Hugo 3D (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review - Page 3

Excellent review, with which I concur 100%. Fun movie (not the most amazing I have ever seen, but solid and very sweet), but the visuals were incredible! Most interesting use of 3D I have ever seen. Not gimmicky in the slightest, but rather it seemed like every shot was carefully crafted to deliver a superb sense of depth, and looking into a real world.

I haven't seen a huge number of 3D movies (my Panny 65ST30 plasma isn't even a month old!), but this one is definitely top of the list for showing off my new TV's 3D ability.

I took a risk and pre-ordered this film, and I'm sure glad I did!

So far, this is a hard watch for me. Feel asleep in 15 minutes. I'll try again tonight.

Don't worry, you're not alone. It's a pretty drawn out movie with not very much payoff. The longer you watch, the more you don't care about the characters which is a bad combo.

This is just my opinion of course.

Ok No more blind buys for me anymore. That's all I'm saying.

I'm a bit of an outcast in my circles because I expressed the exact same opinion. Now I'm apparently "not a movie person" to them. It's nice to know I'm not alone

Also, I thought that the mini-story about Sacha Baron Cohen's character was badly mishandled; there was an opportunity for his character to have an "aha" moment where he turns from evil to win the heart of the flower girl, and.... he absolutely fluffs it. And yet they end up together? Awful writing.

Well, unlike the precision of the clock and automaton movements. The human mechanism is much less perfect. Love is very forgiving of imperfection. So, there are many opinions of this magical story.

Equally fascinating is how the film was shot directly on HD video at 1920:1080 and upscaled somehow to 2K. It still looks film-like and lush. Computer usage was extremely intensive to create the magic within the story: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/...ondo-hugo-vfx/

Well I finally received mine with Ben Hur Ultimate collection and will be watching Hugo(2D) on the Sunday night.

I saw the film in the theatre as well. And it was 1:85. The blu ray (2d in my case) is spectacular to say the least! If you think the story was weak, I'd skip purchasing the film.

So it gets not better. I'll have to force myself to get my money's worth.


Me too.

I'll revisit scenes for eye-popping splendor, but won't re-watch to relive the story. Well, maybe once more.

btw - could'a swore I saw Johnny Depp in the musical combo and was like, Naaah! Then in the credits I saw his name as a producer. Cameo?

I watched Hugo again last night--second time--and enjoyed it even more. To me it is a fabulous extravaganza for the senses.

and crafted with so much affection. Did you watch the extras on the BD 2D disc?

According to a digital cinematography magazine, Hugo was shot with dual ARRI Alexa digital cameras mounted on a recently refined James Cameron designed 3D rig (originally created for Avatar).

Here's the problem... they decided to capture the film at only 1920x1080p/24 per eye, no better than Blu-ray quality! From what I've read, the current Alexa "brain" can only output 2k files, and may need a redesign to do 4k or higher, though it already has a 4k CMOS chip. Sony has a new competing digital camera rig that has a 5k chip and one with an 8k chip. They also added a mechanical shutter to try and minimize the "Jell-O like" motion artifacts created by CMOS technology.

With all this blunderbuss about 4k/5k (35mm quality) and 8k (65mm quality) digital cinematography using newly designed cameras and high pixel density sensors, 4k Blu-ray discs, and 4k displays, the industry is still seemingly stuck at a 2k and lower mindset. Many post houses are still only doing 2k digital DI's as well from 35mm negatives.

At least Peter Jackson is supposedly using almost the full potential of the RED Epic and shooting at 4k and 48 fps on the upcoming The Hobbit (the RED can go up to 60 fps and uses a 5k CMOS chip). David Fincher also reportedly used the 4k mode of the RED for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

But that seems to be the exception and not the rule. It may take years for the potential of 4k consumer media and displays to take hold.

Did I expect too much from this movie? I thought it was too long, and the middle part of the film was very drawn out. It looked great and the sound was good but thats about it.

The pace of this film was more European; it took it's time telling a long story.

Agree! Kept falling asleep.

Agree again!

I watched some of the extras--mainly the "Making of" feature. Very interesting. Still I get a bit of a laugh from Martin in that I really don't think he understands what a kid's movie is--Hugo to me is not a kid's movie--at least not young kids. But from his perspective it is a kid's movie because it is a movie his daughter can go to because it is a PG movie unlike most of his R-rated fare. Hugo takes some effort to soak in all the details--something young kids would have some trouble doing--but for me the detail was fabulous as well as the pacing. Glad to have this in my collection.

HUGO definitely wasn't geared for those who prefer action and suspense. It had a wonderful story to be appreciated by older children and adults who appreciate Scorcese's incredible talent. It was a quiet, thoughtful story as opposed to the exhausting but brilliant AVATAR.

I would think ages 12 + appropriate. HUGO would be a bit too challenging for young children.

I loved it, I don't really understand what the too boring, too long, etc. comments are about.

I was worried going into it because I have been so looking forward to this movie, but find myself falling asleep a lot to movies I find too slow lately. Did not have that problem with this movie at all. I was captivated from start to finish.

The atmosphere was just amazing, even if the story was slow at times I just found myself enjoying the music and scenery. My girlfriend really enjoyed it too.

But truthfully I didn't even find myself bored at all. I thought it was an excellent old school magical story.

Not enough explosions and loud noises for some peoples attention spans I guess.

You nailed it in your last sentence.

Any film that is over 2 hours (IMO), is handicapped. I look forward to seeing this in 2D.

Do you mean handicapped like these films?

Ronin
Underworld
Amelie
The Exorcist
No Country for Old Men
ALmost Famous
Secretariat
Sin City
The Jackal
The Fifth Element
The Secret in Their Eyes
Seven
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Across the Universe
The Natural
The Matrix
Kill Bill
Seabiscuit
Casino Royale
Goodfellas
Jackie Brown
The Dark Knight
Apocalpyse Now
Pulp Fiction
Gladiator
Avatar
Watchmen
The Thin Red Line
Heat
Sound of Music
Casino
Lord of the Rings
Godfather

...and:
Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, West Side Story, Artificial intelligence, La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, to name but a few...
I forgot Andy Warhol's **** (24 hours long )

Yes, I mean it. But there are exceptions to the rule (as you've duly noted)!

I have to say , that I'm not sure what you haters are talking about .This movie was great !!! Boring ? No way, It was very interesting and a thought provoking story . Also, Learned a little something about early cinema.Georges Méliès was a real person and his movies are cinema gold now . After watching the movie I had look on wiki to learn more about him . I was never bored with the story , even on the slow parts . These scenes used for character development between the protagonist and other characters . Or just laughable witty scenes with Sacha Baron Cohen . The story makes ideal time to development a little story for each character . Which works great for a 2 hour movie .

Yep...agree totally

I thought the movie started off really slow and it stayed that way for quite some time, but things did eventually pick up a bit, so in the end I liked the movie. The story was okay, the acting was very good for the most part, and the cinematography was excellent. Most of the music was very good, too. I've now seen it at home once in 3D and once in 2D, but want to see the 3D version again before deciding which one I actually prefer.