bookishwench (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bookishwench) wrote2012-03-02 05:25 pm
bookishwench) wrote2012-03-02 05:25 pm
Entry tags:
Saw The Artist
Yes, after it won the Oscar my local movie theatre finally bought a clue and brough it in for the next week. Hence, I saw it today.
As it says in the text cut, this was a really, really good movie, but particularly for me. I love old movies to start with, and I even particularly like silents, though I lean more towards Chaplin myself. I also loved the dang dog, which, thank goodness, did not end up dead (this was my main fear in this movie... not that George was going to kill himself, but that something would happen to the dog. I'm odd).
This was just plain great storytelling. I loved the plotline, but I especially loved the emersive way the film was actually filmed. There were times I honestly forgot I was watching a modern film because it looked so gosh darn authentic. Even the acting styles were on point. George Valentin at times looked remarkably like Clark Gable or Gene Kelly as well, and the set dressing was wonderful. I loved the old-fashioned dissolves between scenes, the symphonic music, and the sometimes on-the-nose sight gags like the "be silent behind the screen" sign or the parallel between Tears of Love and Sparkle of Love as titles or the opening "SPEAK!" scene.
It was just a really, really great movie. Also, between Midnight in Paris and The Artist, the 1920s got a lot of love this past Oscars.
As it says in the text cut, this was a really, really good movie, but particularly for me. I love old movies to start with, and I even particularly like silents, though I lean more towards Chaplin myself. I also loved the dang dog, which, thank goodness, did not end up dead (this was my main fear in this movie... not that George was going to kill himself, but that something would happen to the dog. I'm odd).
This was just plain great storytelling. I loved the plotline, but I especially loved the emersive way the film was actually filmed. There were times I honestly forgot I was watching a modern film because it looked so gosh darn authentic. Even the acting styles were on point. George Valentin at times looked remarkably like Clark Gable or Gene Kelly as well, and the set dressing was wonderful. I loved the old-fashioned dissolves between scenes, the symphonic music, and the sometimes on-the-nose sight gags like the "be silent behind the screen" sign or the parallel between Tears of Love and Sparkle of Love as titles or the opening "SPEAK!" scene.
It was just a really, really great movie. Also, between Midnight in Paris and The Artist, the 1920s got a lot of love this past Oscars.
no subject
And that dog should have been nominated.
no subject
no subject