With Hugo, Scorcese tapped into some Wes Anderson aesthetics mixed with new digital technologies. Visually then, this movie is absolutely breathtaking from start to finish. The story is a little melodramatic but it is enough to sustain it as a beautiful and easy to watch film, with some hints of cinephilia in it.
If the simple act of capturing the past and keeping it alive is one of the most magical concepts of cinema, what's the use of making it more "magical"? Scorsese try to invoke the golden age of cinema and Paris at the start of the 20th century through clichés, all we have is a film specially made for people who read trivial and vague history books about movies. Or Roger Ebert reviews.