Reviewed by Danny the Demented
Updated 5 March 2012
Good film, a fine tribute to the olden days when movies were in black & white and silent. After viewing it, though, I quickly came to the same conclusion as the people in the 1920s did---yeah I want the sound. Give me back the sound. No seriously, give me the freaking sound.
"The Artist", a black&white silent romance, tells the story of a mega silent film star named George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), his success, his stubbornness, his fall and his improbable comeback. Through his journey from rise to fall (and rise again) , we meet the charming up-and-comer Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), the business first studio head Al Zimmer (John Goodman), the loyal butler/assistant Clifton (James Cromwell), and of course Jack (Uggie), the dog that will melt your heart. A well-told, well-shot story, but there was something missing, something vital to making the movie more enjoyable.....what was it....oh yeah, the SOUND.
I did enjoy this gracefully constructed delight, but Oscar best picture worthy? Not in a million years. How The Artist beat out "The Descendants" to win the best picture award will always be a mystery to me and one of the biggest robberies in the Academy Awards history. Look, don't get me wrong, The Artist is a fine film. But what was so special about it? So it went retro, is that really innovative or courageous? All Director Michel Hazanavicius did was filmed a movie with techniques once used in the early 1920s and that's it. It's a well-made tribute to what films once were but nothing more. The story itself is nothing new and with the lack of sound, it was at time boring-ish. Also, if film-making is becoming more complex and inventive, doesn't it mean that film making used to be easier (skill-wise)? So instead of rewarding a movie with a more complicated story and is harder to make (The Descendants), we are giving the best picture award to a film that is delightful but filled with overacting and is easier to compose (The Artist)? I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
A fine intro to audiences outside of France by actor Jean Dujardin, who apparently is a huge star in his native land. But best actor he is not. Better than George "I just got robbed but I don't care because I am still cool" Clooney's brilliant portrayal of Matt King ? NO WAY JOSE!! Through no fault of his own, besides the fantastic dance number in the end, Dujardin had limited facial expressions (90% of the time is this) and a tiny range of emotion displayed. Overacting is a natrual byproduct of silent film, true. However, though inevitable, it is still a flaw and not better than the subtlety of the quiet emotional outburst done by Clooney. The same can be said about John Goodman, Berenice Bejo, and everyone in the cast. Overacting cannot be avoided in a silent feature, but that does not make it GOOD. That is why we developed the talkies you silly bunnies.
An overrated award winner, "The Artist" is nevertheless a pleasant film to watch. It does bring back memories if you are a movie fanatic, but the loudest message this silent art gave us is perhaps this : SOUND IS BETTER. My name is Danny and I endorse this message.
"The Artist", a black&white silent romance, tells the story of a mega silent film star named George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), his success, his stubbornness, his fall and his improbable comeback. Through his journey from rise to fall (and rise again) , we meet the charming up-and-comer Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), the business first studio head Al Zimmer (John Goodman), the loyal butler/assistant Clifton (James Cromwell), and of course Jack (Uggie), the dog that will melt your heart. A well-told, well-shot story, but there was something missing, something vital to making the movie more enjoyable.....what was it....oh yeah, the SOUND.
I did enjoy this gracefully constructed delight, but Oscar best picture worthy? Not in a million years. How The Artist beat out "The Descendants" to win the best picture award will always be a mystery to me and one of the biggest robberies in the Academy Awards history. Look, don't get me wrong, The Artist is a fine film. But what was so special about it? So it went retro, is that really innovative or courageous? All Director Michel Hazanavicius did was filmed a movie with techniques once used in the early 1920s and that's it. It's a well-made tribute to what films once were but nothing more. The story itself is nothing new and with the lack of sound, it was at time boring-ish. Also, if film-making is becoming more complex and inventive, doesn't it mean that film making used to be easier (skill-wise)? So instead of rewarding a movie with a more complicated story and is harder to make (The Descendants), we are giving the best picture award to a film that is delightful but filled with overacting and is easier to compose (The Artist)? I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
A fine intro to audiences outside of France by actor Jean Dujardin, who apparently is a huge star in his native land. But best actor he is not. Better than George "I just got robbed but I don't care because I am still cool" Clooney's brilliant portrayal of Matt King ? NO WAY JOSE!! Through no fault of his own, besides the fantastic dance number in the end, Dujardin had limited facial expressions (90% of the time is this) and a tiny range of emotion displayed. Overacting is a natrual byproduct of silent film, true. However, though inevitable, it is still a flaw and not better than the subtlety of the quiet emotional outburst done by Clooney. The same can be said about John Goodman, Berenice Bejo, and everyone in the cast. Overacting cannot be avoided in a silent feature, but that does not make it GOOD. That is why we developed the talkies you silly bunnies.
An overrated award winner, "The Artist" is nevertheless a pleasant film to watch. It does bring back memories if you are a movie fanatic, but the loudest message this silent art gave us is perhaps this : SOUND IS BETTER. My name is Danny and I endorse this message.
update update update!!!
ReplyDelete