Directed by:
Michel HazanaviciusScreenplay:
Michel HazanaviciusCinematography:
Guillaume SchiffmanComposer:
Ludovic BourceCast:
Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, Missi Pyle, Beth Grant, Ed Lauter, Elizabeth Tulloch, Ken Davitian (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Hollywood 1927. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a silent movie superstar. The advent of the talkies will sound the death knell for his career and see him fall into oblivion. For young extra Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), it seems the sky’s the limit major movie stardom awaits. The Artist tells the story of their interlinked destinies. (Entertainment in Video)
(more)Videos (37)
Reviews (12)
I wasn’t particularly enthused about this. I suspected that the film would not be quite right and that's why I postponed watching it. Then, just to be sure, I watched it again. It's not an entirely bad film, and if it inspires even a fraction of viewers to discover real silent films, then it has served its purpose. On the other hand, the story is just a continuation of the bad aspects of Singin' in the Rain, and I have a huge problem with that. The heroes of yesteryear can be none other than the combination of Rudolph Valentine, Douglas Fairbanks, and John Gilbert. Fortunately, there's also the cheerful studio owner and anyone from those legendary head honchos to William Randolph Hearst (played by the excellent John Goodman). The film also features a cleverly trained dog, believable sets, gorgeous costumes, a near-perfect final dance number, and some hope for a better tomorrow. What is somewhat deceptive is the sound nightmare and especially the 1936 song used as background for 1931. Equally problematic and redundant is the conveyance of actual footage from The Mark of Zorro (1920). The question thus remains whether the story of silent film is really interesting just because that era is long gone.
()
Those who know my ratings a little will be well aware that I am not a fan of silent movies. My relationship with them is similar as with pizza Margherita: I have nothing personal against it, but without at least ham, it doesn’t quite make it. And that’s the reason why I wasn’t that excited about this movie; at worst, I expected an unlikeable romantic and artsy Oscar bait, and at best, a bearable and sincere but rather boring movie. I was wrong, The Artist couldn’t have been a more pleasant surprise. It’s a very entertaining, nice and charming movie that doesn’t need sound. But when it does use some sound, it’s worth it (e.g. the nightmare). It left me with a feeling that none of this year’s other Oscar contenders did: having watched a truly exceptional movie. So I’m really rooting for it, and I’m saying this as someone who normally appreciates movies that are more progressive in their contents or format over “retro” ones (like The Social Network over The King’s Speech last year). 9/10
()
Perhaps, with its trivial plot, it relies too much on the nostalgic mood of the target audience and on its own formal uniqueness in the flood of Hollywood mainstream, but The Artist is such a beautiful piece of filmmaking. It isn’t thought-provoking or groundbreaking, but wonderfully fresh, witty and authentic, nicely removed from the postmodern plagiarist guise. Emotionally mature, emotionally gripping. 80%
()
The transition from the silent to the sound era was a major turning point in the world of cinema, and for many actors and directors who didn't want to adapt (or couldn't), it meant the end of a stellar career. This film nicely shows the tense situation of the late 1930s and very credibly and elegantly portrays the atmosphere and conditions in the film world at the time. As for the actors, I was satisfied, even if there's not much to say, it's all accompanied by apt and funny gestures. And the little dog was really cute. The music was a great second to the picture, as was the very sparse (but purposeful) use of sound. In short, a film that is a quality piece on all its levels, which is interesting mainly for its conception and technical execution.
()
Who would have thought that a silent film can astonish me even at a time when talkies are the norm and we’re seeing the rise of 3D movies? In fact, it is an absolutely beautiful throwback and homage to the film of the past. And this is what the very imaginative story of this movie is based on. Well, I have to admit that although Jean Dujardin seemed a bit crazy to me in his earlier films, here he showed that he’s a master of his craft even without sound. Perhaps I will never forget the scene where he appears at the ball, frowns and looks for something. There are so many emotions in that face that it can’t even be described. At that moment you’ll just fully understand what that means. And you’ll find out you can do without any lines or sound without a problem. The same goes for the final scene. I couldn’t imagine a more beautiful dance number. And shot in one go? Oh my God, is someone still filming such scenes these days? Hats off, for such a film experience does not occur every day. And that’s probably a good thing; thanks to this, this film gains a lot of uniqueness, which it will never lose.
()
Ads