Hugo

The book – The Invention of Hugo Cabret – was better than the film Hugo. But only because it’s an extraordinary book, both as a story and for its wonderful pencil drawings that fill this very thick volume. And I can’t help but think that despite being a bit of a mouthful, the original title would make the film sound more intriguing. I’m hoping the lack of audience today was due to time of day and location. This film deserves huge audiences.

The timing is odd. I’d expected it to be a Christmas film, but a release date in early December might well mean it doesn’t last that long. I would have saved it another two or three weeks, but was afraid of missing it altogether by doing so.

I chose to watch Hugo in 2D. Maybe I missed out, but I don’t think so. I’m also of the opinion that less use of CGI would have been preferable, but perhaps it would have been too big a job to find the right locations without it. Just a slightly plasticky feel to the townscapes and the railway station, which would have been nice to lose.

This is the story of orphan Hugo who lives in the walls of a Paris railway station looking after its clocks. He makes friends with Isabelle, whose guardian Papa Georges is an angry old man who can’t stand Hugo. The story slowly moves from their antagonism in the station, to the old man’s past and the childhood of movies. This is a work of fiction, so naturally the two stories meet, and everything ends happily.

That’s not a spoiler. Saying much more would be, so for anyone not familiar with the book, this is as much as you get. The end is big hanky time.

Pleasant change to have Ben Kingsley as someone nice. I’m used to him being one of the bad guys. Lots of great cameos by all sorts of people, and I especially enjoyed Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths. Christopher Lee is a charming bookshop owner, and even Sacha Baron Cohen wasn’t too dreadful in the end.

Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz as Hugo and Isabelle were perfect, and Chloë’s English accent passed muster with me. But then, what do I know?

Sherlock Holmes

As the Resident IT Consultant said afterwards, he had had a different kind of Sherlock Holmes in mind.

We behaved most uncharacteristically on Sunday, by first going out for a pub lunch en famille, and continuing on to the cinema afterwards. Daughter had decided Sherlock Holmes would work as light entertainment for all generations, and I suppose it did.

It was pretty lightweight, though, even as lightweight stuff goes. It could have been half an hour shorter (but then, the half hour of ads and trailers before it could also have been much shorter). The film could have had a plot.

What it seemed to have were several actors of the well known category, except I have to admit to having no idea who Robert Downey Jr is. Have heard of Jude Law, but couldn’t have picked him out in an identity parade. Mark Strong and James Fox I do know, but I prefer the former with more hair. These days when you need an important old fogey, it always seems to be a Fox.

If you like lots of fighting, running around and jumping about, coupled with a weak script, this film would be ideal. Personally I prefer my light rubbish to be slightly more fun. And shorter.