Diagonaldi Very well executed

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Pjtaylor-96-138044 'The Artist (2011)' doesn't necessarily fully capitalise on its stylistic conceit, considering that there are several moments that break the silent film styling and that the plot itself would've been better suited to a hybrid approach (perhaps even an exaggerated one) similar to that seen in some movies made in the tail-end of the silent era. The style of the piece is pretty impressive in general, despite the fact that it certainly isn't as visual as it could've been, and it proves that the silent film is still, to this day, a genuine art-from that should be explored more often, perhaps even from a perspective that doesn't try to ape cinema's earliest pictures (which this feels like it's doing but it often misses the mark) so much as use their restrictions to tell an interesting - and not necessarily 'industry-commenting' - tale. This aesthetic is the only real reason the flick has any 'Oscar-worthy' merit, though. The piece's ending sort of arises from nowhere, even though its seeds are planted earlier, and brushes several serious issues of a central character aside in a way which pretends everything is suddenly okay essentially just because it needs to be for the plot. This makes it feel rushed and slightly unsatisfying. There's some difficulty in understanding a specific character's motives and, therefore, a central struggle of the narrative, too, which mitigates the engagement of the experience and makes for some questionable moments that often tie into the breaking of the established style and world (sometimes, it seems like our hero is surprised that he himself can hear people speak, even though we obviously can't). One of the largest issues actually seems like it would be one if the most incidental. The movie uses an incredibly famous musical score from an incredibly famous film during what it perhaps its most important - or, at least, intense - sequence. This jarringly pulls you right out of the world and totally ruins the impact of said scene, especially considering that the music doesn't fit with its tone at all - even if you don't consider the fact it's supposed to be a romantic track. It also feels extremely lazy and the music is very poorly chosen as the flick it's from isn't even silent and, as I mentioned, is one of the most recognisable in all of cinema, one especially renowned for its soundtrack. Overall, the picture has a charm to it that can't be denied despite its problems. It does seem like most of the praise seems to be levelled at the fact that it looks and sounds (or doesn't sound, if you will) like a silent film, but that isn't really enough to make a film great in my opinion. By that logic, all silent films are great. In reality, silent film has, like anything else, hits and misses. When you compare it to its quiet peers, this flick is middling, to say the least. While it's usually fun and always well-made, it isn't perfect and lacks certain elements that would really make it shine. It doesn't help that it's essentially 'Singin' In The Rain (1952)' without the songs. 7/10

luckyfay-34-545425 I saw this in Cannes, couldn't believe from the blurb that it could be as stunning as it was. Deserves all the accolades it has received.

Michael Ledo This is a good movie, but it typically one that is overrated because it shows some kind of class, intellect and refinement to proclaim itself as genius. The production starts with 3 strikes against it. First, at times, it is a movie within a movie. Second, it is in black and white, and third, it is mostly all silent. With all the rave, I was willing to attempt an open mind viewing (zombie films are sometimes in black and white too).These techniques were done to to give us the flavor of the films of the era. Even though those restored masters are available, who among the 5 star rave reviewers watch them? You could list them on one hand, or maybe one finger. In the silent era, the jokes were visual. The sound track created the mood, more so than it does today, and actors had to make dramatic movements to create emotions. They used their face...a term called "mugging" in the film. This was brilliantly brought out in the film, although we already knew that.The film uses symbolism, such as when our star George Valentin's (Jean Dujardin)career is sinking, it shows him in a film sinking in quicksand. Good yes. Genius? Hardly. The script reminded me of "A Star is Born" (pick one) where a star launches the career of a new star only to see his fade. George is "The Artist" who believes talkies are not art. Besides the studio no longer wants George. They want fresh faces such as rising star Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo).I liked the idea of doing the silent movie film to show us the transition from silent to talkies, I just didn't like the predictable script. Plot is important.No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. You should be able to read lips after this film.

dissident320 I had this movie on my watch list for at least 5 years but I never got fully persuaded to watch it until now. Funnily enough it took hearing a podcast talking about how it had been forgotten to remind me. And maybe it does have that forget-ability built into to movie but that doesn't mean it is without charm. It's a simple enough story of movies transitioning into the 'talkies' from the silent era and how a man doesn't know how to change with the times.Being a silent movie the visuals and music is all you get so initially a bit jarring. But quickly I found the viewing experience to be engaging in a different way than seeing a modern movie. It enjoyable as a true film rather than just being an homage to that era of film.It is worth seeing despite it quickly fading from the public's memory. It's a fascinating movie but probably only worth one viewing. Sorry George.