Mostly Celebrating Hollywood's "Golden Age"

Rating: 6/10 (10 March 2013)

Pros: Obviously, a 1920's-style silent film is going to depend even more upon its acting than your average modern movie, as it doesn't have the benefits of advanced visual effects, sound effects, Technicolor, or, you know, dialogue to flesh out a story. That being said, this movie did a great job of casting the leads with actors who could fairly effortlessly convey emotions and thoughts merely through their facial expressions, body language, and general pantomiming. Jean Dujardin especially had a very expressive face, and the director hit a home run in casting his dog, which was, of course, adorable.
My favorite part of the movie was probably the dream sequence, which pretty deftly sums up George's mental and emotional state. That being said, I also enjoyed viewing the film with an eye for any anachronisms within it. They were clearly trying to mimic a 1920's production, but there were some things that they did in the movie that would not have been possible in a silent film from that era. There is a fun list on IMDb of actual anachronisms in the movie, which people- with-way-too-much-time-on-their-hands have noticed and detailed. God bless IMDb.
Cons: I know I said the acting was strong enough to carry the film in spite of the other missing elements that we have all taken for granted with modern movie making, but if I'm going to be honest... I like those other elements. A lot. Specifically the spoken dialogue part. It allows for so much more depth in a movie, and a significantly higher entertainment factor. Also, in order to properly convey emotions and thoughts in a voiceless movie, actors are forced to be pretty campy and mug at the camera a lot. I've just never been real big on that kind of overacting, which was prominent in earlier movies, also due in part to the legacy of stage acting in film.
Overall: I appreciate the attempt to rekindle an older style of storytelling, but I'm pretty confident that there was a good reason for the advancements in movie-making technologies, and I'm generally appreciative of the effects of science here. Now, I'm aware that the mere presence of these technologies does not mean that every movie these days (or even the majority) contains those extra layers, but luckily they're still available. While I don't regret having seen this movie, I wasn't particularly enthralled during the viewing, and I have no overwhelming interest in seeing it again. In the end, I couldn't kick the feeling that it was just one giant exercise in glad-handing the glorious history of Hollywood, so I glad-handed it a 6 out of 10.