an indifferent movie grossly overrated

Rating: 5/10 (29 May 2012)

What an indifferent movie, really! I was curious about it because of the awards and high ratings, and because many of my favorite movies belong to the silent era. But after seeing it, nothing could convince me that this movie deserves all the awards it received, or the high rating on IMDb.
Apart from the exercise in style and the good production values, the film has very little to offer.
"The Artist" is Yet Another Story About A Great Movie Star From The Silent Era That Falls Into Oblivion With The Advent Of Talking Pictures. But if you are expecting a masterpiece like Sunset Boulevard or a classic like Singing in the Rain, forget it. What you'll get instead is a shallow, stereotyped and reiterative melodrama, without any real development or depth.
All along the almost two hours there are many (too many!) references to classic movies from different eras. I suspect they were intended either as tributes, or as clever references for the knowing (or both). They end up being a tiresome bunch of clichés thrown in for their own sake.
As an exercise in style the movie is in general successful, but it also has several goofs and anachronisms, as if it didn't know exactly what era it's trying to recreate.
I should give this 1 or 2 stars, to compensate the high ratings, but it wouldn't be fair. I didn't find the movie too boring, and the acting by the leading couple (Dujardin, Bejo) is good, with some great actors in secondary roles and cameos. Oh, yes, and the dog... All in all, something between 5 and 6 would be fair, for the novelty. Given the present rating, I'll settle for the 5.
Now I wonder: why all the hype? I read lots of the positive reviews here at IMDb, and many came from people who admitted never having seen a silent movie before, or at most a Laurel & Hardy short. Well, it figures...