Hugo

Impressions before seeing it
There are a lot of jokes to be made when you first hear that Martin Scorsese made a family movie, because it seems like such an odd match. However, it's also a brilliant selling point because you want to see what that would be like. Or at least I did. And with all of the glowing sparkliness present in the trailers and posters, I thought it might be a fantasy but it was somewhat unclear on that.

How was it?
What Hugo actually is, is a disguised advertisement for, and tribute to, the silent film era. More specifically, Georges Méliès, the world's first fantasy filmmaker. Having studied it in school, I already knew most of what was presented here about Méliès and silent film, but I appreciated that this movie is a reminder that those films exist (or an introduction to them, in the case of younger viewers). Scorsese is clearly a lover of movies, and it wasn't until after watching Hugo and seeing its purpose that I knew why he made the unusual choice to direct a family movie. He loves Méliès, Lloyd, Chaplin, and Keaton as much as the next film buff, and in our modernist society it would be a crime to forget about them. That's why we needed a recent film to re-expose us to them. The silent film footage is presented in such a loving and nostalgic way that one can't help but be endeared by it. We needed Hugo.

The movie does play somewhat like a children's fantasy/adventure/mystery in the style of Lemony Snicket, but it's a fairly serious family film. Sacha Baron Cohen is the only comic relief as a train station guard with a leg brace, but it's okay not to be funny in a family film if you have magic. I don't think this movie would be appealing to really young kids, but it is a visual feast with its gadgets and lavish sets. It's just likely not enough to hold a kid's attention for the entire two hour run time. However, when they get a little older it could be a great educational tool as an entry point into silent cinema.

Recommendation
I would recommend this more to adults and teens than to children, because it works on those two levels: nostalgia if you're already familiar with silent movies, or discovery if you're too young to be aware of them. I'd like to take this opportunity to briefly break down a few of the silent film directors and what their work is like, for anyone who might want to seek them out.

Charlie Chaplin: Obviously the most famous one, his work was usually laced with social or political commentary, but came with cuteness and heart.

Buster Keaton: Keaton, on the other hand, rarely even smiled in his movies because they were all about the jokes and stunts. No sentimentality, but some impressive (not to mention highly dangerous) stunts that he performed by himself and usually without safety equipment.

Harold Lloyd: Lloyd was like a combination of Chaplin and Keaton. In other words, you get both stunts and warmth, although Keaton and Chaplin mostly did better in those respective areas.

D.W. Griffith: At the time, he was making propaganda-like dramas that effectively used filmmaking techniques to manipulate emotion. Important to study if you're actually interested in filmmaking.

Georges Méliès: As I said above, he was the first fantasy filmmaker, and pretty much the only one in the silent era. His work is important because you get to see what special effects were like 100 years ago, and all in hand-painted colour!