is wonderful. (I even love how it smells — so inky!)
From what we’re hearing, the latter half where it focuses on Méliès and his films has been expanded from the book into something far more visually lavish.
> I don’t think anybody expected this, which makes it all the more exciting. – steve50
Ahem, from the moment I heard of the existence of this film, I knew it had a real shot and have been mentioning it to no response for several months now (kinda like The Departed) – Sadly, no one has been considering it a possibility.
It’s odd to me how people consistently overlook Scorcese’s upcoming films when guessing which year end’s releases will be Oscar contenders. Scorsese is one of the top director’s working today, English or otherwise, and too many of his movies have been competitive in the Oscar race in recent years to overlook any of them sight unseen, no matter the genre.
Since 2000, every single year end non-documentary film he’s directed has been nominated for Best Pic. The only fictional film of his that hasn’t been nominated for Best Pic since 2000 has been Shutter Island.
Because of his recent track record, anyone who overlooks Scorcese’s releases shouldn’t be considered a serious Oscar prognosticator. People are all over Daldry’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close becuase of his track record, people were all over Payne’s The Descendant’s because of his track record, many are all over Finch’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of his recent track record. One could easily win the argument that, over the course of their careers, Scorcese is a better director than any of those three.
And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film? Probably. But anyone who took the time to read/look at Brian Selznick’s 500 plus page book should know better, this was a story and a concept that was Oscar Bait from its very inception. It’s a deeply affecting story that’s visually enchanting and has, at its core, a celebration of the beginnings of film. Sounds extremely Oscar Bait to me.
> I don’t think anybody expected this, which makes it all the more exciting. – steve50
Ahem, from the moment I heard of the existence of this film, I knew it had a real shot and have been mentioning it to no response for several months now (kinda like The Departed) – Sadly, no one has been considering it a possibility.
It’s odd to me how people consistently overlook Scorcese’s upcoming films when guessing which year end’s releases will be Oscar contenders. Scorsese is one of the top director’s working today, English or otherwise, and too many of his movies have been competitive in the Oscar race in recent years to overlook any of them sight unseen, no matter the genre.
Since 2000, every single year end non-documentary film he’s directed has been nominated for Best Pic. The only fictional film of his that hasn’t been nominated for Best Pic since 2000 has been Shutter Island.
Because of his recent track record, anyone who overlooks Scorcese’s releases shouldn’t be considered a serious Oscar prognosticator. People are all over Daldry’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close becuase of his track record, people were all over Payne’s The Descendant’s because of his track record, many are all over Finch’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of his recent track record. One could easily win the argument that, over the course of their careers, Scorcese is a better director than any of those three.
And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film? Probably. But anyone who took the time to read/look at Brian Selznick’s 500 plus page book should know better, this was a story and a concept that was Oscar Bait from its very inception. It’s a deeply affecting story that’s visually enchanting and has, at its core, a celebration of the beginnings of film. Sounds extremely Oscar Bait to me.
But anyone who took the time to read/look at Brian Selznick’s 500 plus page book should know better
time required: about 2 hours
(maybe 4 hours, if you allow yourself to linger over the glorious illustrations)
But anyone who took the time to read/look at Brian Selznick’s 500 plus page book should know better
time required: about 2 hours
(maybe 4 hours, if you allow yourself to linger over the glorious illustrations)
Nice to see the tide turning here, and I was also wondering all
along why do many were underestimating any big studio film from Scorsese.
More importantly, how much longer do we have to put up with these Harry Potter trolls? News flash, people: this ain’t Return of the King. That somehow won Best Picture from the NYFCC. Critics gave great reviews to Deathly Hallows 2 because it was very well-done for being the 8th film in a series. But they’re not going to take it more seriously than that.
Nice to see the tide turning here, and I was also wondering all
along why do many were underestimating any big studio film from Scorsese.
More importantly, how much longer do we have to put up with these Harry Potter trolls? News flash, people: this ain’t Return of the King. That somehow won Best Picture from the NYFCC. Critics gave great reviews to Deathly Hallows 2 because it was very well-done for being the 8th film in a series. But they’re not going to take it more seriously than that.
Harry Potter trolls? Hugo has exactly the same percentages at RT than HP, including Cream of the Crop (100% and 8,8), difference being HP has aproximately 12 times more reviews and Hugo’s are just starting (at that moment, HP was 100% on both fronts, and held 100% cream of the crop till the end).
When you consider this, being both similar films in appeal, you really have to wonder who’s trolling, the ones reminding it is actually the most successful in all fronts film of the year, or the naysayers who try desperately to “ignore” that it happened.
I mean, if I was a Mallick, Allen, Spielberg, Fincher fan… Would I be in distress with the idea of HP actually smashing my fave director from taking #1 places and awards?
And once more, I think Hugo and Potter are likely to cancel each other, leaving the way to the win to Spielberg. It sounds to me like the most likely thing to happen.
For me the question with Potter and Hugo is: will they both be nominated? None? Or just one, and which one?
Harry Potter trolls? Hugo has exactly the same percentages at RT than HP, including Cream of the Crop (100% and 8,8), difference being HP has aproximately 12 times more reviews and Hugo’s are just starting (at that moment, HP was 100% on both fronts, and held 100% cream of the crop till the end).
When you consider this, being both similar films in appeal, you really have to wonder who’s trolling, the ones reminding it is actually the most successful in all fronts film of the year, or the naysayers who try desperately to “ignore” that it happened.
I mean, if I was a Mallick, Allen, Spielberg, Fincher fan… Would I be in distress with the idea of HP actually smashing my fave director from taking #1 places and awards?
And once more, I think Hugo and Potter are likely to cancel each other, leaving the way to the win to Spielberg. It sounds to me like the most likely thing to happen.
For me the question with Potter and Hugo is: will they both be nominated? None? Or just one, and which one?
So, the discussion if HP is an Oscar contender is completely legitimate. The call of trolling to those who actually discuss it, isn’t.
So, the discussion if HP is an Oscar contender is completely legitimate. The call of trolling to those who actually discuss it, isn’t.
“More importantly, how much longer do we have to put up with these Harry Potter trolls? News flash, people: this ain’t Return of the King.”
HA!
“And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film?”
Absolutely the reason why – case in point referred to above.
“More importantly, how much longer do we have to put up with these Harry Potter trolls? News flash, people: this ain’t Return of the King.”
HA!
“And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film?”
Absolutely the reason why – case in point referred to above.
I don’t give a fuck what HP’s rating was on Rotten Tomatoes; what that means is that no one thought it was bad. Same goes for the Muppets being at 100%. This doesn’t mean people are taking it seriously or that it’s destined for awards season glory.
You guys get back to me when HP starts winning all (or ANY of) the critics awards like ROTK did. Then we’ll talk.
I don’t give a fuck what HP’s rating was on Rotten Tomatoes; what that means is that no one thought it was bad. Same goes for the Muppets being at 100%. This doesn’t mean people are taking it seriously or that it’s destined for awards season glory.
You guys get back to me when HP starts winning all (or ANY of) the critics awards like ROTK did. Then we’ll talk.
Also, this isn’t about numbers. It’s what the reviews actually SAY that matters. The people who love Hugo are using terms like “landmark”, “masterpiece”, “most personal”, “groundbreaking”, etc.
That’s going to translate a lot more into year-end consideration than the accolades HP was receiving.
Also, this isn’t about numbers. It’s what the reviews actually SAY that matters. The people who love Hugo are using terms like “landmark”, “masterpiece”, “most personal”, “groundbreaking”, etc.
That’s going to translate a lot more into year-end consideration than the accolades HP was receiving.
I think the main thing about the Harry Potter films that Harry Potter fans overlook is that they are really just visually sumptuous Cliff’s Notes versions of the books. Yes, the books are great undemanding literature for kids and adults alike, I enjoyed them very much. But the filmed versions of them don’t offer anything interesting about the books you can’t get from the books themselves. In other words, I don’t think the films stand alone as works of art. The movies are nice summaries with a few nice performances here and there. Any votes for the movies really should be credited to the books. The Man Booker Prize should be televised, I guess.
Hugo, on the other hand, really seems to stand alone. I can tell from the reviews I’ve read whether the critic has read the book or not. It doesn’t seem to matter if they have. It’s getting near unanimous accolades either way. People love this movie regardless of the book. I don’t think the same can be said of Harry Potter.
I think the main thing about the Harry Potter films that Harry Potter fans overlook is that they are really just visually sumptuous Cliff’s Notes versions of the books. Yes, the books are great undemanding literature for kids and adults alike, I enjoyed them very much. But the filmed versions of them don’t offer anything interesting about the books you can’t get from the books themselves. In other words, I don’t think the films stand alone as works of art. The movies are nice summaries with a few nice performances here and there. Any votes for the movies really should be credited to the books. The Man Booker Prize should be televised, I guess.
Hugo, on the other hand, really seems to stand alone. I can tell from the reviews I’ve read whether the critic has read the book or not. It doesn’t seem to matter if they have. It’s getting near unanimous accolades either way. People love this movie regardless of the book. I don’t think the same can be said of Harry Potter.
I compared the scores and even with several positive reviews on RT, Hugo has notes equal to or lower than those received Harry Potter 7.2. So this argument that “no one thought it was bad” isnt worth.
I compared the scores and even with several positive reviews on RT, Hugo has notes equal to or lower than those received Harry Potter 7.2. So this argument that “no one thought it was bad” isnt worth.
Me: And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film?
Steve50: Absolutely the reason why – case in point referred to above.
And that’s kind of my point. It seems that all of these Oscar Prognosticators don’t do their homework. They look at the list of releases, look at the stars, the summaries of the plots and the quality of the director and then make a snap judgment. And then everyone parrots each other, no one wants to go out on a limb. With so little info out there, you’d think that investigating the source material would be high on the list if and then, if you really wanted to be thorough, try to figure out what the director could do with the material.
As luck would have it, I saved an e-mail exchange I had with an Oscar prognosticator back in 2006. For those who have too much time to waste, give it a look over and you will see what I am referring to, an over-reliance on conventional thought.
My letter (sent July 15, 2006)
Have you seen Infernal Affairs? To merely call it an Asian gangster flick implies, to me, that you have not.
It’s an astoundingly good film that’s extremely
personal, surprisingly heartbreaking, often
thrilling, and instantly interesting. If the film were
in English, I’ve no doubt it would have been up for
multiple major awards the year it was eligible. The
major flaw of the film to an English-speaking viewer
was that it was very complex, between the actors all
looking similar (They’re all Chinese!) and having to
focus on the subtitles, it was easy to lose track of
the plot of the film.
Needless to say, Scorcese’s version won’t have the
language problem. Scorcese’s problem with not winning
Best Director has been, in my opinion, that he doesn’t
rely on easy emotion. His films often create a lot of
distance between the audience and the subject
material. But I don’t see that happening with this
film. The source material is simply too damn good.
Perhaps another Hollywood hack would screw this up.
But when was the last time that Scorese completely
missed the boat?
And mob movies not being Oscarbait? Have you heard of
The Godfather? Goodfellas? Just wondering.
I consider this film, completely unseen by me, to have
a mortal lock in the major categories, and if I were
into gambling on such things, I would bet my life
savings that this will be the film that Scorcese
finally wins those major awards that have been eluding
him, especially coming so soon after The Aviator’s
oh-so-near miss.
I’m amazed, again and again, that The Departed is not
at the top of every discussion with regards to the
2006 Oscar race. It really makes me wonder if you
guys know what you are talking about.
Or maybe you know something I do not?
And the reply……
First and foremost, thanks for the reply.
I simply don’t buy The Departed as anywhere close to a frontrunner. Nor does any industry person I’ve spoken to.
Infernal Affairs is no sacred cow. It’s good in premise but I personally found the film to be rather rushed in execution. (Though Lau and Leung were both great).
In many ways, though, I think that it’s ideal to be remade (I hate remakes of classics).
But it is a REMAKE which score BP nods about once every thirty years. And an ACTION film. With a writer who’s yet to “hit”.
As for “mob movies” being Oscarbait we have the classics Goodfellas and The Godfather films…and apart from that? Can’t think of any off the top of my head?
Moreover, WB has The Good German, which appears their obvious #1 horse as anyone in the industry would tell you.
And on top of all this, a director making three Best Picture nominees in a row is very very very rare indeed (in fact, I can’t think of any instance where this has occurred).
I *am* predicting it for some nods (you’ll find out soon which ones). But I frankly think a shutout is more likely than a BP nomination.
In spite of this, you seem dedicated to Scorsese winning the Oscar to this.
And I do love Scorsese at the top of his game so I hope I’m wrong.
Note: This exchange was not with anyone at this site, but another site that is out that there is still well-regarded.
Me: And yet no one considered Hugo a real possibility. Strange, huh? Could it be because it’s a “family” film?
Steve50: Absolutely the reason why – case in point referred to above.
And that’s kind of my point. It seems that all of these Oscar Prognosticators don’t do their homework. They look at the list of releases, look at the stars, the summaries of the plots and the quality of the director and then make a snap judgment. And then everyone parrots each other, no one wants to go out on a limb. With so little info out there, you’d think that investigating the source material would be high on the list if and then, if you really wanted to be thorough, try to figure out what the director could do with the material.
As luck would have it, I saved an e-mail exchange I had with an Oscar prognosticator back in 2006. For those who have too much time to waste, give it a look over and you will see what I am referring to, an over-reliance on conventional thought.
My letter (sent July 15, 2006)
Have you seen Infernal Affairs? To merely call it an Asian gangster flick implies, to me, that you have not.
It’s an astoundingly good film that’s extremely
personal, surprisingly heartbreaking, often
thrilling, and instantly interesting. If the film were
in English, I’ve no doubt it would have been up for
multiple major awards the year it was eligible. The
major flaw of the film to an English-speaking viewer
was that it was very complex, between the actors all
looking similar (They’re all Chinese!) and having to
focus on the subtitles, it was easy to lose track of
the plot of the film.
Needless to say, Scorcese’s version won’t have the
language problem. Scorcese’s problem with not winning
Best Director has been, in my opinion, that he doesn’t
rely on easy emotion. His films often create a lot of
distance between the audience and the subject
material. But I don’t see that happening with this
film. The source material is simply too damn good.
Perhaps another Hollywood hack would screw this up.
But when was the last time that Scorese completely
missed the boat?
And mob movies not being Oscarbait? Have you heard of
The Godfather? Goodfellas? Just wondering.
I consider this film, completely unseen by me, to have
a mortal lock in the major categories, and if I were
into gambling on such things, I would bet my life
savings that this will be the film that Scorcese
finally wins those major awards that have been eluding
him, especially coming so soon after The Aviator’s
oh-so-near miss.
I’m amazed, again and again, that The Departed is not
at the top of every discussion with regards to the
2006 Oscar race. It really makes me wonder if you
guys know what you are talking about.
Or maybe you know something I do not?
And the reply……
First and foremost, thanks for the reply.
I simply don’t buy The Departed as anywhere close to a frontrunner. Nor does any industry person I’ve spoken to.
Infernal Affairs is no sacred cow. It’s good in premise but I personally found the film to be rather rushed in execution. (Though Lau and Leung were both great).
In many ways, though, I think that it’s ideal to be remade (I hate remakes of classics).
But it is a REMAKE which score BP nods about once every thirty years. And an ACTION film. With a writer who’s yet to “hit”.
As for “mob movies” being Oscarbait we have the classics Goodfellas and The Godfather films…and apart from that? Can’t think of any off the top of my head?
Moreover, WB has The Good German, which appears their obvious #1 horse as anyone in the industry would tell you.
And on top of all this, a director making three Best Picture nominees in a row is very very very rare indeed (in fact, I can’t think of any instance where this has occurred).
I *am* predicting it for some nods (you’ll find out soon which ones). But I frankly think a shutout is more likely than a BP nomination.
In spite of this, you seem dedicated to Scorsese winning the Oscar to this.
And I do love Scorsese at the top of his game so I hope I’m wrong.
Note: This exchange was not with anyone at this site, but another site that is out that there is still well-regarded.
It seems that all of these Oscar Prognosticators don’t do their homework.
I don’t know who you’re talking about.
I’ve been posting excited articles about Hugo since March 2010.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/03/cast-expands-for-scorseses-the-invention-of-hugo-cabret/
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/06/schoonmaker-says-scorsese-in-love-with-3d/
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/06/scorsese-populates-the-world-of-hugo-cabret-as-production-begins/
I count 15 articles I’ve posted about Hugo over the past 20 months.
Sasha posted her own rave review from a special screening days ago. And if you follow her Twitter account, Sasha’s been praising it and defending it every day this week
Homework? I read the novel last year, about 2 weeks after Scorsese’s involvement was official.
I’m glad you guys are finally chiming in, but Sasha and I have been all over Hugo since the day it was announced Scorsese was directing 20 months ago.
It seems that all of these Oscar Prognosticators don’t do their homework.
I don’t know who you’re talking about.
I’ve been posting excited articles about Hugo since March 2010.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/03/cast-expands-for-scorseses-the-invention-of-hugo-cabret/
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/06/schoonmaker-says-scorsese-in-love-with-3d/
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/06/scorsese-populates-the-world-of-hugo-cabret-as-production-begins/
I count 15 articles I’ve posted about Hugo over the past 20 months.
Sasha posted her own rave review from a special screening days ago. And if you follow her Twitter account, Sasha’s been praising it and defending it every day this week
Homework? I read the novel last year, about 2 weeks after Scorsese’s involvement was official.
I’m glad you guys are finally chiming in, but Sasha and I have been all over Hugo since the day it was announced Scorsese was directing 20 months ago.
I don’t know about the others oscar prognosticators but Awards Daily got me interested in the picture long ago, and I could’ve easily overlooked these one. Anyway, the idea of a old school filmmaker like Scorsese succeding with critics is interesting, and if he made Ebert praise the use of 3d technology in a movie, well, is kind of a lifetime achievement.
I don’t know about the others oscar prognosticators but Awards Daily got me interested in the picture long ago, and I could’ve easily overlooked these one. Anyway, the idea of a old school filmmaker like Scorsese succeding with critics is interesting, and if he made Ebert praise the use of 3d technology in a movie, well, is kind of a lifetime achievement.
I’m a big David Fincher fan… right now Dragon Tattoo looks like the only film that can share the attention with Hugo here.
But in the end, the winner will be The Artist or War Horse. (Extremely Loud… does anyone knows something about it?… Reviews, screenings…)
I’m a big David Fincher fan… right now Dragon Tattoo looks like the only film that can share the attention with Hugo here.
But in the end, the winner will be The Artist or War Horse. (Extremely Loud… does anyone knows something about it?… Reviews, screenings…)
I bet the writers of Big Bang Theory read this forum often…
I bet the writers of Big Bang Theory read this forum often…
And Sasha, it was meant to be a compliment. Fincher IS a master, but I think Dragon Tattoo will not come into play. They probably only like Fincher’s non-violet films.
And Sasha, it was meant to be a compliment. Fincher IS a master, but I think Dragon Tattoo will not come into play. They probably only like Fincher’s non-violet films.
Ryan, I obviously agree that you’ve posted a ton of articles about Hugo on this site. That’s why I come here. It’s a great place for movie news for people who like some cerebral stimulation when choosing a night’s entertainment.
But to be honest here, I can’t recall seeing any talk about Hugo in the “preview” articles beyond a courtesy mention or even a dismissal of its chances. (To be doubly honest, I don’t read this site faithfully and often will confuse the comments section with the main articles as time passes.)
But I’m not denigrating this site, that was never my intention. I know that you and Sasha have no problems putting forth your own opinions. But look at the preview charts where the prognosticators rank their predictions. That’s where the issue lies. Everyone’s lists are almost exactly the same.
I like you Ryan, you’re a funny guy who is smart in all the right ways. Please don’t take offense at my ramblings.
Ryan, I obviously agree that you’ve posted a ton of articles about Hugo on this site. That’s why I come here. It’s a great place for movie news for people who like some cerebral stimulation when choosing a night’s entertainment.
But to be honest here, I can’t recall seeing any talk about Hugo in the “preview” articles beyond a courtesy mention or even a dismissal of its chances. (To be doubly honest, I don’t read this site faithfully and often will confuse the comments section with the main articles as time passes.)
But I’m not denigrating this site, that was never my intention. I know that you and Sasha have no problems putting forth your own opinions. But look at the preview charts where the prognosticators rank their predictions. That’s where the issue lies. Everyone’s lists are almost exactly the same.
I like you Ryan, you’re a funny guy who is smart in all the right ways. Please don’t take offense at my ramblings.
“Harry Potter troll” is just a term of annoyance here. It’s about the fact that there has not been a thread about ANY given movie where HP didn’t appear in the comment section. The movie is big, but not that big.
Take any given post of a movie’s reviews (Hugo, War Horse, The Artist, J. Edgar, The Descendants) – click on the comments and HP is there. He’s lurking everywhere, and (to some extent) it has already ruined the movie for me. It didn’t hold that well on my second viewing anyway, so I just gave away my limited edition blu-ray collection of all 8 HP-films.
Street team has failed – you are hurting the movie, whereas WB is doing just fine.
“Harry Potter troll” is just a term of annoyance here. It’s about the fact that there has not been a thread about ANY given movie where HP didn’t appear in the comment section. The movie is big, but not that big.
Take any given post of a movie’s reviews (Hugo, War Horse, The Artist, J. Edgar, The Descendants) – click on the comments and HP is there. He’s lurking everywhere, and (to some extent) it has already ruined the movie for me. It didn’t hold that well on my second viewing anyway, so I just gave away my limited edition blu-ray collection of all 8 HP-films.
Street team has failed – you are hurting the movie, whereas WB is doing just fine.
Rufussondheim,
that’s ok, I didn’t take offense. I appreciate that you took care to phrase what you said in terms of generic “oscar prognosticators” — and you said specifically that you weren’t making veiled references to anyone here. So I just wanted to help differentiate how we’ve tried to approach Hugo from what you’ve seen on other sites.
I haven’t counted up articles to compare — but I think we’ve covered Moneyball, Hugo, The Descendants, War Horse, The Artist, Drive, all pretty fairly and equally. I make an effort to remain noncommittal until I know what I’m talking about. But please don’t mistake restraint for dismissal.
(If you want to see how I dismiss a movie, look for titles that I never write about. I won’t name them. That wouldn’t be nice)
As for making blind guesses about films before we see them — we really try not to do that for any movie. Sure, we all have our favorite directors, and we’ll remain hopeful and upbeat about their movies until proven otherwise. But it’s actually counterproductive to hype a movie too much before it’s released — because it would cast our objectivity in a bad light, right?
To be honest, the very first trailer for Hugo made me wince just a little. It seemed to feature a whole lot of Sacha Baron Cohen, and I knew his character didn’t figure that prominently as a physical presence in the book. So I can’t pretend I didn’t have qualms 2 months ago. (But I was keeping those worries to myself. We all know trailers — especially teasers — are constructed to appeal to audiences by selling things they don’t intend to deliver.)
But any qualms I had vanished as soon as I heard Sasha’s first tweets after she left the screening last week. At that point, we’ve shown our support for Hugo more openly because we finally have something more than hope to hang onto.
The well-known prognosticators charts in October and early November are a fun game, but we don’t give them much credence.
Someone on Twitter said this morning that it feels strange at this stage to have so many films still jockeying for position, no clear frontrunners emerging as locks.
My response? Here’s what I know about getting too attached to frontrunners: Trump, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich.
Rufussondheim,
that’s ok, I didn’t take offense. I appreciate that you took care to phrase what you said in terms of generic “oscar prognosticators” — and you said specifically that you weren’t making veiled references to anyone here. So I just wanted to help differentiate how we’ve tried to approach Hugo from what you’ve seen on other sites.
I haven’t counted up articles to compare — but I think we’ve covered Moneyball, Hugo, The Descendants, War Horse, The Artist, Drive, all pretty fairly and equally. I make an effort to remain noncommittal until I know what I’m talking about. But please don’t mistake restraint for dismissal.
(If you want to see how I dismiss a movie, look for titles that I never write about. I won’t name them. That wouldn’t be nice)
As for making blind guesses about films before we see them — we really try not to do that for any movie. Sure, we all have our favorite directors, and we’ll remain hopeful and upbeat about their movies until proven otherwise. But it’s actually counterproductive to hype a movie too much before it’s released — because it would cast our objectivity in a bad light, right?
To be honest, the very first trailer for Hugo made me wince just a little. It seemed to feature a whole lot of Sacha Baron Cohen, and I knew his character didn’t figure that prominently as a physical presence in the book. So I can’t pretend I didn’t have qualms 2 months ago. (But I was keeping those worries to myself. We all know trailers — especially teasers — are constructed to appeal to audiences by selling things they don’t intend to deliver.)
But any qualms I had vanished as soon as I heard Sasha’s first tweets after she left the screening last week. At that point, we’ve shown our support for Hugo more openly because we finally have something more than hope to hang onto.
The well-known prognosticators charts in October and early November are a fun game, but we don’t give them much credence.
Someone on Twitter said this morning that it feels strange at this stage to have so many films still jockeying for position, no clear frontrunners emerging as locks.
My response? Here’s what I know about getting too attached to frontrunners: Trump, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich.
Of my T8 critics, 2 pts for 100 & 1 for 88+: Descendants – 11 points
Moneyball/Rango – 10 points
Tree of Life/Meek’s Cutoff/Melancholia – 9 points
Hugo has 9 pts but 2 aren’t up yet. Time says “the director pays luminous tribute to old films—in his best new film of the millennium”…so that looks like a 100 to make Hugo join with Descendants on the top, which is quite surprising for me. LA Times is the holdout: “A slapstick element mars…aren’t quite enough to make this…a wholly satisfying experience…story elements are fitfully problematical.” Hugo is actually higher on average than The Departed on RT, and higher on Metacritic under my idiosyncratic point system. If things keep up, this could be his best-reviewed film since…1990? Or not. It’s currently ranking as Scorsese’s #5 theatrical release on IMDB.
I just noticed that 3 of the above are Gotham Feature nominees (w/2 being more directorial than actor-ly if their Ensemble snubs are anything to go by), w/3 obviously not independent. Leaving Melancholia I suppose.
Of my T8 critics, 2 pts for 100 & 1 for 88+: Descendants – 11 points
Moneyball/Rango – 10 points
Tree of Life/Meek’s Cutoff/Melancholia – 9 points
Hugo has 9 pts but 2 aren’t up yet. Time says “the director pays luminous tribute to old films—in his best new film of the millennium”…so that looks like a 100 to make Hugo join with Descendants on the top, which is quite surprising for me. LA Times is the holdout: “A slapstick element mars…aren’t quite enough to make this…a wholly satisfying experience…story elements are fitfully problematical.” Hugo is actually higher on average than The Departed on RT, and higher on Metacritic under my idiosyncratic point system. If things keep up, this could be his best-reviewed film since…1990? Or not. It’s currently ranking as Scorsese’s #5 theatrical release on IMDB.
I just noticed that 3 of the above are Gotham Feature nominees (w/2 being more directorial than actor-ly if their Ensemble snubs are anything to go by), w/3 obviously not independent. Leaving Melancholia I suppose.
I agree with the earlier comment that hugo and harry potter will cancel each other out. But the chances are pretty even right now on which one could be nominated. Yes critics have called hugo a masterpiece. But if you look at reviews for HP they use the words masterful, which means pretty much the same thing. If Hugo gets nominated for BP it will probably be because the academy members are suckers for scorcese movies. And if HP gets nominated, it will probably be the nostalgia factor, and a tribute nomination to honor the whole franchise, or because HP is alot darker and more mature than Hugo………..just a thought.
I agree with the earlier comment that hugo and harry potter will cancel each other out. But the chances are pretty even right now on which one could be nominated. Yes critics have called hugo a masterpiece. But if you look at reviews for HP they use the words masterful, which means pretty much the same thing. If Hugo gets nominated for BP it will probably be because the academy members are suckers for scorcese movies. And if HP gets nominated, it will probably be the nostalgia factor, and a tribute nomination to honor the whole franchise, or because HP is alot darker and more mature than Hugo………..just a thought.
First of all…what ever gave you the notion that boys don’t watch girls for eye candy? lol
What about last year’s Black Swan? The girl on girl activity drew large amounts of men into the theatre as do just about any film with female nudity. Oh and have you missed the fact guys are more visuals creatures, media frequently promotes towards men using scantily clad women, etc.
As for Warner Bros…no there isn’t a quota but in the last 30 years they’ve had over a 60% success rate on getting a Best Picture nom so chances are good.
First of all…what ever gave you the notion that boys don’t watch girls for eye candy? lol
What about last year’s Black Swan? The girl on girl activity drew large amounts of men into the theatre as do just about any film with female nudity. Oh and have you missed the fact guys are more visuals creatures, media frequently promotes towards men using scantily clad women, etc.
As for Warner Bros…no there isn’t a quota but in the last 30 years they’ve had over a 60% success rate on getting a Best Picture nom so chances are good.
“Masterful” implies something was done well.
“Masterpiece” implies it’s a piece of art and will endure for years to come.
TO Ryan, Ha! on your Republican Analogy. I just got done watching tonight’s tedious and frustrating debate, so to see that humorous reference before I slumber was welcome indeed. (On a side note, I can’t believe Romney basically admitted to deporting a resident of 25 years who had children and grandchildren in this country just because they originally came here illegally. – No idea what will be the reaction of that comment he made, but I hope people are hostile to that idea.)
“Masterful” implies something was done well.
“Masterpiece” implies it’s a piece of art and will endure for years to come.
TO Ryan, Ha! on your Republican Analogy. I just got done watching tonight’s tedious and frustrating debate, so to see that humorous reference before I slumber was welcome indeed. (On a side note, I can’t believe Romney basically admitted to deporting a resident of 25 years who had children and grandchildren in this country just because they originally came here illegally. – No idea what will be the reaction of that comment he made, but I hope people are hostile to that idea.)
There is however an alarming trend currently of girls packing theatres to watch crappy movies just cause it’s got some “hawt guy” in it. Twilight fans I’m looking at you…
There is however an alarming trend currently of girls packing theatres to watch crappy movies just cause it’s got some “hawt guy” in it. Twilight fans I’m looking at you…
I meant younger girls than Portman/Kunis. Sure, things change when girls are women. Emma Watson is just in the line of age I was talking about.
I meant younger girls than Portman/Kunis. Sure, things change when girls are women. Emma Watson is just in the line of age I was talking about.
She is? Emma is legal now…
She is? Emma is legal now…
Hugo will suffer syphooning from 3 films mainly: HP, Tintin and Super 8. That can damage it enough to not be able to score a BP nom. If it gets nom’d, though, it’s probably War Horse, then Hugo, for the win, in my opinion. We could see a BP/BD split with War Horse and Scorsese, but I think the double whammo by Spielberg is enough to guarantee him Best Director as I also think the double whammo by Pitt will give him Best Lead Actor.
That is, in a logichal world. Another issue is, if Oscar would feel playful at Oscar night, as in 2005.
Hugo will suffer syphooning from 3 films mainly: HP, Tintin and Super 8. That can damage it enough to not be able to score a BP nom. If it gets nom’d, though, it’s probably War Horse, then Hugo, for the win, in my opinion. We could see a BP/BD split with War Horse and Scorsese, but I think the double whammo by Spielberg is enough to guarantee him Best Director as I also think the double whammo by Pitt will give him Best Lead Actor.
That is, in a logichal world. Another issue is, if Oscar would feel playful at Oscar night, as in 2005.
Well looks like the BFCA are keeping the critics in check a bit…they’re starting it off at only 81, and I think by now you all know what that would mean if history holds true.
Well looks like the BFCA are keeping the critics in check a bit…they’re starting it off at only 81, and I think by now you all know what that would mean if history holds true.
I think the reality is that Harry Potter’s chances of being nominated for BP have now plummeted in the face of the rave reviews for Hugo. Both films got/are getting great reviews, and none of this is meant to be a comment on the quality of either film, but:
1. Hugo is more recent, and therefore fresher in the minds of voters. I think most voters will be reluctant to nominate two “kids” films, and so they are more likely to choose the more recent one that they still feel the glow of.
2. Both might be regarded as “children’s” films, but (fairly or not) Hugo also has the aura of being a filmmaker’s film, a movie that really uses the medium of film, and situates itself in film history. It will therefore be seen as deeper, more adult, and more worthy than the “mere children’s story” of Harry Potter.
3. Hugo is directed by a great American film director. That automatically gives it credibility as a film and as a work of art. Harry Potter is not directed by a director with the same status.
4. No previous Harry Potter film has been nominated for BP. This fact alone suggests that Academy voters simply don’t see these films as BP worthy (as opposed to the noms for all the Lord of the Rings films). True, now we have potentially 10 nominees instead of 5, and HPDH2 is the final instalment of a great series, and got perhaps the best reviews of all, so some people may think the whole series deserves to be recognized thru a nomination for the final film, but I can’t think of another example where the final film in a series was nominated where the preceding films were not.
I think the reality is that Harry Potter’s chances of being nominated for BP have now plummeted in the face of the rave reviews for Hugo. Both films got/are getting great reviews, and none of this is meant to be a comment on the quality of either film, but:
1. Hugo is more recent, and therefore fresher in the minds of voters. I think most voters will be reluctant to nominate two “kids” films, and so they are more likely to choose the more recent one that they still feel the glow of.
2. Both might be regarded as “children’s” films, but (fairly or not) Hugo also has the aura of being a filmmaker’s film, a movie that really uses the medium of film, and situates itself in film history. It will therefore be seen as deeper, more adult, and more worthy than the “mere children’s story” of Harry Potter.
3. Hugo is directed by a great American film director. That automatically gives it credibility as a film and as a work of art. Harry Potter is not directed by a director with the same status.
4. No previous Harry Potter film has been nominated for BP. This fact alone suggests that Academy voters simply don’t see these films as BP worthy (as opposed to the noms for all the Lord of the Rings films). True, now we have potentially 10 nominees instead of 5, and HPDH2 is the final instalment of a great series, and got perhaps the best reviews of all, so some people may think the whole series deserves to be recognized thru a nomination for the final film, but I can’t think of another example where the final film in a series was nominated where the preceding films were not.
You guys gotta manage your reviewing in those Oscar Poker podcasts better.
I’ve started not listening to them if I haven’t seen the films, because I know spoilers slipout more often than not. There’s talking about how good a movie is, and then there’s telling how good a movie is by revealing key moments of the film. This is a general comment, but also applies to your discussion of Hugo which let loose a big spoiler.
You guys gotta manage your reviewing in those Oscar Poker podcasts better.
I’ve started not listening to them if I haven’t seen the films, because I know spoilers slipout more often than not. There’s talking about how good a movie is, and then there’s telling how good a movie is by revealing key moments of the film. This is a general comment, but also applies to your discussion of Hugo which let loose a big spoiler.
“Hugo also has the aura of being a filmmaker’s film, a movie that really uses the medium of film, and situates itself in film history.”
This is the main reason why it makes no sense to compare Hugo to HP, simply because the subject matter is kids and kids can go see it. It actually sounds like it would be closer competition for The Artist, but Hugo is not going to syphon anything from anybody because it stands on its own. HP is not in the same class – sorry.
“Hugo also has the aura of being a filmmaker’s film, a movie that really uses the medium of film, and situates itself in film history.”
This is the main reason why it makes no sense to compare Hugo to HP, simply because the subject matter is kids and kids can go see it. It actually sounds like it would be closer competition for The Artist, but Hugo is not going to syphon anything from anybody because it stands on its own. HP is not in the same class – sorry.
Fuck, the BFCA score has jumped to 88 now…
Fuck, the BFCA score has jumped to 88 now…
BFCA 88! Go, Hugo, go!
BFCA 88! Go, Hugo, go!
I think the more people deny Harry Potter DH Pt. 2 for a possible BP nomination, the more these award giving bodies might consider it…
And I would love to see both HP 7.2 and Hugo being nominated for BP… It’s about time they recognize a children’s film in a larger scale…
I think the more people deny Harry Potter DH Pt. 2 for a possible BP nomination, the more these award giving bodies might consider it…
And I would love to see both HP 7.2 and Hugo being nominated for BP… It’s about time they recognize a children’s film in a larger scale…
I’m so f***g tired of every film thread parasited by Harry Potter trolls. It is seriously getting annoying. But what is also especially revealing is their joy when they get convinced that another film may have fallen on his way to the Kodak and it could mean their shitty franchise could have a better shot at a nomination. How sad. The only way they see HP could succeed is if that other films fails. Talk about love for films.
And by the way, no film, and especially not Hugo, is “syphoning” votes from Harry Potter. Nobody would have voted it for it anyway in the first place. Nobody gives a crap about a Burger King when they can enjoy a Michelin restaurant.
I’m so f***g tired of every film thread parasited by Harry Potter trolls. It is seriously getting annoying. But what is also especially revealing is their joy when they get convinced that another film may have fallen on his way to the Kodak and it could mean their shitty franchise could have a better shot at a nomination. How sad. The only way they see HP could succeed is if that other films fails. Talk about love for films.
And by the way, no film, and especially not Hugo, is “syphoning” votes from Harry Potter. Nobody would have voted it for it anyway in the first place. Nobody gives a crap about a Burger King when they can enjoy a Michelin restaurant.