OtherBrotherDarryl

Though it is based on a kid's book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, I have a hard time thinking of Hugo as a movie for kids. This isn't a movie that you scarf down like a Whopper or a Big Mac, it's a movie that you savor, that you relish, and much of that is due to what your eyes are witnessing. Breathtaking sets and masterful use of 3D draw you into the story, but I'm not sure that is enough to captivate children the age of the protagonist and title character, Hugo Cabret.

There's a key scene halfway through Hugo's journey where it is explained to him that there are just some things that he's too young to understand, and I can't help but wonder if that might be true of the audience at which this very mature, very visceral journey that Scorsese has painted for us is aimed. This film moves at a rather slow pace through the first half, if not 2/3rds of the tale, but the payoff is all the greater for it, assuming you're old enough to appreciate the history being portrayed. I imagine there are plenty of kids who have seen it already who were expecting something a bit faster paced and closer to what they are used to, and were disappointed. Most of them probably don't even realize that it's actually based on (loosely, but rather accurately at the same time!) the real life of Georges Méliès, who was known as the "Cinemagician" because he was, basically, the father of "special effects."

So wait, you might ask... Is this a film about a kid named Hugo, or about the early days of cinema?

It's both.

And it's wonderful. It truly is a love letter to cinemaphiles, and I'd rather not give away any more than that, because that's only slightly more than I knew going into it, and in my experience, the less I know about or expect from a movie, the more likely I am to enjoy it. Just know that you really should see it in 3D. I know people are tiring of it lately, but it really does play an integral role in this film, and if nothing else, your eyes will thank you.

I went into this movie with the wrong impression. Based on the trailers, I was expecting a horror/thriller about helpless humans being attacked by crazed, savage monkeys.

Boy, was I wrong.

This is the tale of Caesar the orphaned chimp, and it is told very well. The human characters are mostly flat stereotypes with clichéd dialog (many of whom are a bit too conveniently evil/sadistic), but the acting of the CGI apes (yes, I said acting) is top-notch, and Andy Serkis certainly deserves credit for making us feel Caesar's pain. Thanks to mankind's blind allegiance to science, he's a lost soul who is neither ape nor human, but something in between, and when circumstance ultimately leads him to an unjust imprisonment, you can't help but root for him to outsmart the humans and lead a revolt.

Unlike Tim Burton's 2001 remake, fans of the original series seem to be mostly embracing this with open arms. Though it contains LOTS of easter egg nods that won't be noticed by newcomers, it's a well-made reboot along the lines of the recent Star Trek, and has little else in common with the originals outside of the basic concept.

James Franco as Caesar's savior/caretaker is less than stellar. I can't help but wonder if he was chosen simply as a nod to the actor who played the lead in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, James Franciscus. Fortunately for us, his character isn't the main focus of the film.

Without giving it away as a spoiler, I will say that there's one line in the movie that is destined to go down in film history as a classic. If you've already seen it, you probably know the line of which I speak. It's making audiences gasp, and it's a moment that still sends a chill down my spine when I think about it.

One final note: STAY FOR THE CREDITS. You don't have to stay long, but in my packed theater, many were in a rush to get out and didn't catch a crucial scene that helps complete this chapter and set us up for the next one.

I hadn't heard very good things, so I didn't go into it with high expectations, and still it managed to disappoint, big time.

Where was the over-dramatic "after-school special" music?

Where were Jerri's funky pets?

Why did they change Derrick, using an actor that isn't butt-ugly?

And why, for the love of God, wasn't it funny? Almost every joke felt forced, and half of them were simply recycled from the show.

God...DAMN IT!

I would much rather they just bring the show back. Probably not gonna happen, now that Colbert is such a big star that he's coining words that dictionaries take seriously. Come to think of it, whoever first said that "Strangers" would make a good movie was speaking nothing but truthiness.