The "Hugo" Debate

On the topic of Martin Scorsese's "Hugo," I consider myself - from the moment I left the theater until now - a fan. I love that this film (which is obviously breathtaking to witness and a strong counter-argument for the tasteful implementation of 3D) is such a strange detour for one of America's greatest enduring cinema icons, yet once you take it in, it feels like the product of no one else. 
-

It's a film that, akin to many of Scorsese's works, is oddly structured (it begins as one thing, ends as another and has no problem taking its time to get there) and in the context of "children's adventure" films, seems to be rather anti-adventurous. 
-
It's a warm, sweet tale about coming to terms with the past and moving on while recognizing our history. A considerable and active presence in film restoration and preservation today, Scorsese's own ideals and beliefs begin to bleed through with each passing frame (his technical prowess on display much sooner) until his influence, his persona, literally appears before you.
-
That being said, I never considered the film to be something of a masterwork, and I squint my eyes and furrow my brow every time I hear it. I think it's certainly one of the more interesting works of the year - the reclamation of art and movie-making in the guise of a children's film - but my appreciation of it is just that, an appreciation. 
-
I can't really argue with anybody pointing out its flaws or its inflated running-time, or the fact that Scorsese's passion feels more intense than the characters, yet I never felt lost or misled or fatigued by "Hugo", rather, I felt it gloriously wondrous to slip into and admire, yet too easy to slip out of.