Halloween II (2009) (Unrated Director's Cut)

31 Days of Horror

I didn't grow up a Michael Myers fan.  I'm more of a Jason guy, because I like my slasher films ridiculously stupid.  I have always liked the original Halloween (1978), though.  I've been slowly getting around to the rest of the Halloween series over the past few trick-or-treat seasons, and this year I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007); it had its moments, certainly, but I thought it was an interesting failure instead of the bad-ass re-imagining that I was hoping for.  I had heard that Zombie went off on his own for the sequel, though, which sounded like something that would play to his strengths more.  Does it?

Halloween II (2009) picks up right where the last film left off.  The police have arrived at the scene, and they are packing everybody up in ambulances.  Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is a hot mess of blood and tears, but she is alive and she has shot Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) in the goddamned face.  And chest.  And she's stabbed him a bunch.  Laurie is sent to the hospital to recover and Michael is sent off to the morgue.  But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue --- the car crashes into a cow!  And, as the legends foretold, yonder bovine sacrifice will once again raise up he that is eeeveeel!!!  Or, in English, Michael wakes up and heads to the hospital to share a little stabby-stabby with Laurie and whoever else wants to share. 

Okay, now it's your turn to stab someone.  Yay, sharing!

And boy, does he share!  Security guards, doctors, nurses...Michael puts on a bit of a laceration seminar for the staff and just when he's about to do the same for Laurie, she wakes up.  That's right, we had ourselves an old-fashioned "it was only a dream" moment.  It turns out that Laurie did, indeed survive her encounter with Michael Myers one or two years ago.  Since her family was brutally murdered, she now lives with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and his daughter/her friend, Annie (Danielle Harris), who somehow survived the fact that she looked awfully dead in the last film.  The trauma hasn't been easy for anyone, but Laurie is on a nightmare-a-night diet and has turned into a (justifiably) angry young woman with finger-quotes rebellious new friends.

Whoa!  Those rebels got to pose for a picture with the lead singer of Soul Asylum?

While Laurie's been bitching and moaning about surviving what appears (to her) to be a motiveless crime, Michael Myers has also been recuperating.  Apparently, that whole cow revival bit actually happened, too.  Michael's been living in fields and in wooded areas, healing his wounds and growing a pretty enormous beard.

THIS is why homeless people are frightening

Michael has been having dreams, too, although they might just be hallucinations.  He sees his late mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and his younger self (Chase Wright Vanek), often accompanied by a white horse and snow globe effects, and they tell Michael that it's time to bring Laurie home.  And by "home," they of course mean...well, that's not exactly clear.  "Murder," perhaps?  And why is this a pressing need after all this time?  Don't ask, because nobody else will.  Once again, on Halloween, Michael Myers returns to Haddonfield to murder anyone he meets on his way to finding Laurie.  And, once again, Laurie doesn't get why all this is happening.  But she's been having these crazy visions of a lady in white, with a blonde son and a white horse...

The acting in Halloween II isn't as good as the last film.  A big part of that is because Chase Wright Vanek replaced Daeg Faerch as Lil' Michael; replacing your best actor with a better-looking but less menacing one is not a winning choice.  I'm sure the change was made because Faerch literally outgrew his role, but that was still disappointing.  Vanek was okay, I guess, but his character's presence in this movie was waaay overplayed and nowhere near as clever as the script believed.  I was impressed by the more emotive performance from Tyler Mane, though; his furious grunts definitely disturbed me.  Sheri Moon Zombie was very...ethereal, I guess.  Her character didn't require much acting, and she didn't throw in any extra.

Kill, darling.  And shake the snow globe.

Taylor Scout-Compton had a lot juicier role in Halloween II than she had last time, and I really regret that.  She wasn't bad --- she did what I imagine the script asked of her quite well --- but she was annoying as all hell and I wanted her to die.  I was impressed by Danielle Harris' supporting role; Harris once again played a victim extremely well, but she also showed off some solid dramatic chops.  Malcolm McDowell's character had an abrupt shift from concerned doctor to complete prick, and it wasn't much fun to watch.  I liked seeing more of Brad Dourif in this film, even if he is far more capable than his role hints at.  He is the closest I have seen to a normal person in a Rob Zombie movie, and that was refreshing.

Just look at that handlebar and tell me he can't handle more!

As far as newcomers to the series go, I liked Brea Grant and Angela Trimbur as Laurie's rebel friends.  They were pretty easy parts to play, but they came across as young ladies who would have been fun/trouble in college.  They also had a pretty sweet set of Rocky Horror Halloween costumes.

Note: it is very difficult to find this when Google Image searching "Halloween II Rocky Horror"

In case you were wondering who the moron in the wolf man costume was, it was Matt Bush taking yet another stab at becoming this generation's Seth Green, and doing a pretty decent job of it.  Margot Kidder was this movie's first entry in the WTF casting Olympics, and she was fine as Laurie's therapist.  Howard Hesseman played against type *eyeroll* as an aging hippie somehow trapped in a Rob Zombie movie.  The other competitors were 'Weird Al' Yankovic and Chris Hardwick, who were fine on their own, but symbolic of a problem I had with the film.

"So...this is a scene from a Rob Zombie movie?  Gritty!"

Rob Zombie once again wrote and directed Halloween II (2009), this time without the burden of recreating a classic.  He did do a bit of an homage to Halloween II (1981), but that was limited to the dream sequence.  In all fairness, it was a pretty brutal and impressive homage, even if it was cheapened by the dream.  Zombie's direction is still nasty and grimy, so no real change there.  He also wrote almost all of the characters as unsympathetic assholes, but his handling of Sheriff Brackett and his daughter was surprisingly good.  Actually, I was impressed by some of the ideas Zombie brought up in this film.  This is the first time I have seen realistic fallout from a slasher movie, whether it be physical injuries or mental scars.

This is what happens after the credits?  Gross.

Here's the thing: I find the basic fallout from the last film very plausible, and that plausibility is a welcome surprise in a horror sequel.  And while I like the concept of Laurie being totally screwed in the head and Michael being more expressive after his frustration in the last film, the end result is just...abrasive.  And not in a shocking sense that makes you squirm uncomfortably, abrasive in that elaborately produced way, kind of like the naughty kid who shops for clothes at Hot Topic.

Anyone who spends this much time ruining their bathroom is an interior designer, not a rebel

Zombie also fails to focus in this movie.  The side plot with Dr. Loomis was uninteresting and unnecessary to the main story; all it did was take the decently interesting Loomis from the last film and make him completely despicable.  Also completely worthless was every single scene showing Lil' Michael and his mom.  Cut that crap out and you have a movie that is at least 40% better, 30 minutes shorter, and 100% less pretentious.

The violence was plentiful in Halloween II, so I don't have any complaints about that.  There isn't as much gore or uniqueness in the kills as you might expect --- aside from a head-smashing and a dog murder --- but Michael grunted and moaned while he killed in this movie, and that was unsettling.  The final scene with Annie was also pretty brutal, and --- I may be mistaken on this --- I think it's implied that Michael raped her to death/after death.  His weird "mommy vision" told him to "have fun" and the next time we see Annie is with her blood ALL OVER the room, and minus her panties.  I don't know why that disturbs me more than the other seventeen or so murders in this film, but it does.

Where Halloween II falls off the rails is in its portrayal of Michael.  It's that fundamental.  The emotionless, faceless killer with unknown motivations now has emotions, a face, and explicit motivations.  I'm no Halloween purist, but that's just...not Michael Myers.  Even if you give Zombie the benefit of the doubt to recreate MM however he sees fit, the things we learn about Michael by seeing things through his eyes are stupid and boring.  Do you like vaguely defined dream imagery? 

"If I say yes, can it pop up every ten minutes for no goddamned reason?"

What if it was awkward, clumsy, and felt out of place in the movie?  Then this is the movie for you, friend!  Zombie wasn't far off the mark with his dream sequences, but they were a missed opportunity.  Instead of some white horse bullshit, we could have had some weird, twisted Tim Burton-esque dreamscape where Michael's actions actually make sense.  Knowing what Michael sees and how far beyond crazy he is would have separated this film from the other Halloweens and still might have been interesting.  In the unrated director's cut, the ending was changed to actually have Michael speak.  It's not as interesting as it sounds, and Michael's anger seems curiously misplaced.  It was not too surprising for a mass murderer, but it was an odd climax to a movie.

There are other weaknesses in the film, too, of course.  Rob Zombie's inability to make you care about anyone on the screen is a big one.  He doubles down on Michael and Laurie, but the things he adds --- dreams and unexplained shared visions --- are just awful.  The complete lack of suspense was another miss.  Explaining that Michael is just after Laurie, and yet he makes several pit stops along the way to murder people --- that doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit the character.

Laurie doesn't even know most of the victims, so it can't be to get priceless reaction shots like this

Overall, this was just an unpleasant experience with a few moments that gave me hope that something cool would happen.  The concept of emotional fallout from the first film was one highlight, and the Rocky Horror costumes were another.  I'm very happy that this movie did not try to recreate Halloween II (1981), but the fact of the matter is that the scenes that pay homage to that movie are some of the most brutal and fast-paced in the film.  If some of your best scenes come from a fake-out, you have a problem.  There is just so much that goes wrong in Halloween II (2009).  It wants to be smart, but comes off idiotic.  It wants to be disturbing, but instead becomes grating.  I think it is supposed to be scary, but without any suspense or characters to care about, that's a tall order.  As I watched it, I felt like Halloween II (2009) was trying to punish me for wanting to learn more about Michael Myers.  This is a movie that put a lot of effort in to make me hate it.  If it wasn't for those few, scattered moments of potential, I would rank this as one of my most hated movies.

Halloween (2007) (Unrated)

What better way to kick off an entire month of horror reviews than with part of a classic franchise?  Well, I suppose starting at the beginning of that franchise, but I already did that.  Howzabout the reboot?  I've actually really wanted to see Rob Zombie's take on Halloween for a while now, but never did because...well, most reboots suck.  Hard.  Still, of all the horror directors of the last decade, Zombie was probably the best choice to fix Halloween as a property.  Because, let's admit it, that shit got broke.  Zombie had experience making movies about soulless killers, he clearly respected older horror movies, and his movies aren't torture porn.  They're just...stabby.  So, yeah, I was excited when I rented Halloween (2007).  That excitement was tempered a bit, though, by the biggest Michael Myers fans I know, my cousins-in-laws; I remember asking them how the movie was, and I just got sighs and snorts of disgust.  But really, how bad can this reboot be when you compare it to Halloween: Resurrection? 

It could be adorable!

 

Halloween (2007) can be broken into two parts.  The first part is the origin of Michael Myers, and the second part takes place about fifteen years later, and is about Laurie Strode.  In part one, we meet Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch), a soft-looking chubby kid with hair down to his shoulders.  Honestly, he looks like an unattractive girl.

Lil' Michael, with an even less attractive woman

Mike has a history of wearing masks when he's out of school.  Not cool masks, like Corey Feldman made in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter --- we're talking little-kid-costume masks, like the ones made of cheap plastic with a rubber band around the back of your head.  We get a look at his life and his tendencies; when he eventually decides to put on a mask and murder several people (including his older sister), it's not that big of a shock, because he's obviously messed up.

Rob Zombie obviously wants to remake Killer Klowns From Outer Space next

Most of the hallmarks of serial killers are present in Lil' Mike's life.  He tortures and kills small animals.  He gets bullied at school.  He doesn't have a good family life; his older sister treats him like the plague and his mom's boyfriend is just a generally nasty sumbitch.  His mother, Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie), cares about him, but is forced to be a largely absentee parent because she has to support her entire family by stripping.

It's only fair, since Rob Zombie supports Sheri Moon Zombie's acting career by casting her

When the fateful day arrives (SPOILER ALERT: it's in the title) and Michael goes on a prepubescent killing spree, he is apprehended by the police and sent to a mental institution.  There, we see Michael under the care of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell); we see and hear snippets of treatment and medical opinions, as Michael spirals further and further away from being a normal child and closer to a full-time psychopath.

He was always a very promising part-timer

After 38 minutes of Lil' Mike, the film finally jumps forward fifteen years to modern times.  Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) has not spoken during all that time and spends his days in the mental institute making awful papier-mâché masks and getting far larger and stronger than it would seem possible for a mask aficionado. 

Who let Michael listen to Slipknot?  And take steroids?

Michael eventually breaks out of the mental ward and returns to his childhood home, where he hid the mask he wore when he went on his adorable murder spree.  While there, he catches a glimpse of Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) on her way to school.  From that moment forward, Michael seems obsessed with Laurie and is more than willing to share his love of sharp objects with anyone who gets in his way.

Especially dainty brunettes

The acting in Halloween (2007) isn't bad, especially for a horror movie and especially for a horror remake.  Daeg Faerch was shockingly good as a young Michael Myers.  He looked like a wuss, but things got creepy fast whenever he showed off his "dead-eye" gaze.  Sheri Moon Zombie gave her best performance to date as Michael's mother; she was good, but that is also comparing it to her annoying previous roles.  I also liked Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis.  He isn't as demanding and abrasive as Donald Pleasence was in the original Halloween (1978).  Instead, he showed a lot of compassion and emotional investment in Michael's progression, which actually made him feel like a credible doctor.  I also liked the raw physicality of Tyler Mane as the adult Michael.  The character would have been effective if played by a normal-sized man, but Mane's huge build and body language made the mere sight of him frightening.

Which one would you be scared of?

Scout Taylor-Compton was decent as Laurie, but playing the Girl Who Lived is rarely a role that makes an actor look good.  Her friends, played by Danielle Harris and Kristina Klebe, were fairly inoffensive; Harris did a good job being a victim and Klebe balanced an obnoxious character with full-frontal nudity.  The rest of the cast is (not surprisingly, given the popularity of the original film) jam-packed with recognizable actors.  William Forsythe was good as a complete bastard of a father figure, Lew Temple was repulsive as a rapist security guard, and there was a small bit of the ol' Sid Haig-special (which is just another way of saying Haig is always gross).  As for actors that were not in The Devil's Rejects, Clint Howard and Mickey Dolenz had to be the most bewildering casting choices in the movie.  Udo Kier also has a cameo, but at least he seemed a little creepy.  Rounding out the cast, Danny Trejo was a kindly guard who may have given Michael the wrong advice, former Spy Kid Daryl Sabara was solid as a jerk bully, and Brad Dourif was adequate as the town sheriff.  When the film was finished, I was surprised at how competent the acting was.  I wasn't impressed by anyone but Daeg Faerch, but I didn't laugh at or hate any of the actors for their work, which is quite a feat in a slasher pic.

Rob Zombie wrote the screenplay for this Halloween remake and directed it.  As far as direction goes, I thought Zombie played it pretty safe with his style.  If you don't like a grainy look to your slasher movie, then you would have been irritated by the less-than-gorgeous shots and occasionally too-dark-to-see sequences.  I didn't really mind, but I know that bothers some folks.  Zombie worked well with his cast, getting performances that matched their characters surprisingly well.  I genuinely dislike his use of slow-motion and freeze frames, but they were used sparingly here.  As far as the script goes, I thought Zombie did a great job turning this movie into something different than just a remake.  The focus on Michael's childhood was definitely the most unique and interesting thing this movie had to offer.  I liked some of the smaller nods to the original movie (like the thick-rimmed glasses on a boyfriend) and I loved the added value the story gave to Myers' iconic mask.

Yeah, that's the one

The violence in this remake was definitely grislier than in the original Halloween.  Part of that has to do with the fact that five people were murdered by a child, sure, but this was not a film that flinched from violence.  This isn't a splatter-gore movie, though.  It's just intense.  The scene with Danielle Harris laying at the bottom of the stairs was particularly gruesome, and her character actually lives!  The kills were not particularly creative (this franchise has never made that a priority), but Tyler Mane's strength made the violence seem much more realistic; his portrayal made this the most intimidating Michael Myers since the original film.  There were also a lot of dead bodies in this film; I counted nineteen on-screen deaths, with several more implied off-screen.  When you crunch the numbers, Halloween (2007) seems like it should be a winner.  It has full-frontal nudity, a lot of kills, and solid violence.

This one didn't even happen on-camera, and it still looks good!

And yet, Halloween (2007) isn't a very satisfying movie.  Franchise purists probably point to the extensive origin sequence as the biggest flaw, since that is the primary story difference between this and the original.  That's not the problem, though.  Others may point to how closely the rest of the plot followed that of the original movie, which stripped the film of any suspense.  That's not it , either.  The rest might complain about the shallow pop psychology stereotypes present in the script, but that's still just a minor issue.  There are two problems that handicap this technically impressive effort: 1) awful characters and 2) focus.

Rob Zombie, as a writer, has never written a likable character for the audience to identify with.  As a horror fan, I imagine that he (like so many of us) prefers the monster over the victims.  The problem with identifying with the killer, though, is that you rarely make frightening movies when you understand and care about the villain; you might be able to make a disturbing film, but that familiarity makes suspense and genuine scares nearly impossible.  With Halloween (2007), we meet a wide array of characters and at least a quarter of the dialogue comes from awful, repulsive characters (and keep in mind that adult Michael doesn't speak).  Are we supposed to be horrified by the deaths of these terrible people?  In several cases, their deaths are at least understandable (William Forsythe, for example) and perhaps even justifiable (Lew Temple's idiot rapist).  Granted, the scale of Michael's violence prevents (most of) the audience from truly identifying with him, but the added insights into his childhood makes it clear that he is the most sympathetic character in the story.  And that's a problem.

Who am I supposed to be rooting for, again?  The quiet one, or the whiny one?

The other problem with Halloween (2007) is the story's focus.  It's not enough that the supposedly normal characters are abrasive and cruel ---the origin story makes Michael's evolution almost tragic.  In and of itself, that's not a bad thing; the greatest villains are the ones who have understandable motives.  That origin story shifts the focus of the movie, though.  As I noted in my plot summary, the origin of Michael Myers focuses on young Michael.  For the rest of the film, the story is ostensibly about Laurie Strode; we follow her life and see how Michael hunts her down, as well as seemingly anyone she knows.  However, the film is still following Michael at this point; we are trying to figure out why it was so important for him to leave the mental home and come back to scenic Haddonfield, Illinois.  This shift in focus is the main difference between Halloween (2007) and Halloween (1978).  In the original, there is little attention paid to how Michael spends his time and absolutely no explanation for Michael's actions; Laurie doesn't know why she is being hunted, and neither does the audience, which is why it is so scary.  In this remake, we have an incomplete understanding of Michael's motives, and that means that we are following him a lot more often and have some clues as to why he is doing what he is doing.  Remember the suspense and terror from the original movie?  That's been replaced by grim fascination in the remake.

Although this picture is, admittedly, pretty fascinating

Individually, the shift in focus and the unsympathetic characters would not sink a slasher movie.  When you combine the two, though, they create a vortex of audience indifference and boredom, and that makes for a sucky experience.  It's too bad, really.  There are some great moments in this movie, but the tone was all wrong for the story being told.  When Rob Zombie was focusing on the new elements that he created, the movie had promise, but when he conformed to the plot of the original film, this remake became almost a grind to get through.  Would it have been better for Zombie to depart from the original even further than he had?  Probably, although the story is what makes the original such a classic.  Zombie should have just scrapped the whole "reboot" idea and just made this into a study of an all-new psychopathic killer.  Halloween (2007) isn't an awful movie, but it is definitely disappointing because it has the potential to be great.

Check out this promotional poster for the movie.  It highlights the best parts of the movie, which in turn shows how for the focus has shifted from that of the original.  Still, it's a pretty sweet poster.

The Artist

***included in Brian's Best and Worst of 2011***

Back in September, I stumbled across OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies.  I had seen the DVD cover art before and curiosity finally got the better of me, so I watched it with little to no foreknowledge.  I was treated to a likable and extremely clever (but not as funny) French spoof of 1960s spy movies.  The cleverness of the story made me extremely curious to see more of the director, Michel Hazanavicius, and the star, Jean Dujardin.  As luck would have it, the most acclaimed film of 2011 happened to be The Artist, which paired the star and director once more.

...and the director's wife, who was also in OSS 117.  Nepotism leads to Oscar nominations.

In 1927, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a huge silent film star.  Everything he touches seems to turn to gold, and his skills seem to apply equally to romances, action/adventure flicks, and comedies.

George Valentin: Eastern Orthodox Hollywood icon

One day, while posing for pictures outside his most recent film premiere, George is accidentally bumped by a young lady in the crowd, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo).  Being a suave celebrity, George opts not to punch her in the face, and instead laughs it off and poses for pictures with Peppy, to the delight of all.  Seriously, look at that crowd, they're acting like they're at a bachelorette party.

My personal favorite is the woman by his elbow

Peppy happens to be an aspiring actress that idolizes George.  She manages to get a role as an extra on one of George's movies, and the two show a lot of chemistry and sexual attraction. In fact, the two almost act upon that attraction, but the moment passed and so they went on with their lives.  Young Peppy started to work her way up in the movie business, while George took a slightly different approach.  When the head of the movie studio (John Goodman) shows George a prototype of a film with a vocal track, George scoffs at it, declaring it a toy.  From that point forward, George is fighting a losing battle against the idea of sound in film while Peppy --- being an up-and-comer --- wisely rides the "talkies" to fame and fortune.

I suppose there's a bit more to the story than the rise of one performer and the fall of another, but that's the plot in a nutshell.  If it sounds familiar to you, that's because it should; this basic premise has been used many times over.  What separates The Artist from, say, All About Eve is the choice to make this movie about a silent film actor into a silent film.  To be fair, it's not entirely silent; there are a handful of words spoken and some interesting sequences where sound was selectively added, but the movie on the whole plays like a classic silent movie (just with superior film stock).

The silent movie schtick may seem like a gimmick at first, but it loses that feel after watching Jean Dujardin on camera for a little while.  I don't know if he will ever be able to transform into a Hollywood star (his accent is pretty thick --- not a deal-breaker, but still...), but Dujardin was wonderful in The Artist.  I can't pinpoint exactly why I liked him so much without making it sound like a backhanded compliment, though.  Dujardin is able to act like the stereotype of a mediocre actor; he has expressive eyebrows and a giant smile, which he utilizes in most of his "on-camera" scenes in this film.  He also conveys some very realistic emotions quite subtly in other moments.  It was a well thought out performance that was executed nearly perfectly.

Bonus points for not being stereotypically movie drunk

Bérénice Bejo was likable as the blossoming star, Peppy, but her character wasn't all that deep.  She wanted to be a star, she achieved that goal, and she wanted to help her friend.  We don't actually have to care about her character very much at all --- we just have to understand what she represents to George Valentin.  I think that was a missed opportunity.  Still, she did have her moments; I really liked the playful scene where she pretended to be romanced by Valentin's coat.

How ugly do you have to be to require this much work?

John Goodman was, as always, a welcome addition to the cast.  His character was pretty simple, but Goodman has made a career out of making simple characters entertaining to watch.  I think James Cromwell was under-appreciated for his turn as the loyal manservant to Valentin; Cromwell often is cast as a harsh authority figure, and it was nice to see him playing such a sweet character.  I was a little surprised by how many recognizable Hollywood actors played small roles in The Artist.  Penelope Ann Miller essentially just defaced George Valentin memorabilia whenever she was on camera, Missi Pyle was suitably obnoxious as a famous actress, Malcolm McDowell just sat in a scene, Ed Lauter showed up just long enough for his face to ring a bell, and Ken Davitian managed to not be involved in a penis-related gag for a change.  Perhaps the biggest scene-stealer in the film was Uggie, the dog.  The sequences with Uggie were certainly cute, and the animal is clearly very well-trained.  That said, it's a dog; get over it, America.

***whimper***

Dujardin's excellent acting certainly goes a long way toward making the whole silent-film-thing less of a gimmick and more of an interesting choice, but it is the direction of Michel Hazanavicius that truly makes The Artist and interesting film to watch.  There are very few directors currently working who are willing to make interesting choices while making a film.  Those choices don't necessarily have to work (Malick, I'm looking at you), but their films are usually made far more enjoyable when they do.  Hazanavicius took a high concept and managed to add a solid story and some excellent acting to it.  While I like the choice he made, I still think the story is a bit weak and uses the silence to help mask that problem.  On the other hand, Hazanavicius also used the silence to convey some not especially subtle, but still easily overlooked character moments.  I really liked that Penelope Ann Miller was wearing a different piece of jewelry in each of her scenes; the audience knows she's unhappy because she keeps marking up every picture of George she can find, but I thought that was a nice additional touch.  What I truly appreciated in the film was Hazanavicius' frame composition.  It pops up periodically throughout the movie, but the symbolism on the movie studio staircase after Valentin was fired was gorgeous.  The Artist is a movie that understands film style and uses it to convey ideas with images, instead of through exposition, and that was a bit of a treat for me.

The Artist is a very clever film that deserves accolades for daring to do things differently.  Are you going to like it?  Well...that's a tough call.  On the plus side, it is a huge change of pace from anything else that came out last year.  It is also well-acted and well-directed, so if you like examining cinematography or acting subtleties, this should be a good time for you.  On the other hand, it is still a silent movie, and that might make the film drag at times for the less snobby film fan.  It's certainly a cute movie, but it doesn't have a whole lot of depth; the best trait The Artist has is just how clever it is, but that might not be a strong enough selling point for everyone.