User reviews

This is a treat. Charismatic leads with chemistry and talent, in a love story that plays as a pitch perfect homage to vintage Hollywood features, whilst never tipping over into parody, and that's no mean feat. The period detail is outstanding: film stocks, tints, (heck even the frame weave), captions and montage are all on the money.

There's an evocative score, an imaginative use of silence, wonderful locations and costume. All rounded off by a top notch cast which includes a brilliant dog. Dujardin is every inch the charming 20's star and Bejo is sassy, surefooted and gorgeous. Go see this people. They do make 'em like they used to!

Jean Dujardin deserved his Palme D'or for his captivating and wonderful performance. Where to start...this film is so clever, so beautifully crafted, so mesmerising. The lost art of the silent film is once again brought to life and that era is impressively recreated, whether it be the acting style, the sets, the locations (shot in Hollywood), the shimmering black and white photography. It is obvious to see that the people behind L'artiste respected that era of film making and wanted to recreate the magic with some modern touches ( I won't spoil them) and totally succeeded. I saw this in Cannes at an 8.30 am press screening and was totally entranced. I cannot wait to see it again!

... and I have to say that because I am familiar with that period of time, I think this is very well done. It has its own unique path, but if I had to pin it down I'd say it was A Star Is Born meets Singin In the Rain, although it avoids the depths of drama of the former as well as the comic highs of the latter. It is a very good mix of drama and comedy. Throw in Eddie from Frasier and you pretty much have it. And now on to the story.

George Valentin is a huge silent star in 1927. One night at a premiere of one of his movies a fan of his, Peppy Miller, has a chance encounter with him and in front of the crowd and the cameras she snatches a kiss from him with the headlines reading "Who's that girl?". George's wife is not amused but Peppy manages to get into George's Kinograph Studios and get work as an extra on the strength of it.

Even in the silent era, Peppy slowly works her way up the credits from just a girl in the chorus to strong supporting roles. Then sound comes in and she is put under contract as one of the "fresh new faces" of Kinograph when that studio converts completely to sound, where she stars in one hit film after another. Meanwhile, George no longer has a studio home as his producer (John Goodman) tells him that audiences will want new stars to match the new technology.

As George's fortunes decline everybody abandons him including his wife who has been showing signs (she blackens his teeth out when he is on the cover of Variety) of being unhappy since we first meet her. Only his loyal dog and butler/chauffeur stand by him. What will become of him? Watch and find out.

Visually this film gets everything right. The hairstyles, the fashions, the car models, and the architecture are correct for the 1920s and early 1930s. Everything about it reminds me of a film from the early 1930s - it's not meant to make you think too hard. It has some dramatic moments, but it is meant to make you leave feeling good, as the Great Depression was serious enough without adding to it.

«We didn't need dialogs, we had faces» said the narcissistic Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) in Billy Wilder' "Sunset Boulevard", referring to the Silent Era, when she used to be big … before the 'pictures got small'.

The reason of this introduction is that after watching Michel Hazanavicius' critically acclaimed: "The Artist", I strongly felt this was the perfect illustration to Norma Desmond's iconic eulogy. From beginning to end, my eyes never ceased to be amazed by the communicative smile of Jean Dujardin as George Valentin, the aging silent movie star and the sparkling eyes of Berenice Bejo as Peppy Miller, the young and flamboyant starlet. Their faces occupy the screen with such an electrifying magnetism that they don't just steal the scenes, they steal the dialogs … literally.

I was awestruck by Dujardin's performance. To those who didn't grew up with French TV programs, he's one of the most popular and talented comedians of his generation. Dujardin created the character of Brice de Nice, a blonde surfer whose specialty was to 'diss people', but it was so funny it never sounded mean-spirited. He was a member of a cult comic-troop (who made sketches à la SNL) but even back then, he had a little something that made him special: a voice, a smile, a charisma in both TV and movies, in both dramatic and comedic register. There was no doubt in France that the guy who was famous for his impressions of Robert De Niro and the camel (and even De Niro doing the camel) was promised to a brilliant career.

Look closely at Jean Dujardin's face, it's like drawn with 'classic' features: the finely traced mustache who builds a Fairbanks-like charisma like the strength from Samson's hair, the dazzling smile making him look like the lost son of Gene Kelly, and a certain macho toughness reminding of a young Sean Connery. Dujardin's face is a gift from cinematic Gods, and "The Artist" finally lets it glide, earning him the Cannes Festival Award for Best Actor. I sincerely believe he deserves an Oscar nomination, because he just doesn't play an actor from the Silent Era, he embodies the Era with the same level of demented craziness as Norma Desmond, in a brighter and more light-hearted side.

Valentin's self-absorption echoes Desmond's cynical ego while his gaudy 'Don Lockwood' mask (Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain") hides the more poignant face of his insecurity. He's the star of the screen because only the screen allows him to express his unique talent. While Lockwood had to adapt to the 'talking' revolution, George Valentin makes a conservative U Turn starting an inexorable descent into madness, from an outcast, to a has-been until being finally alienated by his own talkie-phobia. The direction is so clever that it challenges many times our perceptions, creating unexpected feelings of discomfort when real sounds are heard. But I was surprised to see how much it worked on a dramatic level.

And this is the strength of the film, although I expect it to discomfort some viewers: it isn't a tribute in the literary meaning of the word. It has its moments where it tricks us into the use of sounds or dialogs, but never fails to distract us from the core of the story: the romance. Very quickly, we forget about spotting the hints, the references to silent classics: chase scenes, over-the-top comical gesticulations, slapstick jokes etc. This mindset would disappoint those who expected a film with the same material as Mel Brook's "Silent Movie", which was clearly a tribute. "The Artist" IS a silent movie, featuring a beautiful romance between George and Peppy, who got her break with an idea from George, something that would make her different from the other actresses: a beauty spot above the upper lip. A clever credit-billing montage depicts her consequent ascension to stardom until she finally dethrones George and makes a has-been out of him.

If I mentioned the performance of Dujardin, Berenice Bejo also deserves some accolades because she succeeded in looking so "old" from our POV yet so fresh and modern in the film, with the appealing feel-good and optimistic attitude she constantly brings on screen. With her doll-face and youngish smile, she's like a cute little girl enjoying what she does. In a way, Peppy Miller embodies the film's most inspirational element: a positive message about passion and enjoyment. And this indirectly highlights George's source of troubles: being deprived from what he enjoyed the most and suffering from his progressive fading into oblivion. Along with this conflict, the evolution of George and Peppy's romance never feels forced, quite an accomplishment when we consider how slightly over-the-top silent movie stars used to act.

Both Dujardin and Bejo are indeed powerful in an Oscar-worthy level and at that moment, I can't continue without mentioning the third character of the film, George's dog. The relationship between George and the dog provides a sort of Chaplinesque feel to the movie, a mix of tenderness and poignancy, so natural and convincing I wonder if the Academy will think of a honorary Oscar. Anyway, I applaud Hazanivicius for not having reduced "The Artist" to a flashy spectacle with no substance, with the word 'homage' as the director's convenient alibi, and make a touching romance about two people who met each other at a pivotal time in the history of film-making, each representing a side of cinema, the old-school silent generation: Chaplin, Keaton, Pickford and the exuberant talkers: Grant, Hepburn, Davis … And I'm glad he found the true note to reconcile between these two universes at the end … didn't I tell you Dujardin was the lost son of Gene Kelly?

"The Artist" plays like a missing link between "Singin' in the Rain" and "Sunset Boulevard" and it's indeed one of the best films of 2011, with the absence of words as an endearing 'beauty spot'.

As I waited for two hours in a long queue to watch this movie at the Mumbai Film Festival, I wondered why I was doing so much for a silent movie, of all things. Post screening, I'm ready to brave hail, rain or the super hot Indian summer sun and stand in a serpentine queue, just to watch this movie all over again.

'The Artist' is sure to go down in history as a must-watch. For those who want to study films, for those who pursue cinema relentlessly, and also for those who just watch movies because they just like to. If you're wondering why a silent film, the movie not only answers it, but makes you fall in love with the medium. it's clearly a product of a thinking director, where every thing in the scene has a story to tell. Whether it's the ironical film posters, street signs, or just a little dog barking quietly in the corner.

I don't need to comment on the talents. The Best Actor award at Cannes 2011 has done that already. I will however mention the four-legged supporting actor in the movie. Best performance I've ever seen so far!

Enjoy this movie. Add it to your collection. This is one movie worth upgrading to from DVD to Blue Ray to ...

The Artist arrived at the Toronto International Film Festival preceded by the accolades it received at Cannes, so expectations were high, but those expectations have been more than amply fulfilled. This film is an absolute marvel - charming, witty, surprising, moving, clever and beautiful. Filmmaking is about decisions, thousands and thousands of them, and everyone involved in The Artist makes every decision to perfection. The cinematography is ravishing in luminous black and white. The musical score, on which the film, being silent, is so dependant, is subtle when it needs to be subtle, dramatic when the occasion calls for it, and never overbearing or overwrought. The screenplay (yes, silent films do have screenplays) toys with the conventions of the silent era, paying homage to some of the greatest films of the first two or three decades of cinema history. The acting is flawless, extracting emotion and humour from a simple but classic storyline. The direction displays such self-assurance, and treats the audience with such respect, that it is almost like having a dialogue with the director.

The Artist is one of the most enjoyable movie experiences I have ever had. It deserves a wide audience and all sorts of awards. I can hardly wait to see it again.

And oh yes, if there is ever an Oscar for best animal performance, the dog in The Artist should receive a lifetime achievement award for this role alone.

What a treat. I left the theater sort of floating. Delighted. A European film looking back at Hollywood better than Hollywood has been able to do for years. "A Star Is Born" and "Singing In The Rain" mixed in a glorious black and white cocktail. Silent, yes silent! But with a fabulous score and so much panache. Jean Dujardin is the revelation of the year. What a performance! Running the gamut of emotions, leaving us breathless, and if this wasn't enough, a rousing tap dance routine in the style of Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell, partnering with the wonderful Berenice Bejo. I know that it's not just me. The audience applauded and cheered as the end credits rolled.

The Artist is a well-made if not particularly involving homage to the silent films of the 1920s. The film itself looks beautiful, and makes interesting use of its lack of sound. However, the story lacks interest, and is as clichéd as the silent films it pays tribute to.

The artist of the title is George Valentin, a silent film star caught in a loveless marriage to a petulant starlet. He gives a jump start to the career of actress Peppy Miller after kissing her at a premiere. However, he soon finds his stardom dwarfed by hers after the debut of talkies and losing his fortune in the stock market collapse.

The film is at its best when it plays with the whole concept of silent movies. The most impressive example is a dream sequence conveying the transition from silent to sound movies. Valentin dreams that his word, previously filled with a silent movie soundtrack, now consumed by overly loud background sounds. This may be the first time in cinematic history in which a dog's bark has conveyed the shift of an entire world.

Unfortunately, the film also suffers from one of the major flaws of silent films in general. Because of the lack of dialogue, The Artist ultimately has a simplistic story with largely one dimensional characters. To a large extent, the plot mimics that of A Star Is Born, focusing on a famous performer ultimately surpassed by his protégé. As a result, the film is boring and predictable.

Furthermore, the film emulates the least interesting of the silent movies. Rather than focusing on the more experimental films that characterized the early years of silent movies, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and D. W. Griffith's work, it looks at the making of genre films. Given that The Artist, by its very nature, is aimed at film buffs with an extensive set of references, one would think they would give attention to more interesting films.

Still, the film's cast does a lot, particularly given the lack of dialogue. Penelope Ann Miller gives Valentin's harpy wife as much dimension as one can to such a one note character. John Goodman is also good as a dictatorial producer.

I go to a lot of screenings and it is rare that once the credits roll I feel satisfied. One or more of the elements of most films just don't work together to create a feeling that you have been thoroughly entertained.

I am happy to say that this film DELIVERS! The acting is superb, the chemistry between all of the actors is sizzling, the comedy is absolutely hilarious, the storyline grips you and never lets go, the music is superb, and you feel emotionally connected with the characters and story.

If you check my previous reviews, you will see that I am most often moved to write a review when a film was really bad, but this film caught me completely off guard and I just had to express my overwhelming satisfaction with this filmmaking experience.

I can't imagine how difficult it must have been to try and finance a period film with two stars who were not well known outside of their own country. I am just overjoyed that it all came together. This is how film should make you feel when you leave the theater - entertained! To the entire production team - BRAVO!!

If you can get your Weinstein-manipulated expectations WAY down from "Oscar" to "cute gimmick," then this cinematic truffle could very well satisfy – especially if you've ever seen and enjoyed a theatrical screening of a silent movie. There's a faithfulness to the spirit and techniques of the silent era that's undeniably impressive and will delight those few audience members (myself being one) who have enough familiarity with silent cinema to appreciate it.

But is it a movie that you should be running out to see because omnipresent web advertising says that it's an Oscar lock? Negative. If you DON'T have the required familiarity with the silent era, the charms and nostalgia evoked by the film will be completely lost on you, and you'll be far more dependent on the thin and unoriginal storyline for entertainment. (Note: the story borrows shamelessly from both SINGING IN THE RAIN and A STAR IS BORN and is fully consistent with the era's cornball aesthetic.) And even if you ARE familiar with silent cinema, "Oscar worthy" is going to seem like a stretch. Either way, if you really want to enjoy this movie, lowering your expectations from their current hype-elevated levels is imperative. (Anybody notice how remarkably similar Weinstein's overhype campaign for this film is to the one he successfully ran for Roberto Benigni's LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL years ago? Anybody watched that movie since?)

I first saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival with a full house at the spacious Elgin Theater, and it received a favorable albeit muted response from the audience. (By comparison, I saw AMELIE at the same theater ten years prior, and it received a ten-minute standing ovation at the end.) If I'd known at the time that I'd just seen the year's BEST movie, I would have been depressed over what this portended for the year-end releases.

You simply can't help being aware of the limitations of silent movies -- and thankful for the quantum improvement that the introduction of sound made -- no matter how deft the filmmakers are in recreating the look and feel of a bygone era. It's a movie-making era that you're glad IS bygone -- as evidenced by the inability of any of the gushing critics to cite a single color talkie favorite that they wish had been a b&w silent instead.

I say "A" for cinematic conceit and "C" for entertainment value ("B+" for silent film buffs).

I managed to catch a screening of this at Cannes, and if you're thinking about skipping this film because it's silent and black and white, you're going to be missing out on a very special experience.

Everything about this film is exceptional. The acting is top-notch, the story is intriguing, and despite being black and white, the film is visually appealing. The filmmakers really make great use of the medium, and even though there are no voices or color, my interest was never lost.

Jean Dujardin gives a great performance. You like him instantly and, without giving too much away, you want him to succeed. This movie is really chock full of great actors and actresses. You'll see some familiar faces, but they all blend in well with the world of the film.

I really don't know a whole lot about the director Michel Hazanavicius, but after seeing this film I'm definitely interested in seeing what he does next.

Highly recommend!

A French comedy-drama; This story is a tribute to the magic of silent cinema. A joyous film with delightful performances and a beautiful visual style, bringing back the glamour and glitz of old Hollywood. It is extremely well cast with Dean Dujardin in Academy Award winning form as an older silent film star and a rising young actress as silent cinema falls out of fashion and is replaced by the "talkies". The costume design was also recognized by the Academy, and rightly so. The stage and set design is also impeccable with some surprising cinematography in street scenes that brilliantly captures 1930s Los Angeles. The film used the soundtrack from "Vertigo" which caused consternation in some quarters of the film industry, but this is not a film pupporting to be unaffected.

I really don't get it. My wife and I went to see The Artist this past Saturday and I was left with an overwhelming feeling of "meh." Which is really surprising, given the almost universal, glowing praise this film has been getting--what with Golden Globe awards and Oscar nominations, etc (not to mention all the 10-star reviews here on IMDb).

I just didn't see anything special here. I mean, they filmmakers did a fairly good job of recreating a silent film, but they didn't take it any further than that. The plot, acting, etc, was no better or worse than a real silent film. I've seen many much, much better silent films on TCM's Silent Sundays each weekend. Those who are gushing over this movie have apparently not seen very many real silent films from the 20s. If they had, I think they'd have found this film kind of a "been there, seen that" kind of experience as I did. Or maybe this Artist-Praise-Hysteria is mostly the result of folks desperately wanting to jump onto the bandwagon of the newest "cool" thing.

The thing that bothered me most (besides the stretches of tedium) was that the cinematography was distractingly flat and gray--there were no real blacks and no real whites. I understand from articles I've read that this low-contrast, glowy B&W was intentional. But I didn't like it. Just looked like it was poorly shot with a bad video camera with the contrast turned all the way down. (this wasn't helped by the fact that the theatre I saw it in now presents all their "films" via digital projection--a process that, in my opinion, has NOT been perfected yet and is still too "low res" for cinema).

All in all, "The Artist" should be nothing more than a minor, vaguely interesting experiment that would have had a better home on video. How it has become an indie sensation with Oscar nominations is a totally mysterious to me. Wonder how much money it took to convince us all that is was a masterpiece?

2011 saw a lot of very good to outstanding films. After seeing 'The Artist', having heard so much about it but never got round to seeing it, for me it is up there with the best of them and one of the best films seen in a long time.

As someone who loves a lot of films from the silent era, having been vastly entertained by classics from the likes of cinema icons Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, 'The Artist' is magical film-making, a wonderfully endearing homage to the silent era and is much more than just a gimmick like it could easily have been in lesser hands.

For starters, 'The Artist' is gorgeously filmed in black and white with the cinematography along with the likes of 'Drive', 'The Tree of Life' and 'Hugo' being some of the best of the year. One of the most visually exquisite films seen in a long time actually. The music score, with a nice affectionate nod to one of the greatest music scores of all-time Bernard Hermann's 'Vertigo', is whimsical and rich in playfulness and charm, all the time beautifully orchestrated.

'The Artist' was clearly written with a lot of affection, with plenty of funny and poignant moments, and while the storytelling is simple it really uplifts and moves with the atmosphere of the silent era more than convincingly evoked. The direction is also without complaint. The characters endear and entertain, especially George and adorable Uggie, and nothing can be faulted about the acting.

Jean Dujardin's lead performance is just wonderful, a more than worthy winner for the best actor award. Bérénice Bejo is similarly charming and has great chemistry with Dujardin, while the talented supporting cast are all stellar with no weak links. As for adorable Uggie, one of the best animal performances on film to me and award-worthy if there was an award eligible for animals (which one wouldn't say no to).

In conclusion, a sheer delight all round and, despite the competition being strong, its Oscar win for Best Picture was deserved. One of the easiest 10/10s given recently. Bethany Cox

A perfect score for a classic film.

Given the risks taken (the largely b/w and silent elements to the film, for a start) I'm really impressed that it was made at all. Set in the era of silent movies but on the cusp of radical change, Hazanavicius has unravelled a tight story with playfulness and pathos; based around the rise of one star's career and decline of another's.

Rarely present in films, both leads show genuine star quality with compelling chemistry drawing them together as circumstances and pride conspire to keep them apart. Over the years I've resisted leaving a review on IMDb but have eventually succumbed here, believing that this film deserves to enjoy the success of its many virtues. 'The Artist' has the rudiments of a solid, classic film – a well-paced, empathetic and evolving plot, characters with likable personalities and an interesting, brave medium in relating the story. This film has a lot to say and does so in style.

If you love going to the cinema then please see this movie but if you don't like films much then this may change your disposition...I hope it will delight and move you as much as I. Long live storytelling!

Hollywood has never reconciled with its silent past. Most of the infrastructure that supports the 21st century film industry, from film technique to the studios themselves, have their roots in the silent era. This film (and Martin Scorcesse's Hugo) helps to bridge that gap and does it brilliantly.

The two leads, Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo, are spot on perfect in their performances. The direction of Michel Hazanavicius was pristine.

We're afforded glimpses of the lives of Douglas Fairbanks, John Gilbert, Gretta Garbo and other silent luminaries in this story of how Hollywood learned to talk.

This story is not exclusively for young or old, male or female, or any particular nationality. It's for anyone who loves cinema.

Going into this film , I did have high expectations. What I learned coming out of it is that, I do believe, I have grown a bit as a critic. This being of the highest praised films of the year, I had no doubts that I would come out of it liking it somewhat at least. This being said, I was mostly let down here. Another thing this film taught me is that trailers for films can be deceiving and that literally most of the great parts of a film are within it's trailers. This is mostly the case here. I found the most enjoyable moments were parts of snip-its from pieces in the trailer. If you have not yet seen the trailer for this film, I recommend against watching it. The story here, overall, is actually quite bland and nothing to really get excited for. This is a pretty easy film to swallow, and there is really only one scene in the film that really gives it anything worthy of a PG-13 rating. You could say this is almost a family film for the easy minded, and for some, it could be something anyone could enjoy if you are into the more independent films of course.

However, despite all this, the performances is what really saves the film here, and they are spot on, and in every way worthy of an Oscar nom. from at least the 2 leads or just the female lead overall. Also, the cinematography is quite gorgeous to look at for the most part. I can't really say that what IS here is really flawed at all, it just really didn't grab me and have all the magic most are claiming it to have. There is something here, but it is missing a lot of charm it could have had. What we get here is splices of charm with a downtrodden face.

¨Look at what you've become. You've become proud! You've become stupid! ¨

The Artist is a beautiful film that pays homage to movies from the late 20's and early 30's, the silent film era. In order to do so, French director Michel Hazanavicius decided to make this film almost entirely without sound and in black and white. Many producers would've probably thought he was crazy for trying to make a film like this in these days where viewers are used to seeing spectacular and colorful movies with great sound and even in 3D. However, The Artist works perfectly and is one of the brightest films of the year despite being in black and white. The cinematography is spectacular (perhaps only rivaled this year by The Tree of Life and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), the costume design and editing are among the best of the year, and the score is also amazing. This is truly a beautiful film that many film historians will enjoy for the nice tribute it renders to the age of silent films. Many famous actors during this era weren't able to make the transition to the talkies, and that is exactly what The Artist is about, and it does it in a very simplistic but stylized fashion. The film has been nominated for 10 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Performance by a Lead Actor (Jean Dujardin) and a Supporting Actress (Berenice Bejo). It will probably walk away with the Best Picture title considering how appealing the subject matter is to the Academy, and how well the film was crafted. Please don't be scared off because the movie is silent or in black and white because the story is really entertaining and despite being colorless it is brighter than any other film released this year. It is really worth a watch; you won't regret it.

The year is 1927 and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is at the height of his artistic career. He is a very successful Hollywood actor and producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) is very pleased with his work. After having succeeded together yet again in a recent film, they are already collaborating for their next project. During rehearsals for their next movie, George runs into an extra named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). They hit it off instantly sharing a dance number and George insists that Peppy should get the part. Pepper falls in love immediately with George, but he is married to Doris (Penelope Ann Miller) so their relationship is entirely professional. George gives Peppy the best advice she would ever receive: In order to make it in the industry she needs to be different and he paints a spot near her lip. This will be her trademark later on as she slowly begins rising to the spotlight during the arrival of the talkies. Valentin however, isn't lucky and realizes his days as a successful actor are coming to an end with the advent of these talking pictures. People want to see new faces and hear their voices. Al Zimmer realizes this and breaks relations with George, so Valentin decides to produce, direct, and star in his own silent film. The movie is a failure as people want to see these new talkies, and as Valentin's fame becomes to decline, Peppy Miller begins to grow into a superstar. Valentin is left with nothing except his faithful driver, Clifton (James Cromwell) and his Jack Russell Terrier named Jack. The times have changed for the great artists and fortunes are reversed.

The Artist is among my top ten favorite films of the year and it works really well, not only as homage to these silent films, but as a love story as well. Along with Midnight in Paris, these are perhaps the two best romantic movies of the year and would make for an excellent date. I've already mentioned some of the technical aspects, but now I would like to praise the performances from Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, and the dog (which was played in most part by Uggie). I can't leave out the dog, because he plays an important role in this film, and in a way is Valentin's faithful companion and savior. Jean Dujardin does deserve the Oscar nomination for his performance, he was terrific, and I think I enjoyed it over George Clooney's. If he wins, it will be well deserved. My favorite performance of the film however, comes from Berenice Bejo, who was also nominated as a supporting actress. She is just terrific and shines every time she's on screen. Her performance gives this black and white movie a lot of color. Both Bejo and Dujardin have worked together with director Hazanavicius in the past in the French spy spoof film OSS 117. I've never seen the movie, nor its sequel, but after seeing The Artist I'm very much interested in doing so. Overall this is a terrific film and one you won't want to miss.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

It may have been a cold January night in Leicester Square when I left the cinema but inside I was glowing, my faith somewhat restored in film having just seen this heartwarming classic.

There's little point going through the deeply romantic/dramatic plot set in stark contrast against the shallow world of 1920's Hollywood as it may only spoil it for those yet to see, but in summary this film is a real gem, a true joy to behold with a clever little unpredictable twist at the end. Fabulous acting, superb score, great cinematography and look out for a star turn from a little performing dog which is quite amazing at times.

With lots of classic touches woven throughout this movie, expect to laugh out loud, cry real tears and go through a roller-coaster of emotions as you will no doubt watch in fascination, the vivid recreation of an exceptional time in the history of cinema (the advent of talkies)and the history of the America (Wall St Crash/Great Depression).

Though it is a silent film, sound is used in a very clever way. Similarly the director meshes subtle modern cinema techniques with some classic framing and detail. This is a glorious mixture of the old and the new and has great balance between light comedy/entertainment, intense romance and at times dark drama. The result being interesting characters that engage on many levels.

It's worth mentioning the nods to some of cinema's all time classic films like Singing in the Rain, Sunset Boulevard and Citizen Kane(and several Chaplin classics) but it's not plagiarism, parody or irreverence - it's a beautiful pastiche of the cinema's finest. Watching The Artist, feels like someone was clearing out an old Hollywood Studio and stumbled upon one of the greatest silents (if not films) of them all and suddenly the lost masterpiece is revealed to the world.

Emerging from the Cinema and into the crisp night air of Leicester Square, my thoughts were on one thing...how many Oscars will this instant classic win come February? The Academy certainly didn't disappoint as it picked up 5 Oscars including Best Actor, Best Picture and Best Director.

A big thank you to all who were involved in this magnificent production, a truly wonderful film, delivering a great cinematic experience.

First of all, from 2008, the movies which won best picture shifted directions: instead of going towards the masterpiece original movie they are going towards the commercial type. I hope this is the climax of these 4 years, although I have serious doubts.

The critiques say The Artist is just a mix of clichés, a compilation of scenes from other films. How does that affect me, why would I care(asks the casual viewer) ? Well, the answer's simple : this film lacks depth. Badly. I mean it's fun to watch, it's well made...but it just doesn't have like other layers of meaning hidden below the surface, imagine an egg which is empty inside. I don't think in those times films were like that!

The story is fine for entertainment, but doesn't even come close to, say, The Aviator. I did like the moment when the music stops and we can hear some sounds which are briefly related to the story, it makes you more intuitive. The acting is indeed good- and the movie is good, but overall it just doesn't bring anything new. It just stinks of Hollywood, and not the old one !

I could tell you 100 films like this one, but could hardly name 3 like, for example, The Tree of Life.

Hollywood, 1927: Silent movie star George Valentin is famous and wanted by his fans. He meets Peppy Miller, a young dancer, and propels her to the top of the movie industry. But as the sound enters the Hollywood, will George Valentin stand up to the challenge or surrender? I will definitely remember the year 2011 as the year of extreme nostalgia about the old movies. It seems to me that suddenly that feeling overwhelmed all the major producers, and as the result we saw so many films heralding how good the times were. The suit was started with Drive, the movie that initiates a time travel into 1980s movie production with all the main attributes in place: pounding soundtrack, violence and L.A. Then there was Hugo, in which Martin Scorsese took us back to the very beginning of the film production and has shown the fate of one of the pioneers of the industry, Georges Méliès. This time, the nostalgic authors take us to 1927, the era of silent black-and-white movies and booming movie industry.

The Artist is very different from the other two films mentioned. If the Drive hails the style of 80s and Hugo is the ode to the brave pioneers of the movie industry, the Artist talks mainly about the people involved. It asserts strongly that the actors during the 1920s were shining, glossy, glamorous in their own, down-to-earth style, and builds the entire storyline around it, not trying to capture the viewers' attention by anything else.

This was a very risky experiment. The movie is black-and-white and silent in the era of 3D, Avatar and Transformers. But the authors' bet on the charismatic characters paid off – the movie is very lively and charismatic. The simple story about George Valentin who tries to find his place in the rapidly changing world is very touching; the simple jokes easily make you smile. The fact that the movie concentrates on the new technology allowed some amazing plot turns – I promise that the George's nightmare will catch you by surprise. The movie is charming and light in a way that only old movies can be, without being too worried about special effects or the drama in the plot. The authors concentrated on one thing only: that is, to make people empathise with the main characters again, and they succeed – the main characters are charismatic and lovable.

Of course, this would not have happened without the right cast, and it is difficult to underestimate the work of Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo. It feels as if they came straight from late 20s, they look so natural and confident. It is difficult not to smile when seeing Ms. Bejo's smile or watching Mr. Dujardin's dances. They performed to their best, and it is this brilliant performance that guaranteed the charisma and irresistible charm of the movie. Absolutely gorgeous actors literally filling the room with optimistic and upbeat mood, despite all the hardship – they make this film what it is.

VERDICT: The risky experiment in the era of 3D and IMAX, but the most charming film of the year. TO WATCH: if you don't want to miss the most festive movie of the year.

http://m-picturegoer.blogspot.com/