Weinstein Company, The | Release Date: November 23, 2011
8.2
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 532 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
454
Mixed:
45
Negative:
33
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
jurrabiMar 18, 2012
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
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
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
3
DiegoSanRoblesJan 16, 2012
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 theI 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
5 of 14 users found this helpful59
All this user's reviews
3
rjwoolseyMar 6, 2012
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 twentyI 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
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
3
SpangleMay 16, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I guess I'm just not a fan of silent film. The director did many interesting things that were cool to see and he did a fantastic job and the acting was good, but the plot was as boring as watching paint dry. The end was pretty good, but that's solely because I was so relieved to hear them speak. There were too many points where I would get annoyed at not knowing what they were saying until the title card came up, if it even came up at all. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
DavebobFeb 19, 2012
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.
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
2
WillCraigDec 29, 2011
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 fellTo 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. Expand
7 of 27 users found this helpful720
All this user's reviews
2
peasporridgecolApr 15, 2015
UN. WATCHABLE. The praise for this movie is baffling; it does not have an original idea in its head. And it PLODS, oh lord how it plods. "Singin' in the Rain" already did this plot 1000 times better; please, please go watch that instead.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
jwt7000Dec 27, 2011
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 movieSince 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
4 of 17 users found this helpful413
All this user's reviews
0
Marty1035Jan 15, 2012
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 justIt'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
1 of 7 users found this helpful16
All this user's reviews
0
NanRJan 27, 2012
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 todayHello, 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
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
0
csw12Mar 24, 2012
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.
0 of 15 users found this helpful015
All this user's reviews
0
Shubham130798Apr 25, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Patient :doctor I have insomnia and I have not slept for a month
Doc :watch the artist

Wtf did I just see. Are the critics retarded or maybe they just feel asleep and then as they knew this was a try to make classic They just gave it a 100. From the first second this movie was **** And it's not like I hate black and white films. There are films like psycho, schindler's list, 12 angry men etc which are great but this film was a torture.
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews