The Artist

[Noctis]

This never truly felt like a story. Instead, it gave me the impression of too many short films edited into one long film. The story just didn't mesh very well. I thought his depression was dealed with far too quickly. The actors are good (but did not deserve the Oscar at all), but i did like the dog very much and the lead actress. I have to mention the music, which I found could be shockingly grating. It was such an immense nuisance. Nothing about it is actually very memorable. If anything, The Artist just made it clear why silent films just do not resonate even a fraction as much as non-silent films. This film is a gimmick, and while it's not a necessarily poorly executed one, it is still bland and ridiculously boring. The very last scene saved the film from being a disaster. It still boggles my mind how this even won all those awards. D

[Ezen Baklattan]

It's not every day you see Baumer and Noctis agree on something.

[Gopher]

It's a beautifully executed gimmick movie with two stellar lead performances.Also, UGGIE.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Gopher

[Webslinger]

I thought his depression was dealed with far too quickly.

Maybe it's because I saw the movie coming off a pretty down day, but I did not feel this way at all. Valentin's depressed state is practically the character's defining trait in the second half of the film.

Anyway, I loved this movie. It's a gimmick, to be sure, but it's a gimmick that's played brilliantly and doesn't fail to rivet throughout its 100 minutes. Much of it is highly charming, but the filmmakers are also successful in tracing the darker elements that come into the story. Jean DuJardin gives an absolutely terrific performance; whether it was worthy of the Best Actor Oscar is debatable, but he accepts and nails the challenge of conveying information and building a complete and authentic character without the audience being able to hear what he says. Berenice Bejo is also immensely charming as the female lead, and she and DuJardin sparkle in the scenes they have together. The film obviously has old-fashioned sensibilities given that it's a silent film set at the end of the era of silent filmmaking, and while these sensibilities (like the simple storyline, the inserted cards with dialogue, and the frequent presence of the adorable Uggie the dog) go a long way toward giving the film its charm, it's the pathos the filmmakers successfully establish (even sans audible dialogue) and the emotional authenticity of the lead character that elevate it toward standing as a great film separate from its gimmick. Perhaps it wasn't the best movie of 2011, but I think it's certainly among the cream of the crop.

A

[mattmav45]

Watching it now.....trying my best to get into it. That being said, posting this on my phone is more of a priority than the film right now. Regardless of how it ends, the Academy really needs to grow a sack sometime.Edit: Yep, didn't work for me at all. I tried my best, and watched the whole film................but damn, I never was really invested in the story or any of the characters for that matter. I'm not going to give it a grade, because it may have more to do with silent films just not being a good medium for me.I will, however, reiterate my point that I'm still waiting for the Academy's balls to drop.

Edited July 6, 2012 by mattmav45

[FTF]

Watching it now.....trying my best to get into it. That being said, posting this on my phone is more of a priority than the film right now. Regardless of how it ends, the Academy really needs to grow a sack sometime.

So you're blaming the movie because you're part off the ADHD generation that can't focus while watching a film and has to tweet and text during the whole thing?(don't mean that as harshly as it may read, but come on, if you can't even give your attention to a movie long enough to watch it straight through without doing something else you can't fairly judge it, that applies to any movie, etc.) Edited July 6, 2012 by FTF

[mattmav45]

So you're blaming the movie because you're part off the ADHD generation that can't focus while watching a film and has to tweet and text during the whole thing?(don't mean that as harshly as it may read, but come on, if you can't even give your attention to a movie long enough to watch it straight through without doing something else you can't fairly judge it, that applies to any movie, etc.)

I would respond to your point, but it's time for me to take my Adderall, IMO.

[baumer]

So you're blaming the movie because you're part off the ADHD generation that can't focus while watching a film and has to tweet and text during the whole thing?(don't mean that as harshly as it may read, but come on, if you can't even give your attention to a movie long enough to watch it straight through without doing something else you can't fairly judge it, that applies to any movie, etc.)

Silent films went the way of the dinosaurs. You can't expect most of us to like a film like this because to us, it's not a full film. You can get get awfully (sorry don't know what other word to use but this one) sanctimonious at times FTF. Not all of us are required to like a film and if what we don't like about it is that there is no sound, then we are entitled to our opinion.

[FTF]

Silent films went the way of the dinosaurs. You can't expect most of us to like a film like this because to us, it's not a full film. You can get get awfully (sorry don't know what other word to use but this one) sanctimonious at times FTF. Not all of us are required to like a film and if what we don't like about it is that there is no sound, then we are entitled to our opinion.

Oh, I don't care that he didn't like the movie, to each his own, etc. My beef was that he wasn't even paying attention and watching the movie and was rating it poorly without watching the whole thing and finishing it, etc. I don't think one should be allowed to rate/review something without actually watching the whole thing and devoting ones full attention to the whole movie. It wasn't really about the movie itself, my point would apply to any movie.

[baumer]

Oh, I don't care that he didn't like the movie, to each his own, etc. My beef was that he wasn't even paying attention and watching the movie and was rating it poorly without watching the whole thing and finishing it, etc. I don't think one should be allowed to rate/review something without actually watching the whole thing and devoting ones full attention to the whole movie. It wasn't really about the movie itself, my point would apply to any movie.

Oh, ok, gotcha. I just reread his post. I see what you mean.

[Jack Nevada]

The Artist is a movie that is absolutely wonderful on the first viewing, but after that the appeals wears off really quickly.This is pure fluff. Its cotton candy covered with smiles and powdered sugar. There is absolutely zero substance to Artist, as it gets by being chirpy and lovable.Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against fluff movies. But to see fluff done right, with substance, look at Woody Allen's masterpiece Midnight in Paris that came out the same year as this movie. Midnight in Paris I have seen six times, and the reason why it still holds up is because its actually clever and it does something new. Truly creative and clever moments are rare in The Artist. The scene where Valentin loses his voice but everything else stays audible is brilliant! I hadn't seen that before. It was new.Why couldn't there have been more scenes like that?Or what about the scene where Valentin puts a gun in his mouth and a title cards shows up saying "BANG!" We think he shot himself but it was actually Berenice Bejo's car crashing into a tree.Those two scenes were actually the only bits that benefited from the lack of sound. Why didn't they do more with that?Look, there's a lot to like about The Artist. First of all the movie looks great. The costume design, sets and cinematography are all top notch, and so is the score that was very much worthy of the Oscar. Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo are great in the movie. Dujardin is such a charismatic motherfucker that I swooned when he flashed them pearly whites. Also, for a film fan it was nice to see tribute being done to the classic years of hollywood. Overall, The Artist isn't a bad movie. Not at all. What it is underwhelming and bland. I dont think giving BP to this isn't going to be exactly remembered as the Academy's finest hour, especially since movies like The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris, The Descendants, A Separation and Ides of March were released the same year..3/5

[Michael Gary Scott]

I couldnt get threw 10 mins of this

[Sims]

Wow, this is seriously the only place either on the Internet or even in real life where I've come across so many people who hate this film. Are you all serious?Anyways, this is a damn good film. The people saying this will rank up there with Crash or Shakespeare in Love (two films that get a bit too much hate IMO) as some sort of disastrous selection by the Academy are crazy; they've made much worse choices (hell, just look back one year). There are a few better 2011 releases (namely The Tree of Life, Melancholia, and Drive), but the year as a whole was rather awful. The Artist was a breath of fresh air in 2011's cinematic doldrums.The performances are sensational: Dujardin delivers a magnetic, energized, and sympathetic portrayal, while Bejo is a phenomenal ballast for him throughout. Uggie the dog is, of course, captivating, and would definitely be one of my picks for Supporting Actor of the year if non-humans were eligible. The story is, as many have complained, simple, but I will take narrative simplicity any day over the contrived, convoluted layering of multiple nonsensical plotlines found in many of today's blockbusters. The Artist resonates because it's unafraid to honor classic cinema in an era of technological bombast.A-, 9/10

[4815162342]

B+Solid film, nowhere close to Oscar-worthy

[Cmasterclay]

I remember really enjoying this- solid, enjoyable, emotional entertainment. I wouldn't mind watching it again, and it was pretty much tied with Descendants as my favorite of the nominees (neither were close to a film like Warrior or 50/50). If any film from 2011 was overrated, self congratulatory fluff about film, it was Hugo. That movie was a bore, but this was fun!

[mattmav45]

I stand by my initial reaction:I simply couldn't get into the silent film aspect, it felt like the gimmick to end all gimmicks. Naturally, the Academy ate it up, and we'll have yet another BP winner that most people won't give a rat's ass about in 10-15 years.

[baumer]

Like I said, this is the Pet Rock of films. It's a gimmick.

[IndustriousAngel]

I wouldn't call it "gimmick"; it's as much a spoof as a homage - it has to be silent. Same as "Blazing Saddles" has to be a Western, that's no gimmick.

[baumer]

I just didn't like it....sorry.

[IndustriousAngel]

Yep - I liked it but not so much that I had to buy it on disc; I gave it a "B" nontheless. It's the same with Brooks' "Silent Movie" - it was fun once or maybe twice but I don't need to revisit it. I guess there was a reason sound made such an impact when it was new ^^btw, for slapstick comedies, sound is nowhere as important, I can watch a silent Keaton or Laurel/Hardy clip anytime.