#1 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

The film 'The Artist' was just put up on Netflix and I've just watched it and want to talk to the rest of you about it. This was the first time I had seen the film and I really liked it. I'm a sucker for old films and really enjoy silent films so this film was right up my alley. I really like how they tied the story itself, a silent-film actor struggling with the fall of silent films and the rise of 'talkies', with the deliver of the actual movie (introducing sounds into the film). I personally had hoped that they would have gone farther with this concept. There's a scene where the main actor has a nightmare where sounds start occurring all around him and he freaks out as if he's never heard those sounds before. I was kind of hoping that this would become the new 'reality' within the film and that as the years went buy the real world within the film would continue to reflect the changing technology of film itself (so, for example, in the 50s the real world start to have color and the main character would freak out because in his world there had only been black and white). But, despite not going down that weird path, I really liked the film as a whole.

I think the only part that I didn't really like was that, at the end of the film, I didn't fully understand the motivation behind the actions of the main character. Based off of what he sees, I could imagine several reactions but I had a hard time thinking of why he reacted the way he did and that the dark turn he had made so quickly changed direction upon seeing the other character enter his apartment at the very end right before the last scene. All of that felt rushed and incoherent. But overall it was a fantastic film.

So for those that saw the film, what did you think of it?

#2 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Another terrible movie to give the Oscar, the Academy have overlooked the best movies the last 10 years in favour for the flavour of the month that was released around Oscar time.

#3 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior:

I think I'm starting to understand you rather well. Of all the people here who would say that regarding this film you would have been the one I would pick full stop.

#4 Posted by jacksmedulla (279 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: Yeah, the best example of this is the 2008 Academy Awards. As much as I enjoyed No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood is one of the best movies of the past two decades, and it was completely shafted by the Academy.

#5 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior:

I think I'm starting to understand you rather well. Of all the people here who would say that regarding this film you would have been the one I would pick full stop.

What does that even mean. I always check out the Oscar winning movie every year and it was just so boring.

#6 Posted by TheVeteran13 (1209 posts) -

I tried to watch it but the sound was broken.

#7 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@TheVeteran13 said:

I tried to watch it but the sound was broken.

win

#8 Posted by Daneian (1229 posts) -

@jacksmedulla said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: Yeah, the best example of this is the 2008 Academy Awards. As much as I enjoyed No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood is one of the best movies of the past two decades, and it was completely shafted by the Academy.

And they didn't even nominate The Dark Knight, which, aside from a few problems, is the best film of all time.

#9 Posted by hwy_61 (922 posts) -

I loved The Artist, fuck the haters.

#10 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5144 posts) -

It's a nice movie but extremely overrated.

#11 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Daneian said:

@jacksmedulla said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: Yeah, the best example of this is the 2008 Academy Awards. As much as I enjoyed No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood is one of the best movies of the past two decades, and it was completely shafted by the Academy.

And they didn't even nominate The Dark Knight, which, aside from a few problems, is the best film of all time.

Not the best of all time but was the best movie that year by far, some of the greatest characters in a movie in a long time, great story with so much memorable dialogue. In 20 years when people look back at 2008 will they be talking about The Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire?

#12 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

@Mr_Skeleton said:

It's a nice movie but extremely overrated.

Yeah. I mean, when I saw it I had kind of forgotten that it had won any awards. But even if it did that really doesn't effect my enjoyment of something. I just watched the movie for what it was and not what it was built up to be. I think it was really creative.

#13 Edited by Jams (2960 posts) -

The movie sounds interesting BORING.

Online
#14 Posted by Brodehouse (9949 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Daneian said:

@jacksmedulla said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: Yeah, the best example of this is the 2008 Academy Awards. As much as I enjoyed No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood is one of the best movies of the past two decades, and it was completely shafted by the Academy.

And they didn't even nominate The Dark Knight, which, aside from a few problems, is the best film of all time.

Not the best of all time but was the best movie that year by far, some of the greatest characters in a movie in a long time, great story with so much memorable dialogue. In 20 years when people look back at 2008 will they be talking about The Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire?

When people look back at 1976 will they think Rocky or Network was the best picture of that year?

#15 Posted by Fattony12000 (7404 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: I don't think you know what Oscars are.

#16 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Daneian said:

@jacksmedulla said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: Yeah, the best example of this is the 2008 Academy Awards. As much as I enjoyed No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood is one of the best movies of the past two decades, and it was completely shafted by the Academy.

And they didn't even nominate The Dark Knight, which, aside from a few problems, is the best film of all time.

Not the best of all time but was the best movie that year by far, some of the greatest characters in a movie in a long time, great story with so much memorable dialogue. In 20 years when people look back at 2008 will they be talking about The Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire?

When people look back at 1976 will they think Rocky or Network was the best picture of that year?

I thought Taxi Driver was the best picture of that year.

1980 Empire Strikes Back (not nominated) or Ordinary People?

1982 Blade Runner (not nominated) or ET?

1989 Do The Right Thing (not nominated) or Driving Miss Daisy?

1990 Goodfellas or Dancing With Wolves?

1998 Saving Private Ryan or Shakesphere in Love?

2006 Crash or Munich?

2008 Dark Knight (not nominated) or Slumdog Millionaire

@Fattony12000 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: I don't think you know what Oscars are.

They are to judge the years best movie, but the judges are dying old men which is the problem.

#17 Posted by FengShuiGod (1486 posts) -

The Master yo.

#18 Edited by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

You guys whining about the Oscars are assholes. Yes, it won Best Picture. I don't see you fuckers ready with an alternate winner, and all you're doing is ragging on the ceremony, so then who gives a shit? It doesn't make a movie inherently bad to win Best Picture just as much as winning Best Picture doesn't necessarily mean the movie is going to appeal to everybody. So fuck off.

Man, I love talking about the Oscars and complaining about the winners as much as the next guy, but it's not the movie's fault. The King's Speech, as droll, familiar, and generally dull as it is, makes for a great biopic and has some genuinely fantastic sequences (including one of the best finales of 2010.) Is it better than my beloved Black Swan? Probably not, but it's also less trite and far more detailed.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen The Artist. It's on my to-do list now for when I go home next week, though, as I really do badly want to see the movie and knowing it's on Netflix is exciting. And, as far as odes to the era of silent film go, I'm pretty sure I'll love it in comparison to Hugo.

#19 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Little_Socrates: I just thought it was a boring movie does that make me a asshole? Probably. Overall 2011 was a pretty shitty year for movies I would of given the award to Hugo or Moneyball but even those movies where nothing spectacular but they weren't boring.

#20 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Little_Socrates: I just thought it was a boring movie does that make me a asshole? Probably. Overall 2011 was a pretty shitty year for movies I would of given the award to Hugo or Moneyball but even those movies where nothing spectacular but they weren't boring.

Really, the movie isn't for everyone. In fact, I'm surprised that it was as popular as it was. But I'm also not surprised it was nominated and won at the Academy Awards either. But @Little_Socrates: is right in saying the film's reception isn't the film's fault and putting blame on it for winning an award is silly. I don't know if that was what you or others were trying to do but that's what it feels like.

I get how the movie could be boring. It's as exciting as a silent movie can be. Really, to enjoy it you have to have a base appreciation for silent films and have the patience to put up with downtime. I really like silent films and I think The Artist did a really good job infusing that style of film with a modern sensibilities. BUT, as I said, this film is not for everyone.

#21 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Little_Socrates: I just thought it was a boring movie does that make me a asshole? Probably. Overall 2011 was a pretty shitty year for movies I would of given the award to Hugo or Moneyball but even those movies where nothing spectacular but they weren't boring.

Really, the movie isn't for everyone. In fact, I'm surprised that it was as popular as it was. But I'm also not surprised it was nominated and won at the Academy Awards either. But @Little_Socrates: is right in saying the film's reception isn't the film's fault and putting blame on it for winning an award is silly. I don't know if that was what you or others were trying to do but that's what it feels like.

I get how the movie could be boring. It's as exciting as a silent movie can be. Really, to enjoy it you have to have a base appreciation for silent films and have the patience to put up with downtime. I really like silent films and I think The Artist did a really good job infusing that style of film with a modern sensibilities. BUT, as I said, this film is not for everyone.

I get why it won, it's a movie about making movies at an awards ceremony for movies voted for people that made movies.

#22 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Little_Socrates: I just thought it was a boring movie does that make me a asshole? Probably. Overall 2011 was a pretty shitty year for movies I would of given the award to Hugo or Moneyball but even those movies where nothing spectacular but they weren't boring.

Now, see, if you think it's boring, that's fine. You never actually said that, though, you just said it was a terrible movie to give the Oscar and never really elaborated on what you actually thought of the movie. Though, based on your contentions with the awards, you're also generally a genre fan, so Empire is probably going to be closer to what you're looking for in a look at the top movies at any given time. (Also, as far as 2011 films go, I recommend A Separation, the Best Foreign Film from last year. If you like dramas much at all, it's a very engaging one.)

@JasonR86: I guess I always wonder if loving silent films in general is separate from loving specific eras of silent film. Like, I love the kind of movies Hugo celebrates, but I could hardly make it through Metropolis, no matter how innovative the special effects and set design were.

#23 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Little_Socrates: I just thought it was a boring movie does that make me a asshole? Probably. Overall 2011 was a pretty shitty year for movies I would of given the award to Hugo or Moneyball but even those movies where nothing spectacular but they weren't boring.

Now, see, if you think it's boring, that's fine. You never actually said that, though, you just said it was a terrible movie to give the Oscar and never really elaborated on what you actually thought of the movie. Though, based on your contentions with the awards, you're also generally a genre fan, so Empire is probably going to be closer to what you're looking for in a look at the top movies at any given time. (Also, as far as 2011 films go, I recommend A Separation, the Best Foreign Film from last year. If you like dramas much at all, it's a very engaging one.)

@JasonR86: I guess I always wonder if loving silent films in general is separate from loving specific eras of silent film. Like, I love the kind of movies Hugo celebrates, but I could hardly make it through Metropolis, no matter how innovative the special effects and set design were.

I might check it out, I should watch more foreign films seen as City of God is one of my favourite films.

#24 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

@Little_Socrates:

I appreciate the creativity and ingenuity that went into silent films. I love how imaginative those creators were and I really like it when I watch an older film and can see stylistic choices that are still relevant to modern film. That said every silent film has issues and very few of the stories in silent films hold up at all (though there are a few really cool ones like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari). What The Artist does really well is it pays homage to those films without falling into similar traps. I honestly think the story, minus the rushed ending, is very, very good which isn't usually the strength of a silent film. The nature of it being a silent film lends itself to the story but also gives it a style and feel that modern films rarely have anymore. But it certainly is a modern film (if that makes sense).