Guess that's why they call it "Best Picture" and not "Best Talkie."

...

RexTalionis: It's playing at the art house theatre near me. I'm wondering whether I should go and watch it and see if it's actually that good, or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

It's that good.

RexTalionis: It's playing at the art house theatre near me. I'm wondering whether I should go and watch it and see if it's actually that good, or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

Yes, it's that good. Go see it.

If you reach a point where you think you might see it, then you should see it.

If you think the whole idea is stupid then don't go see it. I can imagine teenagers getting bored out of their minds in this movie.

I hear that Kim Novak is good in it.

It's really lovely, beautifully shot, great music, just a sweet film.

/And hopefully it engages more teenagers than it bores. One can hope.

So Hollywood is so out of ideas they have gone back to making silent movies?

What's next, I pay to go see a slideshow set to music from a record player?

Harvey Weinstein is behind it and if it is as good as people say, then his clout should get the win. A lot of people don't like Weinstein but he produces good movies

Good. It's such a funny, charming movie. shiat, I can't believe that I described my favorite movie of the year as "charming," but there you go.

RexTalionis: It's playing at the art house theatre near me. I'm wondering whether I should go and watch it and see if it's actually that good, or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

What the others said. It is that good. The music is pretty good and the story is pretty solid. My pics for best picture last year is between this and Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

I really hope they release a 3D or iMax version too, it's that good of a movie!

Silent movies are sooooo mainstream. My movie is not only silent, the screen is totally black. For 3 hours and 48 minutes. You find yourself asking "How much more black can it be?" and the answer is "None, none more black."

Now, where's my Parliaments and PBR?

ExWNY'er: Harvey Weinstein is behind it and if it is as good as people say, then his clout should get the win. A lot of people don't like Weinstein but he produces good movies

That reminds me; At the Golden Globes every second person thanked Weinstein. I was beginning to think the footed the bill for the whole thing.

ExWNY'er: Harvey Weinstein is behind it and if it is as good as people say, then his clout should get the win. A lot of people don't like Weinstein but he produces good movies

He should also be banned from ever being around movies.

Mugato: JasonOfOrillia: That reminds me; At the Golden Globes every second person thanked Weinstein. I was beginning to think the footed the bill for the whole thing.

Didn't they also keep calling him The Terminator" or something else equally stupid?

The Punisher. And Streep called him god.

John Goodman is awesome in it. He has a presence that is just perfect for a silent film.

I'd have to give Best Picture to Moneyball.

edmo: skinink: The music is pretty good

So it has a soundtrack or is somebody in back playing the organ?

It has a soundtrack. They use some title cards but you aren't constantly reading things onscreen. The action lets you understand whats going on.

dletter: skinink: Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Is it that good? Just worrying it will be fairly redundant since I've read the book and watching the original Scandinavian movie version.

I haven't read the book but I like this as much as the original movie and it's better in some ways. I've heard the American version sticks closer to the book. Rooney Mara and Noomi Rapace are both good leads. I'd say it's worth seeing.

dletter: skinink: Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Is it that good? Just worrying it will be fairly redundant since I've read the book and watching the original Scandinavian movie version.

Don't you have to be a fan of rape rape to enjoy those books/movies?

Anyone who enjoyed The Artist should do themselves a favor and check out Jean Dujardin in the OSS 117 movies.

i'm not nostalgic for old-fashioned artforms, nor was i impressed with the story it told. the conceit of doing a silent movie is compelling, but why did they have to make it so much about cheesy, instead of powerful?

It was good, but might have been better if it was one of those IMAX 3-D features that costs $18 per ticket here.

fin

i watched a few minutes and gave up. no talking. cant understand.

dletter: skinink: Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Is it that good? Just worrying it will be fairly redundant since I've read the book and watching the original Scandinavian movie version.

It's as good as the material is. The problem is that the trilogy is uneven and too much is put in the first and not enough meat in the second two. Rooney Mara was pretty good, there was some very good editing done, some odd editing choices, and the opening titles are an eye opener. I guess it's the best I've seen this year but I haven't seen enough "non-blockbuster" fare this year to really be a good judge.

RexTalionis: It's playing at the art house theatre near me. I'm wondering whether I should go and watch it and see if it's actually that good, or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

It's good. And it's not at all pretentious.

MrEricSir: Guess that's why they call it "Best Picture" and not "Best Talkie."

Useless piece of trivia: The very first Oscar was awarded to the silent movie "Wings" in 1927. It is also the only silent movie to have won. (Incidentally, there's a restored print of Wings with a newly recorded orchestral score just coming out.)

RexTalionis: or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

I don't imagine a silent film called "The Artist" could be anything else.

You see - comedy. Love, and a bit with a dog. That's what they want.

See it. It's not pretentious. It's a very spontaneous, entertaining film. Looks beautiful, excellent soundtrack. Great actors.

I love that I can go downtown and see a new silent film in 2011. The bigger thing is, I really wish black and white would make a comeback.

velvet_fog: The bigger thing is, I really wish black and white would make a comeback.

Why, is color too "mainstream"?

MrEricSir: Guess that's why they call it "Best Picture" and not "Best Talkie."

And I bet they still played the near-deafening FX entry before the movie started.

/it's incredibly retarded to make a silent movie in this day/age

I usually have a hard time going for the critically-hyped oscar bait type movies, and this one seems particularly oscar bait-y. But since it apparently wasn't too pretentious for Fark, I might give it a shot sometime. I don't mind black and white movies about a bygone era of cinema, Ed Wood is one of my favorites.

GoldSpider: velvet_fog: The bigger thing is, I really wish black and white would make a comeback.

Why, is color too "mainstream"?

You can do neat things with angles and shadows that you can't do with color. I liked the change of pace, but when the car chase demolishes the fruit stand, that better be some colored fruit.

I really enjoyed The Artist. While I wouldn't label the plot itself as anything spectacular, it's all the surroundings that really make it impressive. The ability to tell the story with a minimal amount of text, the wonderful portrayal of the characters by the cast, the dedication to making a silent film (and adding some points which really help call out the difference between a silent film and those with sound)... it all just worked really well together. Much like seeing a Shakespeare play, it took me a few minutes to adjust to the "silent film" mode of communication. Once I did though, when I came out of the theater it was very noticeable how many sounds there were all around.

I thought it was well-made and surprisingly unpretentious, but it also didn't make much of an impact with me, emotionally. I just couldn't get invested in the story/characters.

/The only way Fincher will take home a big win is if voters give him a pity Oscar re: last year.
//Which sucks, because I found Dragon Tattoo much more engaging/compelling.

And I realized, Hugo and The Artist would make a good double feature. For once 3D wasn't wasted when it was used in Hugo. Totally worth paying the extra money for the 3D.

RexTalionis: It's playing at the art house theatre near me. I'm wondering whether I should go and watch it and see if it's actually that good, or whether the critics only say it's good because it's a black and white silent French film that reminded them of all the failed pretentious student films they made in film school.

It is good enough that going to see it isn't a waste of your money or 90 minutes of your life, which is all that you can really ask of a movie.

Best picture of 2011? No.
Good movie? Yes.

The film is too weak on real originality and leans too much on its two gimmicks (the silent thing and the allusions to a couple of movie-star romances in the 40s/50s) to really be "best" anything, and the plot's fun but isn't particularly or compelling (the best summary I've heard was that it's a mash-up of "a star is born" and "singin' in the rain"). Even if you restrict the category to nostalgia movies, "the Muppets" was better.

That said, definitely watchable.

dletter: skinink: I've heard the American version sticks closer to the book.

That is interesting to know, because they did deviate quite a bit from the book with the original movie... mostly with the timeline.

Honestly I didn't watch the movies because the books are basically Twilight in the spy novel genre instead of horror fantasy. Maybe a ridiculous pair of mary-sue protagonists work better in a movie than a set of novels, but I'm not really inclined to find out.

//To be fair, I did read the books, so not the worst thing ever. But that also holds true of Twilight so that's not saying a lot.