While I have given "Hugo" a well-deserved 10, I am don't think this film is for everyone. Despite the advertising campaign which made it look like a kids' movie, it is NOT. Now I am NOT saying it had adult content. Despite being directed by Martin Scorsese ("Taxi Driver", "Goodfellas" and "Raging Bull"),it is very family-friendly--without cursing, sex or violence. But, I also think younger kids would be totally bored to tears by the film--particularly late in the movie. Don't bring kids younger than about 10--they will most likely feel restless the longer the film progresses.

For folks like me, "Hugo" is an absolute must-see. I adore silent films and of the early silents, Georges Méliès is like a god. I have reviewed at least a hundred and have seen just about every existing film the man made...because they are THAT good. He was a brilliant early filmmaker who introduced lots of camera tricks and made extremely fanciful films. I could try to describe them further, but it's best you just see a few yourself. And, in addition to a plot that eventually turns to a homage of Méliès, it features clips from some of the great silents that I have long loved. In particular, a nice chunk of Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last" is included...as well as clips and posters from "The General", "The Kid", "Judex", "Fantome", "The Great Train Robbery" and many other seminal films any cinephile worth his salt would have seen and loved.

Despite EVENTUALLY being all about the wonderful Georges Méliès, you would not know this through at least half the film. I knew--because I know his films and instantly recognized Ben Kingsley as Méliès--the makeup was dead on the mark. Otherwise, it's an intriguing film about a strange orphan--an orphan that literally lives within the ductwork and walls of a train station in Paris! He has a bizarre obsession to complete the restoration of an amazingly complex automaton that was begun by his father--before the man's untimely death. Yet, despite being anchored by a boy, it is NOT a film strictly for the kids. I'd say more about the plot, but frankly you just need to see it for yourself.

Why I loved this film is not just because it's a delightful homage to silent films (which, by the way, has made Scorsese practically a god among filmmakers to me). It's also because I have never seen a better use of 3-D and the film just looks exquisite--and it seems to have a lock on the Oscars for cinematography and art direction. Now I am NOT just talking about incorporating wonderful 3-D tricks into the film (like they did so well with "How to Train Your Dragon" with all the great flying sequences)--but integrating them in a more artistic manner that is not distracting but enhances the film throughout and makes you admire all the wonderful eye candy. I also loved the great use of computers to colorize flashback scenes to make them appear to be a nice homage to the early hand-colored films of Méliès. And, when it's not in flashbacks, the film simply looks like you are in early 1930s Paris.

I also loved the film because of the nice performances. Sacha Baron Cohen is more subtle and likable here than usual and I loved the performances by the kids in the film. Ben Kingsly was great--but he's nearly always great.

Finally, perhaps the best thing about the film is that it is so different. Watch the film and then try to think of another film that reminds you of "Hugo"--I seriously doubt if you'll be able to do this--the film is THAT unique!

'Hugo' may not be among Martin Scorsese's best, but only because films like 'Goodfellas', 'Raging Bull' and 'Taxi Driver', to name a few, are so good and among the best films ever made. Even when Scorsese was not at his best, he was still vastly superior to a lot of directors at their worst.

There is a huge amount to like about 'Hugo', but it is also easy to see why it won't be the cup of tea of some people. For me it was an uneven film, that had many moments where it achieved what it set out to do and others where it didn't, and it is this unevenness that to me that makes 'Hugo' so polarising, loved by some but despised by others.

Starting with the numerous positives, the production values are just exquisite. While my vote for the Best Cinematography Oscar that year would have gone to 'The Tree of Life', 'Hugo's' cinematography is still some of the most beautiful of the year making it one of the year's visually striking films. The set and costume design are both clever and a feast for the eyes, likewise with the 3D effects (some of the best 3D effects personally ever seen in a film, and actually propel the film rather than distracting from),and the lighting also does nothing to hinder that.

Music is haunting, emotive and whimsical in equal measures, and Scorsese shows here how talented a director he is. It is clear that the project meant a lot to him and that he had a lot of love and passion for paying tribute to Melies and early cinema. One also has to give him credit for do something different from the norm, the three big ones being the film being adapted from a children's book (a first for Scorsese),his first use of 3D and having a family that isn't the Mafia.

Along with the visuals, what is also note-worthy is the last thirty minutes. Whatever quibbles can be had with the rest of the film, this part of the film is very nostalgic, thought-provoking and extremely heartfelt. The script doesn't always work but has a lot of philosophical and historical insight, is emotive and does provoke thought in places. There are some good performances in the cast. Asa Butterfield is understated but never cold or a blank in a role that is not as easy as some think, and Chloe Grace Moretz is bright, energetic and charming. Christopher Lee's screen time is limited but it was still a pleasure to see him, a great example of an actor who can do no wrong. Best of all is a superb in every way Ben Kingsley, one of the most experienced and mostly consistent actors who can be relied on to give his all and he does here.

Granted, 'Hugo' is not without its problems. The film is perhaps too long and the pace definitely could have been tightened with a little trimming. That way, some of the storytelling's pacing wouldn't have felt as erratic with the first twenty minutes jumping around to rushed and sprawling effect and while mostly attention-grabbing parts in the middle drag and meander story-wise.

Also could have done without the subplot with Sacha Baron Cohen. That took up too much of the story, and saw some laboured and forced humour (mostly the humour doesn't work) and Baron Cohen overacting so wildly he comes over as more silly and annoying rather than funny and a threat. It may have been an attempt to bridge any gaps but to me it just felt out of place, self-indulgent and jarred too much with everything else. There are numerous cameos from talented actors, but most of them have barely anything to do, so much so you forget that they were even in the film (Jude Law being a prime example).

Concluding this review, less than completely magical but almost. A lot is done right but the film also could have been done better. Not a great film but there was a lot to like and still ended up appreciating it. 7/10 Bethany Cox

HUGO was marketed as being this huge, magical children's feel-good adventure film, Oscar bait and a visual triumph from director Martin Scorsese. Having just watched it, I can instead report that it's the director's worst film to date, an overblown and deathly dull outing that disappoints from the outset. Even Scorsese's assured direction can't disguise the shortcomings of the script.

Essentially, HUGO is a tribute to the work of early cinema pioneer Georges Melies, played well by Ben Kingsley. However, this part of the film takes up half an hour at most and Scorsese would have been much better off making a documentary about Melies as it would have been much more interesting. The rest of the film is a non-starter about a orphaned kid lurking around in a Paris train station.

The film goes for a steampunk style look which was already done in CITY OF EMBER, so visually it did nothing for me. The CGI effects are over obvious and it annoyed me that effects like a toy mouse and a character climbing a wall were achieved by CGI when they could easily have been done physically - it's sheer laziness. Asa Butterfield is an extremely limited actor who brings zero warmth or charisma to his lead role, to the extent that I was hoping he'd disappear from the screen before long - no such luck though.

Much of the film concerns a ridiculous sub-plot involving the dreadful Sacha Baron Cohen, once again going completely over the top as a comedic station inspector who chases the titular character about. How does this "actor" still get work? The comedy is laboured and unfunny and I was cringing in places. Then elsewhere we get Chloe Grace Moretz, way out of her comfort zone and inanely grinning at everything and everyone around her. The film drags on for over two hours, throwing endless cameos at you (hello, Christopher Lee!) and it easily feels like double that length. Yes, I hated it, if you couldn't already tell.