So the following is just a comment on this early version. The film begins with a bird's eye view of Paris in the 1930s, then quickly descends to the exterior of the train station in the city, and finally enters the interior of the train station from the exterior; the special effects of the exterior have not yet been completed, and when it comes to the interior, it turns into a real scene, and finally completes the film. It is estimated that this looks like a shot. Afterwards, the completion of special effects is relatively high, but some backgrounds look fake or even green, and some details like the metallic texture of the robot in some shots have not been figured out. The music and editing are not fully matched, so some lens connections and transitions seem inconsistent. The appearance of the title "Hugo" in the film is probably not as shabby as this version.
3D is one of the highlights of the film. Scorsese's first electric shock 3D is very successful, the sense of hierarchy is obvious, but it is really comfortable to see. It is purely a service and promotion of the picture itself without overwhelming the host, and it is genuine. At the same time, in the composition, Scorsese also tried to make the picture expression layering to cater to the impact brought by 3D, and arranged small objects such as smoke, snowflakes and gears in the front and rear scenes many times, and of course, the crowd at the train station. This method of expanding the depth of the picture is simple and effective, and effectively complements the 3D technology. This is really embracing 3D technology, rather than making it a gimmick independently.
In other visual aspects, Scorsese undoubtedly continued his consistent standard. Needless to say, the movement of the lens is beautiful, especially in those hidden passages, narrow scenes can make photography play more tricks. The setting is another highlight. The main scene of the film-the Paris train station in the 1930s-has been beautifully restored. The scenes of the clock tower and secret passage are also rich and delicate, with dazzling gears and smoke from the pipes nearby. This film is not to be missed for mechanical enthusiasts. The train station clocks, toy mice, and mysterious robots, as well as the complex gear devices inside, are all shown in detail (the recurring clock (time) has also become the theme of the film. Echoing imagery). Scorsese has always been obsessed with restoring the era and capturing details, and he spends a lot of shots on it.
Judging from the promotion and the website plot profile, the promotion of this film should be aimed at children's films. But from the perspective of the film, the child theme is just an introduction, and the secret hidden in the robot is not clearly stated in the trailer and introduction. Although there are novels ahead, I believe that most of the audience who will watch this film know nothing about the hidden plot, so I can only make some roundabout comments at the beginning. Those who are worried about being spoiled can consider stopping. .
The film began with a very common mode of "lonely teenagers searching for secrets in partnership". Hugo is an orphan who winds and lubricates all the clocks in the station. Every day he jumps from one clock to another (there is a beautiful long shot showing this process at the beginning). His father died early, leaving one behind. A robot with a mystery, with a heart-shaped keyhole on it. The policeman in the station is a child-like character: he specializes in catching orphans wandering in the station; his dog can also identify orphans. His friend Isabel likes to read and take risks, but he has a grotesque godfather who runs a toy store in a train station. He has never taken Isabel to the movies. So with the development of the adventure, the connection between the robot mystery and Isabel’s godfather slowly surfaced, and the secret was revealed about halfway through the movie.
After watching it, I finally know why Scorsese chose such a children's perspective movie, because it is a beautiful and historical secret about the movie (of course, this is no longer a secret today). Yes, the children's film is just an introduction, and then it leads to a biopic about the wonder of the film (if anyone familiar with the history of film sees my description above, it is likely to guess the answer to this mystery). The novel and exciting exploration of movies through the perspective of children is undoubtedly a good way to show the charm of movies. Therefore, Scorsese's rejuvenation this time looks like a brand new attempt, but it is also absolutely reasonable. Middle: He is committed to discovering and restoring forgotten images. Such a film completely expresses his innocent passion as a fan and film scholar, as well as a tribute to early film pioneers. The appearance of this film is actually the most unexpected for his film career. The film looked like a perceptual early film history class, which made me feel like I had returned to the silent film history class that I liked so much last semester, so this film was unconditionally accepted and loved by me. As movie fans, our love for movies is as innocent as the teenagers in the movie.
Therefore, this film is positioned as a children's film, and it makes sense. In addition to allowing adults to re-understand the charm of movies, this film may be a very important enlightenment for children who are new to video. But I am also a little worried about its prospects. The advancement of the film's plot continues Scorsese's usual sloppy characteristics. If the flashback passage about Jude Law’s father is acceptable because it reveals important information (Jude Law is actually a soy sauce character...), then the two branches of the old fat man’s love and the police’s love are only used as a funny and relaxing effect. The influence on the main line is so small that it can be independent, and the hard cutting in the middle of the protagonist's tense action undoubtedly greatly destroys the narrative rhythm. Of course, on the one hand, this is not the final version, and there will be some changes in the editing, but on the other hand, it seems that Scorsese is obviously not a good hand for shooting children's films, and this kind of interrogation is slightly awkward. Regarding the part of film history, considering that this is a perceptual film, I won't point out the lack of rigor.
After watching, the two little actors came out and left in a hurry. Scorsese did not show up after the screening. Fortunately, we can see him appear in the film as a photographer.
View more about Hugo reviews
