The Artist

[Andy Stitzer]

I watched this a second time tonight. This time the theater was 80% full (180-seater) and an audience of all ages. It definitely holds up well on a second viewing, and on closer inspection the film really appears flawless. I smiled, laughed, and even teared up at one point--so sue me. The film is meaningful on so many levels, despite how subtle these morals and meanings may come across to some.

The Artist does fall a little short of being my favorite film of the year (that award still belongs to Drive), but it remains an undeniable crowd-pleaser that deserves to have a much wider release than it has been limited to thus far.

[baumer]

How is this a meaningful film in your eyes Andy?

[Andy Stitzer]

In a time where big-budget, 3D spectacle, mediocrely-written event films propagate desensitization of cinema audiences around the world, films like The Artist demonstrate the simplicity it really takes to provide a winning, enjoyable, worth-your-money cinematic experience.

Good acting + good story + good directing = Good Movie

(ex. The Artist, Black Swan, The King's Speech)

At the end of the day, that's all it takes to make a good movie. Yet somehow, studios in the last few years have green-lit projects of a much more watered-down formula:

Passable acting + story + studio-appointed director + obscenely high SFX budget = Contemporary Movie

(ex. Transformers franchise, Green Lantern, Underworld franchise)

Are there films that don't fit this mold? Of course! I think we'd all agree that the folks at Pixar, Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Martin Scorcese (among others) have demonstrated an excellent ability to fuse great characters, well-written stories/screenplays, and their impeccable direction with state-of-the-art visual effects that compliment their films.

Like other best films of 2011--Drive, Win Win, The Descendants, Midnight in Paris--The Artist is simple enough for audiences to follow, but clever enough for one to appreciate the message(s) it's trying to share. Among these messages are that you can't teach a new dog old tricks; it's best to accommodate progress rather than fight it; and the best relationships you'll ever have are built on loyalty.

[CoolioD1]

Acting/direction/music = flawless. script could've used work. Sometimes it felt a bit too self-aware. But still, one of the most entertaining movies of last year.

Edited January 13, 2012 by CoolioD1

[baumer]

In a time where big-budget, 3D spectacle, mediocrely-written event films propagate desensitization of cinema audiences around the world, films like The Artist demonstrate the simplicity it really takes to provide a winning, enjoyable, worth-your-money cinematic experience.

Good acting + good story + good directing = Good Movie

(ex. The Artist, Black Swan, The King's Speech)

At the end of the day, that's all it takes to make a good movie. Yet somehow, studios in the last few years have green-lit projects of a much more watered-down formula:

Passable acting + story + studio-appointed director + obscenely high SFX budget = Contemporary Movie

(ex. Transformers franchise, Green Lantern, Underworld franchise)

Are there films that don't fit this mold? Of course! I think we'd all agree that the folks at Pixar, Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Martin Scorcese (among others) have demonstrated an excellent ability to fuse great characters, well-written stories/screenplays, and their impeccable direction with state-of-the-art visual effects that compliment their films.

Like other best films of 2011--Drive, Win Win, The Descendants, Midnight in Paris--The Artist is simple enough for audiences to follow, but clever enough for one to appreciate the message(s) it's trying to share. Among these messages are that you can't teach a new dog old tricks; it's best to accommodate progress rather than fight it; and the best relationships you'll ever have are built on loyalty.

See, and that to me sounds like you are just rebelling against big budget film. And that's fine. I just don't see the brilliance in The Artist. Like I said, it seems like more of a gimmick to me.

[Travod]

Perhaps it is a gimmick but in no way is it a 0/10.

[Gopher]

I liked this.

The Artist is an interesting experiment that almost pays off. It's fun, light, breezy movie that looks fantastic and carries two strong performances (Dujardin and Bejo are very charming together, I wish they shared more scenes together) and a nice score. The Best Dog category is going to be mighty competitive at the Oscars this year, between Uggi, Arthur from Beginners and Snowy from Tintin.

And like the silent movies it tries to emulate, The Artist is slight. It's wonderful fluff, but it's fluff. Though it's very creative at times (I loved how the dream sequence and the ending to Dujardin's movie were executed, as well as the fun dance number at the end), there's really nothing below the surface here, which is probably why some have a problem with it. But perhaps the bigger problem here is why a movie like this is in theaters in 2012. I can't explain what the goal of this movie is. Is it just to herald the times of old cinema? Is it a commentary on how little a movie needs in order to be entertaining? Because The Artist uses plenty of its own gimmicks. I feel like if you're doing a silent movie today, there needs to be more of a message heard. The fact that silent movies are nice, especially this one, doesn't quite cut it.

I won't throw a hissy fit if this wins Best Picture. There are obviously more deserving movies, but Best Picture is rarely about the best or most revolutionary movie, it's about the most appealing one to the industry. And this has appealing in spades.

B+

[Travod]

My friend just said, "The artist got to be the stupidest movie ever ever heard of not wasting my money on that silent piece of crap" and my feelings got hurt. He likes Transformers though so his opinion is false.

[baumer]

My friend just said, "The artist got to be the stupidest movie ever ever heard of not wasting my money on that silent piece of crap" and my feelings got hurt. He likes Transformers though so his opinion is false.

His opinion is a valid one.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Almost any opinion from anyone who has seen any movie is valid.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Spaghetti

[Travod]

He hasn't even seen the trailer for it. He knows that it is silent and that is all.

[acsc1312]

Finally saw this today and loved it. I don't care if some think it's a gimmick, it's something I've never seen before and I bought it. Acting was on point even to the dog, direction, MUSIC, all perfect. A feel good movie once it's all over and done. I was smiling throughout. A. Jumped to number one (right above dragon tattoo)

[CloneWars]

So, I cam into this film with some reservations, but this really took my breath away. It is a beautiful movie that is amazingly well done. I can see this making the next AFI 100 list. It is truly a work of art, and you can tell so much went into this film. Everything about it is brilliantly done. I don't think it is for everyone. It does take a certain level of appreciation. But, for me, I was very impressed.A+

[acsc1312]

Oh, and when the gun went off towards the end, a lady in my theater went "OH GOD, NO!" because she thought

George actually shot the dog

. I was cracking up.

[Ezen Baklattan]

^Yeah, a lot of people in my theater gasped at that moment. It almost reminded me of Caesar's "NO!!!!" in RotPotA.

[Gopher]

My favorite moment was when the title card of "POW!" came up, and it cut from George with the gun up his mouth to Peppy crashing the car into a tree. I was laughing for a solid minute. I'd like to see this again. I certainly enjoyed it.

[75Live]

I just saw this last night.

Decent movie, but really it was just a "remake" of the films from that era so yeah I can see how people take it as a gimmick and not like that. It's a very valid point.

I did enjoy it for what it was. However, it did seem to go on forever. It didn't drag per se, but it just seemed so much longer than the couple hours it really was.

I don't think it is the best movie of last year and don't get all the love for it. Not that I don't like it. I thought it was pretty good but seems to be getting overly praised.

Overall I would give it a B+/B

[acsc1312]

One more thing that I loved about it was how they handled the anticipation of sous/dialogue. They teased us during George's nightmare, but the whole time I was wondering when/if someone would talk. The simple breathing after the tap dancing scene was great and then the eventual dialogue.

[Shawn Robbins]

A wonderful, but over-hyped, film in my opinion. It reminded me of first seeing the old Chaplin and Keaton films which I adore to this day.

There's nothing technically bad about it. I quite enjoyed it. But its the kind of kool-aid drinking Oscar bait film that most people will have forgotten about within a year or two. It relies more on nostalgia than on pushing any envelopes (I loved the anticipation of the sound/dialogue, but its an element I think should have been used far more than it was). Acting was stellar, music was a fresh break from mundane Hollywood scores, and Uggie was priceless.

Worthy of consideration for awards? Certainly. Worthy of its inevitable Best Picture win? Not even close, in my very humble opinion. But then again, the Academy awards what it likes -- and its a bunch of old guys, so naturally they're falling head over heels for this. To each his own.

Edited January 23, 2012 by ShawnMR

[egoplant]

The gimmick gets old by the second half. It was okay, but nothing more then a gimmick. Sure if it came out in 1935 it would be considered a classic, but this is 2011. It's just a nostalgic jerk off for classic film fans.Also, Sunset Blvd did it better.