A long walk for such a short black and white story. An Oscar?! Are you sure?!

Rating: 3/10 (9 March 2012)

Yikes! I was expecting something more to the plot from such an Oscar winning movie. Sure, they nailed the look of old B&W movies of that era but that novelty soon wears thin with the simplistic story line I had to endure with four others in my small town local theater. I mean the "Munsters" TV series nailed '30's era B&W with better plots told in 30 minutes.
"The Artist" only ran one short week in my small town Texas theater ONLY AFTER it won the Oscar for Best Picture before it was quickly replaced by newer releases.
The long wait and heavy media buzz may have unrealistically raised my expectations but I don't think so even if it is considered an homage to the history of cinema which is sort of ironic since silent movie's had to rely heavily on a well written story with intricate and compelling relationships and plot lines to keep audience's attention for over an hour.
Just read some IMDb story lines to a number of Lon Chaney flicks they could've borrowed from like "The Unknown", "Unholy Three", and "The Penalty". They're more involved and complex than what's shown at most Sundance Festivals.
"The Unknown" left me dropped jawed throughout most of the movie because I couldn't believe the level of intelligence written into and acted out in the story line. There were some really smart folks writing and producing silent movies back in the '20's and '30's. "The Artist" makes them out to be innocent dolts.
You want to award an Oscar to a movie that pays homage to cinema? Give it to Scorcese's "Hugo" which was a much better and more entertaining movie in my opinion.