Hugo vs The Artist

I can agree that both take on film history and with the Artist Hollywood history but they're different perscpectives and approaches and besides that they're not really similar enough for me to compare.. Hm I dont know what to say. I have go get out my Hugo dvd and rewatch. But without my love for the Artist biasing everything I will admit that Hugo has a more compelling plot-rediscovering cinema history and more creative risks. A criticism I have with TA is that it doesnt give any new insights to the silent era, which like the period of Hugo, is largely forgotten. Hugo does. And where the Artist is basically a nostalgia trip, a romanticization of 20s Hollywood. Scorcese is actually trying to teach us something, trying to get us in 21st century to step back and understand/appreciate cinema pioneers.

Still, I am glad the Artist won. I didn't see all of the nominated films but I noticed that the majority if not all were set in the past on some level and I would have liked something "contemporary" to have broken the mold.

Please tell me this is better than HUGO - because HUGO was one of last year's most overrated award movies,IMHO - it put me to sleep three separate times - and other than looking fantastic, it was a waste of time to me.

I enjoyed both movies and would have to really think about which one I liked more. Definitely my two favorite nominees. I dunno about anyone else, but I'm tired of well-made, but boring/stuff dramas winning awards. I'm glad some different types of films are being recognized.

For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

Same here, "Hugo" is far more magical than this one. Many of the people who like "The ARtist" are not as familiar with the silents. Anyway, "Hugo " is the one.

Reference is inscrutable because there is nothing to scrute.

I loved both films very much! I felt as if both films were made for people like myself who love cinema.

Both were certainly love letters to classic, silent and early cinema. Both succeeded in their own ways.

The Artist succeeded in reproducing the classic silent film, while also telling a compelling story about a silent actor who's career is on the line because of a technological advancement. At the same time, he's in love with the actress who's part of ruining his career.

Hugo succeeded in telling a story about the early days of cinema and magic of it. It also had an identifiable main character that audience members of any age can relate to, especially the young kids. Scorsese made a picture that was personal.

I couldn't choose which one I like better, because they are both my two favorite pictures of 2011.

If forced to choose though, I would say The Artist is a better film, but Hugo was a personal experience that I was able to connect with emotionally. I connected with The Artist as well, but more in my love for silent films. Whereas, I connected with Hugo on a deep level.

www.chrisesper.webs.com

I didn't see either at the movies, but got both films from Netflix in Blu-Ray. "Hugo" was one of the most dazzling movies I have ever seen and I loved the story.

"The Artist" arrived this past weekend, and I watched it. As much as I enjoyed the movie, it was blurry and the titles moved by so fast as not to be able to read them entirely. I guess some think it is artsy to soft-focus, but I found it just plain annoying.

I would have voted for "Hugo" by far as the best picture.

I completely agree.And I really can't even imagine how Hugo lost to the Artist--I really saw no comparison in direction or even quality of story. While I was not totally disappointed in the Artist--- I really thought that Hugo was a true love letter made by one of our masters for his own son.

The Artist by far. Hugo was gorgeous and had some great sequences, but overall it was a complete bore.