[Note: I’ve been working on this review since I saw the movie, which was around mid-August, so it’s been in my drafts for a LONG time. Decided to release it now considering the Blu-ray/DVD release is coming up on 12/4/12.]

I wasn’t nearly as hyped as most people were for The Dark Knight Rises. Was I excited? Sure, of course, IT’S BATMAN, but I wasn’t going nuts anticipating this release. I just found it hard to believe that Nolan could top The Dark Knight. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that’s pretty much exactly how I felt when I came out of the movie.

I didn’t get to see The Dark Knight Rises until about a month after its release due to my recovery time after knee surgery. So I got to see the movie after hearing all the buzz, most of the criticisms, and the tragic theater shooting (RIP to the victims). 

My main problem with The Dark Knight Rises is that the movie felt so jam packed with ideas and characters that the movie never fully realizes. What is Nolan trying to say about the 99%? What is he trying to say about society? What is the ultimate message? He never fully goes into it which is fine, you don’t have to have definitive answers to all your big questions, but he doesn’t give us much in the film to read into and if he does, I obviously don’t think he did it well enough. 

What’s odd about Nolan’s Batman trilogy is how little it seems to focus on Batman’s development as a character. Batman Begins didn’t have this problem, but The Dark Knight felt more like The Joker’s movie and Batman’s reaction to such a crazy, psychotic character. If you look at The Dark Knight, Batman doesn’t really have an arc and that major arc is really given to Harvey Dent. I didn’t have a problem like most people did about the actual “Batman” not being in most of the movie (although I did have a problem with side characters getting too much screentime, more on that later). One theme of the movie is about Bruce Wayne needing to just live instead of having to be Batman all the time. I wish they had elaborated on that more, but instead they just give him a half-baked romantic subplot as justification for living as Bruce instead of Batman.

In The Dark Knight Rises, the focus does shift back to Batman as a character more, but there are so many new characters introduced that felt superfluous. There is a side character who gets a scene showing his death and I literally thought to myself, “Wait… am I supposed to care or something?” The John Blake character is acted well by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but is problematic on so many different levels. We came to see a freakin’ BATMAN movie and yet about 1/3rd of the movie is dedicated to this character that was only introduced in this movie and not in the marketing materials that much. That’d be okay if the character had a good story arc but nothing Blake does feels like it makes an impact. Blake is apparently the ONLY intelligent cop in the Gotham police department and everyone keeps telling him to get out of the way and calling him a “hothead.” So frustrating!

Tom Hardy as Bane. I thought he was part physically menacing, part intimidating as hell, and part laugh out loud hilarious. I think Hardy did a great job as Bane, but his voice was so funny at times that it took me out of the movie. I’m still quoting Bane lines to this day, but not in a reverent sort of way, more so in a mocking tone haha. 

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was the show stealer for me. The first scene we see her in I thought “Wow… Anne Hathaway is fucking terrible in this film” LOL, but then you see what was really going on and that split second change where she goes full on Selina Kyle was great. A lot of people were doubting if she could pull it off, but come on now, Hathaway is an amazing actress (watch Rachel Getting Married if you have any doubts).

There are a lot of little nitpicks that seriously affected my overall enjoyment of this film. However, I still found the movie to be engaging for the most part. 

I’ve read a ton of people say that Nolan took a step back in terms of action direction with TDKR, but I actually dug most of the action in comparison to all of his previous movies. Granted, it does look a little ridiculous seeing a group of people fighting Batman one by one instead of all together, but I was just happy that I could freakin’ tell what was going on! The Batman/Bane fight towards the middle was particularly impressive.

A lot of people had a problem with the ending, but aside from some minor character moments and having multiple ending syndrome, I thought it was a satisfying conclusion to Nolan’s Batman trilogy. The ending brought the story full circle and helped give closure to this version of Batman.

The Dark Knight Rises is epic in scale and quite ambitious. Its reach may often exceed its grasp and while there are a ton of details that feel overlooked, the overall movie is still one to be admired. In my eyes it is easily the weakest of the trilogy, but still a relatively good movie. I don’t know how many people reading this HAVEN’T seen The Dark Knight Rises yet because Batman is seriously a cultural phenomenon, but if you haven’t checked it out yet definitely do so.

7/10

I just want to talk about some spoilery details after the “read more” break. So SPOILERS!

For a little background on my history with the Bond films, my dad is a huge James Bond fan and I grew up with the Pierce Brosnan Bond films. We didn’t go to the theaters often when I was a kid, but we always went to see the new Bond film when it came out. I’m not as familiar with the Bond films before Brosnan (although I did see Goldfinger and I’m going to lose a shit ton of film cred, but I didn’t think it was that great *flees*).

Ultimately, while I thought Skyfall was good, I didn’t think it was as great as past Bond outings such as Casino Royale or Goldeneye. I dug the fact that they got back to the tongue in cheek nature of Bonds past, but it felt like they wanted the realism of Casino Royale combined with the over the top nature of Goldeneye and I don’t think the mix of those two elements completely worked.

That being said, a lot of the references and Bond-isms did put a big stupid grin on my face. It’s great that they are taking Bond back in a more fun direction, even if it doesn’t always mesh tonally with the movie. The classic Bond tropes and one liners help make this more than just a brooding depressing film (which is what Quantum of Solace ended up being). 

A lot of people were skeptical of Sam Mendes when he was announced as director, but this film makes him 6 for 6 in my book. I am a HUGE fan of Mendes’s work and Skyfall is another notch in his impressive filmography. I guess I’m just a fan of his sensibilities. He dabbled in action a bit in Road to Perdition (HIGHLY underrated and underseen movie, go watch it if you haven’t seen it!), but as a first time action director I have to say that I’m impressed with Mendes. The action is always comprehensible and there are quite a few innovative set pieces.

The highlight of the film has to be Roger Deakin’s amazing cinematography. After his disappointing work in Andrew Niccol’s 2011 sci-fi film, In Time, Deakins is back in full force. This movie is an absolute visual feast and oftentimes breathtaking. The shots are beautiful, but done in a natural way that doesn’t feel forced. There’s a fight scene in one long continuous take shown in silhouette against a neon backdrop that is jaw droppingly gorgeous. I know it’s a James Bond film, but I really hope Deakins nabs an Oscar nomination, and potentially win, for Best Cinematography for his work here.

Bond is nothing without a great villain, right? Well Javier Bardem was flat out amazing. Probably my favorite Bond villain since Sean Bean in Goldeneye, which is kind of funny because their motivations were somewhat similar? Not exactly, but the overwhelming desire for vengeance was palpable through the screen with both villains. Bardem injects enough life into his performance to make him a memorable character.

A majority of the problems that I had with the movie is from the inconsistent tone as I mentioned earlier. The third act isn’t as strong as the first two thirds, but I didn’t think it was that big of a drop off. There are also a lot of movie logic mistakes where you’ll find yourself saying “Wait… why didn’t they just do that?” In the moment most of the movie works, but thinking about it afterwards some of the movie doesn’t make sense. 

A big complaint I have is that as fantastic as the trailers for Skyfall are, they kind of spoil every single plot detail if you can recall the trailer while watching the movie. This might be a complaint specific to me (I’ve seen that trailer like 30+ times haha), but for almost every action scene I thought to myself “Oh yeah, I remember this bit in the trailer, that’s how this scene is going to end.” It was a little annoying after a while.

If you’re looking for a damn good time at the theater, look no further than the 23rd outing of James Bond. Skyfall is beautifully shot and has enough varying thrills to keep you on the edge of your seat. This is one you definitely want to make a trip out to the theater for.

8/10

I’m a huge fan of the Ben Affleck revival period. He started making better choices with his movie roles with Hollywoodland and he seemed to completely resuscitate his career after directing Gone Baby Gone. His second directorial effort, The Town, was one of my favorite movies in 2010 and his more recent turns as an actor have been quite good. So how would his third directorial effort fare?

Simply put, Argo was easily one of the most enjoyable movie going experiences of the year for me. This film just feels like a filmmaker firing on all cylinders. The way the movie is pieced together, the emotions brought out of each scene, the unwavering tension throughout, Affleck knocked this one out of the park. 

The opening scene moves with such urgency and the way each shot is put together puts a sense of unrest into the audience. From that moment on you’re put on edge and you understand the stakes set for the rest of the movie. For a lot of the movie’s runtime I was transfixed to the screen. It’s been a while since a thriller has gotten me so invested in a film that my heart felt like it was in my throat the entire time.

Affleck assembled a wonderful cast to build this movie on with players like Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Kyle Chandler, Chris Messina, Victor Garber, etc. I want to single out the mostly unknown Scoot McNairy, because I thought he added a much needed emotional boost to the movie. Overall, the acting by everyone was top notch.

As much as I loved the movie overall, I don’t think Argo is perfect. The movie does employ a few cliched movie-isms in order to draw out tension. Particularly the end sequence, but I’ll save that discussion for after the “read more” break so I don’t spoil it.

Another somewhat disappointing element was how underwritten Ben Affleck’s Tony Mendez character is. We get the obligatory family element in order to make us care for the character, but we don’t know how or why Mendez got into the infiltration expertise. We don’t really understand why his job is important to him, he just kind of does it.

I have to say that watching the credits, it was a little odd how Affleck cast himself in the lead role considering the real life Tony Mendez is clearly Hispanic. I’m one of those people who is fervently against white washing in movies, so it’s a little sad that he couldn’t cast an actor of Hispanic descent. That’s a minor nitpick though.

While I’m not sure that Argo ever exceeds Gone Baby Gone or The Town, it is still a solid follow up to those two fantastic movies. This is good old-fashioned filmmaking at its finest and its a damn shame that Argo is the exception and not the rule as far as Hollywood goes these days. I hope Ben Affleck keeps directing films because he is clearly a director to be reckoned with.

8.5/10

SPOILERS after the “read more” break!

My first movie of 2012! *tear* It’s beautiful, so beautiful. Made all the more beautiful by the fact that it was a great first film to start off the 2012 movie year. Can you believe that it’s been damn near a month since the last time I saw a movie in theaters!? The last film I saw was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. There were quite a few other movies I wanted to catch, but just haven’t had the time due to school. Thanks to Natalie for coming with me to see this movie after I incessantly bugged her LOL.

Chronicle is the story of three teenagers who acquire telekinetic powers after finding a strange substance in the ground, which sounds very familiar in terms of superhero stories. However, Chronicle is not the typical superhero story of 1) finding powers, 2) exploring powers, 3) using powers for good. Something I remember /Film’s Peter Sciretta said about Hancock that I think fits with Chronicle is that it’s nice to go into a superhero story and not know any of the hero’s backstory. We know Peter Parker’s Uncle dies, we know that Joker isn’t going to die, we know the gamma rays are going to mutate Bruce Banner, etc. It was refreshing to go into a superhero story and not know what was going to happen.

The main trio of performances by Dane Dehaan, Alex Russell, and Michael B. Jordan ground the story with a compelling look at the different natures of each character. This might be my bias showing, but I think Michael B. Jordan (who is amazing on The Wire and Friday Night Lights) is clearly the standout among the three. While not exactly having the most original character, Jordan gives a charming, charismatic performance. Dane Dehaan clearly has the meatiest role and is really good for the most part, but I thought his acting at times was a little flat and at others ridiculously over the top. Alex Russell does fine as well, but he doesn’t really shine during the dramatic moments. Once again, it could be my bias, but I’m still hoping that Jordan becomes the star that he should be.

What I loved the most about this movie is how different it feels compared to other found footage films and superhero stories. There are similarities of course, but they throw in some nice little touches here and there that made me appreciate the filmmaking aspects and the ingenuity of the execution. For example, they find a way to keep the film from being shaky cam all the time in a clever way that didn’t feel stupid. The action set pieces are also quite invigorating and really had me clenching my seat in tension.

Admittedly, there were a few aspects of the movie where I was thinking “wait, how does that make sense?” This is a found footage movie, so it doesn’t really make sense to me why the camera would cut in the middle of scenes and keep up with the conversation in perfect time. There were also a few spots where no one is holding the camera and for some reason it basically does a jump cut within the same scene, which makes no sense because the camera should be running at all times until someone turns it off. Plus, the plausibility that someone would keep recording at some of those times requires a lot of suspension of belief.

The CGI is quite shaky at times, but I was more forgiving towards this film because I know that the budget wasn’t very high. I was mostly completely enthralled at the moments in this film that I was totally sucked into the story of it all. The movie is only 84 minutes long, but it feels like you get a lot of bang for your buck and not like the film was trying to skimp on story or action set pieces.

Chronicle features impressive filmmaking backed by solid performances and some breathtaking sequences that’ll knock you off your feet. Found footage films and superhero stories have been in vogue for quite a while, but Chronicle clearly isn’t an attempt to cash in on those two popular subgenres. It does a lot to differentiate itself from other found footage films and superhero stories cut from the same cloth. I’d highly recommend you see this movie in theaters because it is well worth a watch.

8.5/10

I seem to be one of the few people I know who likes this movie >_>. And I wasn’t coming into this film in the best of spirits. First off, War Horse was very long so I was kind of tired and I was extremely annoyed at the amount of disruptions during that film; so by all accounts if The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was boring or not good, I would have completely lost interest, but I didn’t. I was hooked into everything right from the start and didn’t lose interest once during the 2 hour and 38 minute runtime.

I’ve seen the 2009 Swedish adaptation and while the plot points are similar, I think that Fincher adds just enough to make this his own. First off the acting is phenomenal, Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara are fantastic as the leads, and, secondly, Fincher is as meticulous a director as they come and the way the film is pieced together is a work of art.

Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara are just infinitely watchable leads. Craig does a great job as Mikael Blomkvist, but this is clearly the Rooney Mara show because she OWNS every second of screen time that she gets as Lisbeth Salander. There is a reason this trilogy of books has become one of the most popular books in recent years and Lisbeth Salander is it. She is just such a fascinating antihero; An enigma that you want to find out more about and Mara plays it perfectly. She is a world of contradictions: intimidating but soft hearted, cold but affectionate, indifferent but caring; Lisbeth is one of the most interesting characters ever created.

A big reason this film works despite using the exact same story adapted just a few years ago is David Fincher. Fincher is known as a perfectionist, sometimes he’ll do up to 80 takes of a scene in order to get it 100% PERFECT. Some may criticize him for this approach, but Fincher is a director who knows EXACTLY what he wants and that always comes through in his films. When you watch a scene, everything feels like it was done with careful thought and purpose. The way Fincher puts this film together keeps you interested in everything going on and keeps the film moving at a swift pace. He showed this skill in Seven, but Fincher has a knack for making what should be boring - like say… gathering clues by looking through books - extremely exciting. 

A lot of the problems of the film are due to the fact that the book itself has similar problems with structure and plot mechanics. This film streamlines some of the side relationships which helps a lot, but it also doesn’t tie the main relationships together strongly enough. As with the Swedish adaptation, I don’t think they ever fully establish just how much Harriet’s disappearance tore at Henrik’s soul. There’s maybe a scene or two, but Henrik vanishes for a good 90-100 minutes in the middle to focus on the investigation. I also found it odd that a few huge discoveries that break open the case in the book and the Swedish version become minor plot points in this one.

I do wish that there was a little more attention to detail on the villains of this film. The book does a great job of building up those characters by showing us how they came to be, whereas in the movie it seems like they’re just crazy demented motherfuckers who are sick in the head. Even in the Swedish movie they had one scene where they discussed the psychology behind these kind of people. Disappointing that they didn’t delve into that in this film.

David Fincher’s adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an engrossing film that draws you into the mystery of the disappearance of a young girl. While there are some flaws with the plot mechanics of the film, the superb performances and stellar direction propel the story. I will say that if you have no idea what The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is, this movie is not for the faint of heart and it keeps up the tension throughout the film. If you’re looking for a great thriller over this winter break, give The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a shot.

8.5/10

Just a few details I want to get into to that contains spoilers. So don’t click on “read more” unless you’ve seen the movie and read the book!

The second team up between the director and writer of Juno, Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody. That was an indie that blew up and even received a Best Picture nomination in 2007 (which I thought was bullshit, but that’s another story lol, 2007 was SO GOOD for film), would their follow up be as satisfying? I actually liked Juno, but it’s a good film at best, not great. Putting that film up against 2007, let alone movies in general, it’s not that amazing. Young Adult is a much more compelling and entertaining film than Juno.

The main set up of Young Adult is that Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) goes back to her hometown in an effort to win back her ex-boyfriend (Patrick Wilson), who is happily married with a child.

Let’s just start off by saying that Charlize Theron’s performance is remarkable. She is fully committed to Mavis Gary and this shockingly crass mess of a person. It’s been a while since I’ve seen Charlize Theron as the main character of a film so it’s nice to see that she still has the acting chops to pull a role like this off. Mavis is a character who just cannot let go of the past and the ideal reality she believes she deserves to have.

This film contains a slew of great performances from under the radar actors. I loved Patrick Wilson and Elizabeth Reaser as the typical suburban couple. Especially towards the end of the film where they really get a chance to shine. Patton Oswalt as Matt Freehauf was fantastic as the counterpart to Charlize Theron. He is the other character who is so caught up in his past that it weighs him down.

While I found Charlize Theron’s character to be fascinating, she bordered the line of believability at times. I don’t doubt that there are people who are as egotistical and narcissistic, but she’s pretty much bat shit insane lol. That’s definitely part of the appeal of this film, the whole cringe worthy embarrassment comedy tone. What I like is that the film doesn’t just create this crazy character, we get small little glimpses into her life and see how she became this way. She’s an author of semi-popular young adult novels, she’s “beautiful” by society’s standards, and her world is warped by the kitsch of modern day pop culture. The Diet Coke eye openers and reality TV constantly playing in the background should give you a clue as to what her values are in life. Much credit must be given to writer Diablo Cody who clearly has improved since her Juno script.

The main idea I got out of this film is that people see the world the way that they want to see it. So many people in this film (and in real life) are so caught up in the past that it allows them to overlook the good in the present. Mavis Gary is so caught up in her own past and oblivious to the fact that her ex-boyfriend is clearly happily settled down and Matt Freehauf is so caught up on one incident in his past; it doesn’t allow them to fully grow as people and live normal happy lives.. The film also strangely enough reminded me of The Wire and the ultimate message of that TV show with institutions and how things typically don’t change.

Young Adult is a cringe inducing (in a good way) embarrassment comedy that you can’t keep your eyes off of. It’s like when you watch a TV show or movie and something so embarrassing happens that you have to cringe or close your eyes slightly, but you keep on watching the train wreck unfold. What does unfold in this movie is pure hilarity and a savagely depressing streak about the unfulfilled lives of those stuck in the past. Young Adult also happens to be one of the more thought provoking films of the year. I would highly recommend this movie because I think everyone will get something different out of it.

8.5/10

There’s one bit that’s spoilery that I want to get into, so don’t hit “read more” unless you’ve seen Young Adult AND Juno.

I FINALLY knocked off Starter for 10 from my infamous DVD “shelf” this week. It’s in the “rewatch” pile, I watched it for the first time last year when I rented it from Netflix and I picked it up for extremely cheap at a Big Lots! about 10 months ago. It’s odd because this is the fourth time I sat myself down to watch it and I finally did. Every other time someone would call me and want to talk or do something. Matter of fact, when I finally saw it, earlier in the day I sat myself down to watch it and not even a minute into the movie I get a text from @zapocram “MW3 goony?” And since my brother wasn’t home I decided to go on a MW3 run with @zapocram, @dividethesheep, and Chino for a few hours. After that I sat down to watch Starter for 10 and wondered whether someone would interrupt me, but no one did!

Okay, enough of my backstory, back to the movie. I really liked this movie the first time I saw it and on the rewatch I think I can confirm that this is easily one of the best rom-com’s released in the 00’s. What I like about this film is not that it’s necessarily something completely new in the rom-com genre, but that the film has a vibe and energy different from the plethora of other rom-com’s out there. The backdrop of a quiz show setting is certainly something new though and while I thought it was a bit obvious who was going to end up with who, the leads are very amiable and charming.

It is astonishing how fantastic this cast is and how many (pretty much all the main cast) of them have moved on to bigger and better things. James McAvoy is a bonafide leading man in Hollywood now, Benedict Cumberbatch has been in everything lately (Sherlock, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, War Horse, Atonement, and he’s about to be in Star Trek 2!), Rebecca Hall is getting a ton of parts (most notably as Ben Affleck’s leading lady in The Town), Alice Eve was in She’s Out of My League and is about to be in MIB3 next year, and Dominic Cooper was in Captain America as Howard Stark and in An Education. I love pretty much everyone in this cast so I’m happy that they’re all becoming stars in their own right.

So if you haven’t seen or heard of it, I would highly recommend Starter for 10 for pretty much everyone.

After a 3 year absence Steven Spielberg hit us with not one, but TWO movies in a single year. Not only that, but he released them a mere 4 days apart in America. The first to come out was The Adventures of Tintin and the second was the World War I drama War Horse. I loved Tintin, but how would Spielberg’s first war movie since Saving Private Ryan fare?

War Horse probably ranks in the middle his filmography in my opinion. It is still quite an enjoyable film, but nothing that will remembered quite as fondly as his other war films such as Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. 

I’m going to sound like a goon saying this, but clocking in at 146 minutes, this movie moves brutally slow at some parts. The beginning didn’t really have a hook that got you interested right out of the gate. Once the war gets underway, the film picked up in a pace, although the balance between the stories of our war horse and protagonist wasn’t always there.

War Horse feels too polished, slick, and “Hollywood” at times. The lighting felt very artificial as if they wanted to get perfect Hollywood style lighting. As beautiful as the film was and as great as some of the shots were, the glossiness was a bit distracting for me. Considering how grim in nature some of the content was, that Hollywood feel felt a bit off.

As grim as the film can be, I was greatly surprised at how much humor there was in this movie. If you look at the trailers it just looks like a serious war movie, but there are some nice lighter moments that feel pure Spielberg. I liked the fact that this movie does not shy away from the nastier, more depressing aspects of war. There are several moments where I thought to myself “No, no, no! Please don’t let that happen!” and it did and it crushed my heart. A few of those moments were just executed so spectacularly.

The top rate cast adds a lot of gravitas to the smaller roles. I thought Eddie Marsan was criminally underused (same as his role in Sherlock Holmes 2), ever since Happy-Go-Lucky I’ve always wanted to see him in more roles. Toby Kebbell (the Rocknrolla himself) has a great segment near the end of the second act. Emily Mortimer as the mother in particular was quite great, adding a fierceness to the matriarch of the family. Peter Mullan is another actor I’ve been looking out for (ever since I saw On a Clear Day) and he does well as the war veteran father. David Thewlis was awesome in his little side role as a total douchebag haha. I thought Jeremy Irvine as the lead suited himself admirably as well.

One thing that completely helps this entire film is the fact that it feels like Spielberg left his imprint on it. There is so much in this movie that is inherently Spielberg. From the transitions, the shots, the movement of the camera, to the wonder of it all, this feels like a Spielberg film through and through.

War Horse is a film that I would recommend to anyone; I had a good time at the theaters watching this film. Whenever Steven Spielberg releases a film, you almost owe it to yourself to catch it in theaters because it’s clear that the man is so in love with movies and the movie going public. War Horse will depress you at times, but it will also make you feel good. There are several moments that are just pure movie magic, something that Spielberg is adept at catching on film. Definitely go see this film if you’re interested.

8/10

(And yes I bumped my score from what I previously put lol)

I have never seen a full length silent film before so I didn’t really have any sort of measuring stick as far as what I expected. I was extremely curious to see how this film would do because almost everyone nowadays is used to seeing movies with dialogue. This film has garnered a ton of critical acclaim so far and seems to be the front runner for the Oscar for Best Picture and after seeing this film, I can definitely see why.

In a way, acting with no dialogue can be easier because you don’t have to worry about good writing, remembering lines, or getting the right tone/inflection; in another way it is much more difficult because you only have so much to work with and that’s what I find most impressive about this film. Through the use of just visuals combined with a sweeping score and minimal text dialogue, they are able to garner even more emotions than most films with actual dialogue.

The two leads of the film, Jean Dujarin and Berenice Bejo, just seem like they were cut from a different cloth. They both have faces and demeanors that reek of Hollywood past. Even with no dialogue, they’re so expressive with everything else at their disposal. They are able to convey the personality of characters without outright telling us. One of the rules of cinema that I usually abide by is “show us, don’t tell us,” and The Artist as a silent film obviously adheres to this rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if both Dujarin and Bejo receive some Oscar love this coming Spring.

I’ve heard complaints about the film being too self masturbatory about cinema and not providing enough creativity for the future of film, but I highly disagree. Yes, this film is reflective on the fact that silent films used to be prevalent before the introduction of “talkies,” but I think that the overall message of the film does support looking towards the future. George Valentin is stuck in the past with his silent films and does nothing to support the new medium of talking pictures. The final shot alone signifies that movie makers should look to new enhancements and technologies to improve the movie going experience.

The Artist has been one of the best theater experiences I’ve had this year, maybe one of the best in my entire life. It is a unique experience to see a new silent film made with all the hindsight of having an additional 80+ years of cinema to draw on. If you’ve never seen a full length silent film and are apprehensive about whether or not it can work in today’s day and age, you owe it to yourself to experience this film. A delectable experience that is just as powerful (if not more) as any film you will see this year.

9/10