Yes, a nice moment between Law and Butterfield in a movie theatre to visualize the meaningful connection would be the WORST CREATIVE DECISION CONCEIVABLE.

Fuck you, snob. At the same time, though, merry Christmas!

Yes, obviously I meant that 100% literally.
The actual visual representation of this would, imo only of course, ruin the emotional resonance that Scorcese carefully and subtlety builds with the complete absence of the father, especially done in such an obvious and cloying way as actually watching a movie in the theater.
I apologize for the didactic way in which I responded to you.
Merry christmas david.

Oh
Michael

A.

Complete absence? He's in the movie for five or six minutes and is played by one of the most recognizable actors in the world. One more scene with him would not've wildly changed the dynamic.

For the record, a little seed-planting by showing Hugo with his dad at the movies is actually a pretty good idea. The whole movie thing is jarringly introduced in the second act before taking over the film completely, and introducing the theme earlier would have helped that aspect feel more organic.

It didn't have to be through a scene with Jude Law; any scene or dialogue tipping the audience off that this was going to be a story about the cinema would have sufficed. It isn't introduced until Hugo's tossed-off dialogue at the bookshop, and it makes the film's structure pretty odd.

I agree; Hugo should have had some movie magazines or a picture of Charlie Chaplin or something earlier on in the film to set the theme. I admittedly didn't know what it was about (I thought it was going to be a fantasy steampunk thing from the only commercial I had seen) and the switch to a film about films did seem kind of out of place.

Admittedly as soon as they said George Meleis, I knew who he was and had some idea, but that doesn't come until late in the film.

I thought he was fictional and Scorsese was just boss at making early 1900s films. lol

You really know nothing about cinema, eh?

Shack officially knows less than my 9 year old cousin. Nice.

He's George Meleis, not Stanley Kubrick

Actually, he's Georges Méliès.

Still not Stanley Kubrick, though. They're different people.

People pick on Shack too much. lol. I've seen worse.

I saw Hugo with two very well-educated people and neither of them were aware Georges Méliès was an actual filmmaker, to be fair.

I wasn't aware of too many biographical details, but I knew the name, and A Trip to the Moon is so iconic...

Yeah, if you really thought Scorsese made up the rocket in the eye of the moon, then I can't help you.

If they didn't know who Melies was then they weren't very well educated.

All this thread derailing just to show off the fact that some people actually knew about Georges Méliès before seeing the movie (gasp!) - - no wonder Hugo is getting such good reviews - - it's feeding the insecurities of the know-it-all poseur crowd!

Isn't that your crowd?

Bradley has his own I-know-even-more crowd consisting of himself and Armond White.

We already have a very popular thread on Méliès.

There's a big difference between know-it-alls and someone who knows it all.

What a fantastic film. Hugo is the film for film lovers and shows its appreciation better than the already great The Artist. Scorsese takes a simple kids film and transforms it into something older audiences can appreciate. The acting is superb going from Asa Butterfield, Chloe Mortez (who is still pulling in impressive performances after Kick-Ass and Let Me In), Sacha Baron Cohen, and leading the pack Ben Kingsley. The 3D in this film is the best used to date and if Scorsese keeps to his word, I'm going to really enjoy where he will continue to take 3D. The entire story is magical and exciting to visit and I believe I may have found my new favorite of the year. ****

Mostly it's beautiful, a little cheesy and sentimental, a little condescending, perhaps a little simplistic I can't help feel even weeks later it is absolutely gorgeous and mostly sincere. I felt Scorcese and the writers snearing a few times at the audience members who thought Georges Melies was a fictional character, or better yet the few who surely believe it is Ben Kingsly. Either way for the most part I knew what we were talking about, but it was still a nice and did I mention just radiant lecture? I think this "film for filmlovers! zomgggg!!!!" hype is overblown, a bit, but there clearly is a deep respect and individual connections between the creators and film in general, and I was thoroughly absorbed and entranced by the conclusion. Overblown, but so were those films, they had to be, and so must this I suppose. I loved it.

Brilliant film. Only time Ive ever enjoyed 3D in a film and not found it a distraction. Loved the film history/preservation aspects much more than I'd expected too.

Not much to nitpick about this one. About as good as it gets.

Best of the year.