[REL] Hugo (2011)

User avatar
starfish21
Posts: 3376
Likes:
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by starfish21 »   0 likes

my opinion won't change,Ptg,i judge a movie by watching,not how many awards it picks up,i'm quite sure you can find many oscar winning films that you hated.
User avatar
ptguardian
Posts: 4479
Likes:
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by ptguardian »   1 likes

starfish21 wrote:my opinion won't change,Ptg,i judge a movie by watching,not how many awards it picks up,i'm quite sure you can find many oscar winning films that you hated.
I am not trying to change opinions because I think everyone is entitled to one even if I disagree.

Personally I think most awards are politically driven and mean nothing. I thought The Descendants was over rated for example. Good film but way over rated. Hugo may not of been all that for some here but judging by the enthusiasm by others the negative comments could of been kept to yourselves.
User avatar
Phuzzy4242
Site Admin
Posts: 7686
Likes:
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by Phuzzy4242 »   1 likes

I don't mind hearing negative comments as long as the people making them give their reasons. I'll ignore a bad comment if someone says something is crap without explaining why they feel that way. On the other hand, I don't want to waste bandwidth on a complete turkey, so someone explaining why they didn't like it can save a lot of time... or even make me want a film because of the negative comment.

I'm with starfish - I don't care how many awards a film wins. How many times have the films you thought were terrific come away with no awards at all, and how many times have films you hated won big-time? I used to watch Siskel and Ebert so I knew which films they hated - those were almost always films I really liked. :)
User avatar
ptguardian
Posts: 4479
Likes:
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by ptguardian »   0 likes

ptguardian wrote:[Image]

5 Oscars for Hugo
I had just finished watching the Oscars when I posted this and was happy that they got awards instead of The Descendants. Hugo in 'my opinion' is a great film. Was it Chloe's best I have seen? Hell no I can name several I liked her in better. Was it in anyway a bad film? Hell no. Does it really matter I mentioned they got awards? Hell no!! :hand
User avatar
starfish21
Posts: 3376
Likes:
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by starfish21 »   0 likes

I don't believe it was bad either,but i found a lot of it tedious and drawn out,such as the showing of the old movie clips,which i had to skip,Sacha baron cohen's character was a bit confusing,were the viewers supposed to hate him or like him?,the cruel heartless station master in love with the flower seller girl.I stand by what i said about it being quickly forgotten,people remember movies because of stand out scenes,which scenes will be remembered from Hugo?,possibly when the automaton starts working(and we all knew it was going to happen) other than that,nothing springs to mind.
strange to think that of all the rare and offbeat movies released here,we're discussing a multi oscar winning hollywood blockbuster,how things change.
User avatar
ptguardian
Posts: 4479
Likes:
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:00 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by ptguardian »   0 likes

starfish21 wrote:I don't believe it was bad either,but i found a lot of it tedious and drawn out,such as the showing of the old movie clips,which i had to skip
One of the main points of Hugo is that it was a tribute to Georges Méliès and those old clips were Georges Méliès work. I suggest you skip the short I posted. ;)
starfish21 wrote:strange to think that of all the rare and offbeat movies released here,we're discussing a multi oscar winning hollywood blockbuster,how things change.
Nothing stopping anyone from discussing the rare goodies we have here. Start a discussion in one of their threads. :D

I think Hugo was perhaps too much of a diversion from are usual focus here and perhaps through off the mindset a bit. It does have it's relevance with Chloe of course and I agree with Guest about the boy doing a good job and has incredible eyes. It is an artistic piece and like all art it has it's fans and harsh critics...

If anything it is another one we can add to the growing Chloe list. We still have Hick and Dark Shadows coming soon, also she has a few new films she is working on The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea looks like it may be cool. :cool
David32441
Posts: 799
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by David32441 »   1 likes

It's a beautiful move, and if you get to see it in 3D, which is what the director shot it in it looks even more stunning. Note this is not an "after-thought" 3D adjustment by a special-fx company, but a natively 3D shot film. I had a TV that could do passive 3D and it stunned anyone who I play(ed) it for.
Passive 3D worked really well with throw-away cheap 3D glasses the cinema hands out. On a 4k TV with a 3D bluray the picture was stunning.
Active 3D required $30 glasses that weighed a bit due to the batteries and tech in the glasses.
It's a pity that modern OLED TV's don't have this tech still. Older LG's did, not sure the technical reason why they couldn't keep the capability for legacy 3D bluray owners. There's going to be 3D blurays around that people will want to watch long after their 3D tv's have stopped working!
User avatar
Night457
Global Moderator
Posts: 5223
Likes:
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by Night457 »   0 likes

David32441 wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:42 pmIt's a pity that modern OLED TV's don't have this tech still. Older LG's did, not sure the technical reason why they couldn't keep the capability for legacy 3D bluray owners. There's going to be 3D blurays around that people will want to watch long after their 3D tv's have stopped working!
My understanding is that the change was purely economic rather than technical: not enough people were buying 3D TVs. Supposedly the only choice now for a NEW 3D TV is a (digital) projector and a big white screen. (And those glasses.)

Personally I do not like 3D and will not wear a second pair of heavy glasses on top of my existing ones. However, I still consider 3D movies a valid art form and am pleased when I read about the occasional new 3D blu-ray release -- usually of vintage films recently restored. I even HAVE a few of them in multi-format releases, AND a blu-ray player that will play them; I just don't have the TV itself. I hope to some day go the projector route anyway, so maybe I will eventually have the capability.

Simply for the benefit of existing 3D enthusiasts, I hope they can keep the format alive on home media AND playback equipment. Vinyl records were resurrected. In recent years even magnetic cassettes made a small comeback! Crazy. (Now, if only they could return to making quality tape players, since the modern versions are all junk. My last player was discarded years ago, and I am not about to buy either a new junk version or 40-year-old vintage tech.)

Obligatory movie comment: I used to be a huge fan of Scorsese movies, but by this point in his career I had ceased watching his new ones. But Ms. Moretz is in this one, huh? Hmmm. Maybe I should rethink that.
David32441
Posts: 799
Likes:
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:48 am

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by David32441 »   1 likes

Night457 wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:51 pm
David32441 wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:42 pmIt's a pity that modern OLED TV's don't have this tech still. Older LG's did, not sure the technical reason why they couldn't keep the capability for legacy 3D bluray owners. There's going to be 3D blurays around that people will want to watch long after their 3D tv's have stopped working!
My understanding is that the change was purely economic rather than technical: not enough people were buying 3D TVs. Supposedly the only choice now for a NEW 3D TV is a (digital) projector and a big white screen. (And those glasses.)

Personally I do not like 3D and will not wear a second pair of heavy glasses on top of my existing ones. However, I still consider 3D movies a valid art form and am pleased when I read about the occasional new 3D blu-ray release -- usually of vintage films recently restored. I even HAVE a few of them in multi-format releases, AND a blu-ray player that will play them; I just don't have the TV itself. I hope to some day go the projector route anyway, so maybe I will eventually have the capability.

Simply for the benefit of existing 3D enthusiasts, I hope they can keep the format alive on home media AND playback equipment. Vinyl records were resurrected. In recent years even magnetic cassettes made a small comeback! Crazy. (Now, if only they could return to making quality tape players, since the modern versions are all junk. My last player was discarded years ago, and I am not about to buy either a new junk version or 40-year-old vintage tech.)

Obligatory movie comment: I used to be a huge fan of Scorsese movies, but by this point in his career I had ceased watching his new ones. But Ms. Moretz is in this one, huh? Hmmm. Maybe I should rethink that.
It's also a really good film. Beautifully shot. Very atmospheric. Historical too.
If people doubt such automaton were possible then you need to search out youtube videos of:
swan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3agwmbuZKM
The Scribe, an automaton by Pierre Jaquet-Droz
The clockwork cams allow for literally thousands of repeatable stored actions!
And yes Chloe is in it too and has a pretty big part.
The cinema style "passive 3D" glasses are often made of cardboard and incredibly light - the heavy "active 3D" glasses are the bad flickering type. The active 3D gave home style 3D a bad name imho.
User avatar
Night457
Global Moderator
Posts: 5223
Likes:
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: [REL] Hugo (2011)

Post by Night457 »   0 likes

David32441 wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:38 pm The cinema style "passive 3D" glasses are often made of cardboard and incredibly light
If by this you mean the blue eye / red eye glasses from the 1950s, imho they are shit! (Sorry.) I was never impressed by the effect. The effect of the more advanced glasses might impress me, but they would be even less comfortable. Oh well.
Post Reply