The Artist (2011)

Starring: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo

Director: Michel Hazanavicius

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artist_(film)

"Why won't you speak?!"

Starting off in 1927, the movie is about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a silent film star who is at the top of his career. He fascinates audiences with his great cinematic exploits and charms a young aspiring actress named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). But the good life begins to fade when the new "talkies" emerge, making his style appear obsolete. George fights to stay relevant but soon realizes that he is facing the end of an era. Is it the end of him, too?

This film is great entertainment. Director Michel Hazanavicius has stated that this modern black and white silent picture was supposed to be a love letter to cinema, and it clearly shows. He is obviously a big fan of Really Old Hollywood: while I have only seen a limited number of films from that time period, I have seen enough to know how they usually operate and he captures the feel of them with spot-on accuracy. And when he does deviate from it, it is to serve a purpose. For instance, when George is first introduced to the talkies, he dismisses them as a fad and goes to his dressing room. However, in one of the best parts of the movie, he soon starts to notice that everything is making a sound...very loud sounds. He becomes overwhelmed by his surroundings before waking up from a dream, a metaphorical dream that is a sign of things to come.

The main focus is on George himself. He is, as the title implies, an artist. While he enjoys the fame and fortune, he above all loves working in movies. When talkies become the norm, he resists by making his own silent film. It flops and he is soon forced into bankruptcy. He sells off most of his possessions, but keeps his old film reels that remind him of his glory days (though they soon drive him close to madness). While it is not really explained why he does not attempt to breaking into talking pictures even when it is clear that they are the way of the future, it is implied that he is not comfortable with this new technique and that he does not want to compromise his abilities as a performer for the sake of connivence. So even though he can be pretty self-centered, prone to pity his own misfortunes, and not quick to adapt to his changing environment, you do care for him as a character because he ultimately has a heart and love for his work. A lot of credit goes to Dujardin, who has the looks and expressions of a true silent actor. The rest of the cast includes Bejo also preforms well, as does the rest of the cast, which includes minor roles by well known actors (John Goodman, James Cromwell, etc.) and a dog named Uggie (as played by Uggie). They all allow the film to flow at a good paste. While I admit that the second half is more a little more melodramatic than the first, it still has some uplifting moments. I also enjoyed the ending (which I will obviously not spoil).

So that is "The Artist." A short review, I know, but there is really not much more that need to be said. It is not the most complex film in the history and is pretty old fashion. Seriously, it is a black and white, silent picture! I am not even sure if you can get more old fashioned than this; that is virtually impossible for a full-length movie! But that is kind of the point. It is supposed to a simple, straightforward movie that mimics the bygone era it portrays and a man who must learn to find his place in life. And on that level, it succeeds splendidly.

I recommend it.

This review is dedicated to the last surviving silent film actors/actresses as of this writing, which include Carla Laemmle and Mickey Rooney.

Stay tuned for Oscar predictions, coming this week!

W. (2008)

Staring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell

Directed by Oliver Stone

"W" is Oliver Stone's film about the life of George W. Bush, who confronts many challenges and disappointments as we makes his way out of being the black sheep of the family and into the White House.

This is a terrible movie. I was surprised at how bad it was. I was not expecting it to be a masterpiece, but I was expecting it to be at least halfway decent. It wasn't: the story-line was disorganized, the acting ranged from mediocre to crappy, the dialoguewas ridiculous, and worst of all, it does not really serve a purpose.

The first part of the movie goes back and forth between the run up to the Iraq war and the events of Bush's young adulthood at a rapid paste and it is hard to keep up with it. There are also a lot of random scenes (like the pretzel incident) that make no sense in the overall picture or are just awkward. This eventually settles down, but then the movie continues to suffer as it goes from being confusing to just plain boring.

Josh Brolin does an okay job as Bush, but for most of the movie you can't help but notice that he seems to be playing a caricature of him instead of making seem "real"; he comes off as being like a second-rate Will Ferrel or Frank Calendo. Richard Dufress does a decent Dick Cheney impersonation (though his voice is a little off), but virtually everyone else either does look like/act like who they are supposed to be, does not try, does not really need to try, or does try and fails. The woman who played Condoleezza Rice deserves special mention; she combined bad acting with a random accent that does not appear to belong to any person, nationality, or ethnicity that I can think of.

Even if the acting was better, the performers would still fall victim to the bizarre screenplay; many scenes look like bad Saturday Night Live sketches (and those of you who have seen bad SNL sketches know just how low they can go). Sometimes they will bring up controversial political topics for about five seconds and then move on to something else without ever expanding on what they were talking about. It seems like they just pasted together a bunch of news paper headlines and infamous Bush quotes (yes, "misunderestimate" is in there, along with others) and tried to pass it off as everyday dialogue.

 
Perhaps one of the worst things about the film is that, in the end, it has no point. Supposedly, Oliver Stone wanted this to be a psychoanalyst of the president and how he came to be who he is and how he arrived at the decisions he made. Yet we are left not knowing how we are supposed to feel about Bush. Is he a stubborn jerk who didn't think properly? Is he a noble warrior who made some mistakes along the way? Is he a pitiful loser who had daddy issues? I suspect we are we supposed to decide for ourselves, right? Well, that may be a problem because Stone has been very outspoken against the former president, so no matter how much he may deny that his politics will slip into this movie, the objectivity of the film is always in question and is further injured by everything I have mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Whatever the answer is, it is not likely to satisfy anyone. Most conservatives probably will not see this movie, but even liberal Bush critics may be disappointed by it because Oliver Stone (sort of) tried to make the film balanced in order to avoid the type of controversy that he received when he made "JFK".

This film also shows that you should not try to do a movie about a president while he is still in office: everyone, including Stone, has their partisan opinions about him and everything is still in motion; its like making a movie based on a novel that has yet to be finished. Besides, why pay money to see a guy you could, up until recently, see in the news for free everyday? It's not like you are going to learn anything new about him.

Well, that's pretty much it. I may be being a bit hard on this movie because I am obsessed with politics, and I get annoyed when filmmakers feel like they are being politically astute when they are really just putting out a lot of garbage. However, no matter which way you spin it, (get it? politics, spin? heh heh heh...) you cannot escape the simple conclusion: this movie is really, really, really, bad. The End.