I guess the difference between me and Ms. Longworth is that I went into this movie ignorant of Scorceses' "causal motivations" and simply allowed myself to be caught up in the story of two wounded people -a child and an elderly man - and how, through the actions of the child and the RE-actions of the man, they both became healed. It is a beautiful movie. I did NOT see it in 3D by the way and spent $5.50 for matinee ticket. I have for the most part ignored 3D all together unless I'm on a ride at Disneyland or Universal Studios. I go to the movies to be told a story, and while I appreciate the stunning technology of movies today, I never want that tech to overwhelm the story itself. If I'm in the mood for a roller-coaster ride, maybe, but with a movie like Hugo, i preferred (and was absolutely delighted by) the stunning-enough digital quality of the 2D version. Ms. Longworths cynical review implies an all too journalist POV. I recognize that you ARE a journalist, but it saddens me that you are such a slave to your "work" that you are apparently unable to allow yourself to be swept up by the beauty of a wonderful story, beautifully told.
if you don't spell scorsese's name correctly, your argument becomes invalid. moreover, you embody that suspension of disbelief with which hollywood cinema has hypnotized its viewers, reaping profits from uncritical spectators.