The Artist might have taken a good risk of stepping out of the kinds of movies today ( mainly garbabe) but it failed miserably and became an extreme bore with irritating music and a length of a silent movie that was unimaginable.

An Oscar? So this is the best the movie industry did in 2011? Pleaaaaaseeee!

I can go for an honorary mention because of the bravery of doing a silent movie on 2011. But saying this was the best movie done in 2011 is insulting all modern filmmakers.

I'm the first to hate this era of the cinema where all that matters is doing 3D movies and superhero sequels. But if you don't go for the masses you still can find good movies.

But this wasn't one of them. And the idea that it got the best movie award in so many places made me like it less... if possible.… Expand

I don't know what the critics and especially the Academy of Arts and Sciences found so fascinating about this- at most- mediocre offering. It's a decent film about the movie industry in the 20s. It's silent and Black and White. After twenty minutes it's boring. The hero frequently flashes his teeth and raises his eyebrows to show emotions. Anthony Hopkins he's not; 'Silence Of the Lambs' it's not. Silent movies went the way of the dodo because talkies were able to use the technology of the day to woo audiences into the theatres. Box office at this film is a disaster, despite all the hype. Fortunately this movie had its fifteen minutes of glory. No one will ever watch it on TV and the novelty of the thing will wear off. The 'Emperor has New Clothes' comparison might be overused, but it's true. Roger Ebert and others have given their five star blessing to this film so we HAVE TO like it. When i saw it, the theatre was at 10% capacity. A couple of viewers walked out after fifteen minutes. In a couple of years 'The Artist' will be forgotten and hopefully this one movie fad will finally end.… Expand

The Artist is one of the most overrated movies of all time. Some people call it a tribute, but is nothing more than a rough copy. Getting started, all the value of the film is due to the year it was made, in other words, if The Artist was from 1930, would have been a film of the bunch and nothing more. The plot it is absolutely simple and you cannot say that it has the common structure: intro, development and conclusion. Third, the award winning performance of Jean Dujardin, is totally misjudge, all what he did was laugh and dance, that is not an Oscar. Fourth, the direction is poor, Hazanavicius has a lot to learn; he had not a chance to beat the great filmmakers, like Allen, Scorsese, Payne and Malick, something is wrong here. And for worse, the soundtrack was stolen from **** picture: Vertigo.
The good part of the film was when the protagonist suffers in dreams because of the appearance of sound in movies and in his life. Another interesting thing is that it was filmed as a silent movie and for telling what the characters said, they use signboards. But the cinematography was awful.
Awarding this picture the Academy is losing prestige and for me, this entity is no longer believable.… Expand

The Artist for a film student as myself is little more than a self-congratulatory concept piece that lacks the authentic charm of real silent movies. This is not 'City Lights'! The Artist, revels far too much in its own cleverness, allowing neither a connection to the characters to form or a true sense of wonderment. The plot is recycled from several films, most obvious elements of course being from Singing in the Rain, and whilst the sets and acting are deserving of their commendations the overall arcing plot and characterisation is poorly dealt with. This will most certainly win all of the Oscars, so Hollywood itself can receive a lifetime achievement award (thanks a lot France!). Irregardless, if this type of feature starts a new trend in the silent gimmick and reflection of the past then I am not looking forward to the casting or should I even hope for an appearance of minorities within a format which celebrates its white exclusivity and achievement in a medium. This is merely an average film which disguises itself through the crowd-pleasing and tiring 'homage to...' genre for acclaim.… Expand

The acting is over the top and cheesy. The plot is so simple the movie could have been twenty minutes long. The music is nothing but annoying. There is a reason silent movies are no longer made.

Hello, moviegoers! There is a reason that no one makes black-and-white silent movies anymore. Those films were made because the technology was not enough advanced to contain sound and color. To revert to the black-and-white silent genre today is simply ludicrous and artificial and excruciatingly boring. Worst of all, The Artist is simply a very bad reprise of a romantic comedy-tearjerker with no attempt at originality of style. I KNOW what it was trying to do vis a vis the history of the silent movie, and it fails miserably. The one moment in the film of interest is the one in which Valentin, after seeing and hearing the prototype of a talking film, knocks over a brush in his dressing room and we, the audience, hear the sound it makes. It is a rivieting moment, followed by a few others sounds -- objects falling, girls laughing. And then the film reverts to the silence and the deadly dull music score. So why do that in the first place? I lasted in this movie for one hour, and honestly, I stayed that long only because I could not believe that it was not going to get better -- and by better I mean not black-and-white and silent. Dujardin has a great smile, I gotta give him that.… Expand

I do not understand the universal praise for this movie. It wants to toe the line between satire and homage but ultimately falls flat. There are a few charming moments but, the rest adds up to not much of anything. It doesn't even capture the rhythms and narrative thrusts of the great silent films. Find your homage of silents elsewhere: some of the films of Guy Maddin or even Mel Brook's Silent Movie, maybe. What you'll find here is a gimmick with little charm.… Expand

It's time someone said "the Emperor has no clothes" -- this movie sucked! And I love old movies, and silent movies -- was at Radio City when Napoleon re-premiered, but his was just a really bad movie that someone at production must have just gotten so sick of, they said to "turn the damn sound off" and then forget to turn it back on before the printed the copies, and then got released figuring it couldn't be any worse with sound and not worth the trouble re-printing. You could write the plot on a matchbox, hell, you could write it on a match. And the lack of a soundtrack just keeps you focused on their lips trying to figure out what's being said so you don't focus on the (lack of) acting. They can keep the thirteen bucks but I want my hour forty minutes back!… Expand

This is a disappointing movie. The emotions are superficial (as in almost all silent movies), the ending is predictable, and frankly, the plot is somewhat boring and uninspiring. The critics and I strongly disagree about this one. Perhaps they are too nostalgic to take an unbiased look at this movie...

To love this movie you'd need to love old movies. I do, but they begin with Gary Grant having a verbal duel with Katherine Hepburn. No such duel in this silent film. (There was one short sword fight.) Several people in my audience fell asleep. Too long. Too predictable. My biggest split in years with the critics.

Since I didn't enjoy the overall movie and technically overrated and overhyped by critics and viewers, this black-and-white silent film in digital presentation is unacceptable for the 21st century, not to mention that the title of this movie would have reflect the plot and idea of seeing a great colorful presentation. The classics are the past and they do stay in the past, not the present and not the future. Even though this movie will get some great awards, that should have happen in the past. This is definitely one of the worst and most boring movies of 2011.… Expand

I'm sorry, but this movie is terribly overrated. What I can't get over is how it doesn't even approach the best old silent films in the way it is shot and edited. It really plods along in places. A decent editor could have cut out about 15 minutes and given the movie some snap. All I can say is it sure made me want to go back to the great old films...and the dancing sequence--well, Astaire and Rogers they aren't. It's a likeable, but way overrated movie. Rent a Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin and see what real film making looks like.… Expand