Gorgeous, Tedious Hugo
A word to filmmakers: if you're going to shoot a live-action film in 3D (not CONVERT a live-action film to 3D -- if you're doing that, STOP DOING THAT RIGHT NOW, it's like colorizing films, only with migraine-juice instead of fake colors) Hugo should be your directorial bible.
The film was beautiful. People's faces -- those anchor-tags we use throughout life to figure out where we really stand -- came to life in this film in ways I've never seen before. It was beautiful, and it was amazing.
It was like a trip through a museum, and once I resigned myself to the fact that not very much was going to actually happen during my two-hour tour of these magnificent scenes, it was EXACTLY like a trip through a museum. I enjoyed it, I was amazed, I was touched by the story and the performances, and I have to admit to at least 20 minutes of boredom.
Hugo clears my Threshold of Awesome, but I don't plan to see it a second time (unlike some of the other entries above the Threshold of Awesome.) Currently Hugo is #12 for me this year.blog comments powered by Disqus