Hugo felt very heavily auto-scripted to be honest. The whole story arc is so easy the movie practically writes itself. It fun to watch though! But not worth the 3D ticket. 2D is just as good. By having scorcese as director it does have a very high feel of it being made for older people... there is a sense of speed but that's in actions and plot structure, not in characters and their behaviour, kind of what is missing in a childrens film
I watched Hugo as well, was pretty entertaining. I don't know what you mean by auto-scripting, but a lot of the scenes were rather predictable. Others, however, did succeed in surprising me. I totally agree with you about the 3D, it rather looked like a cardboard cutout. Not to mention the spectacular anachronism that is showing pre-WWI movies in 3D.
I liked that the movie kept really down-to-earth about the whole deal. From what little I knew about the movie, I was expecting the automaton to be more robot than machine, but there was nothing sci-fi or supernatural about it. In fact, building an automaton complex enough to be able to write or draw has actually been done
, complete with pen-inking and head movements! I would have passed it off for fiction if not for wikipedia.
Also, I went to see it with the rest of the family, so now I have 4 sets of 3D glasses that they sold for keeps. It gave me an idea: If I removed the left lens from one set, and removed the right lens from another set, then switched the two, I could easily make two sets of functional 2D glasses, which are visually identical to the 3D ones. The lenses are flat and symmetrical (so not actually lenses) so they should fit in the right frame as well as they do in the left frame. This should be interesting...