bookishwench: (Nerdilicious)
[personal profile] bookishwench
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.

Date: 2012-03-03 12:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a2zmom.livejournal.com
This movie just made me smile so much.

And that dog should have been nominated.

Date: 2012-03-03 01:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bookishwench.livejournal.com
He really should have. I'm kind of surprised they don't have a Best Animal Performer category, now that your mention it. Huh.

Profile

bookishwench: (Default)
bookishwench

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223 242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2025 04:00 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios