The story begins with a young boy who has been living in one big train station in Paris, which is probably the Montparnasse station, during the early 1930s. When he was younger, Hugo Cabret(Asa Butterfield) was living with his clockmaker father(Jude Law) who also worked at the museum. Hugo’s father found an automaton, the machine which can write or draw by itself after it is winded up, at the basement of the museum, and he was determined to restore it. Many automatons were made during 1860-1910, “the Golden Age of Automata”, and some of them have been well-preserved by the museums and collectors. They still can be operated; they can do not lots of things, but, when I was watching one YouTube clip, I could not help but marvel at how it was meticulously operated by its intricate clockwork mechanisms inside the machine.

Hugo’s father died due to an unfortunate fire incident before completing his restoration job, so Hugo was left alone, and he was brought by his alcoholic uncle Claude(Ray Winstone) to the train station. He learned lots of skills from Claude like he did from his dad, so, while living in the place hidden from the people, he has been working as an unrecognized unofficial maintenance man for the clocks in the station since his uncle was disappeared. He does not get paid, so he usually steals croissant and milk from the cafe in the station while managing to elude the watchful eyes of Station Inspector Gustave(Sacha Baron Cohen, funny in a stiff, straight way) and his loyal Doberman dog Maximilian.

During its first half, thanks to Scorsese’s full command of styles and techniques, we have a joyful fun with the world in which Hugo moves around using the hidden spaces and passages around the station. Right from the opening scene where the movie glides straight from the picturesque night landscape of Paris to the bright interior of the station, the cinematographer Robert Richardson’s camera smoothly moves around the bountifully gorgeous interior designed by Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo  while following the movements of Hugo and other characters. Besides Inspector Gustave, there are also other characters who work at the station: the cafe owner(Frances de la Tour), the newspaper stand owner(Richard Griffith) who likes her, and the flower shop girl(Emily Mortimer) for whom Gustave has been carrying a torch. Observed by Hugo, they provide several amusing moments to us.

And there is one cranky old man named Georges(Ben Kingsley) for whom Hugo happens to work at his toy shop at the corner of the station. While getting acquainted with Isabelle(Chloë Grace Moretz), a young lively girl who has been raised by Georges and his wife, Hugo and Isabelle come to discover that there is the connection between Georges and his father’s machine he has been trying to fix. In addition, this old man turns out to be none other than Georges Méliès, who was one of the great innovators during the early stage of the film history. Ben Kingsley is superlative as a bitter old man still feeling hurt by his broken dreams in the past. He seems to be mean and heartless at first, but we gradually begin to see his pains and sorrows buried behind his stern face.

Through Méliès’ reminiscence part in the movie, we come to see how wondrous time it was for him and his crews including his devoted wife(Helen McCroy) while they made movies at his studio which looked a lot like a big glass house(They did not have the lighting equipment, so they needed sunlight for film exposure). As a gifted illusionist who dazzled the audiences with his illusions on the stage, Méliès instantly saw the new possibility from the short films of the Lumière brothers when he attended the legendary film screening at the Grand Café in Paris on Dec. 28, 1895. I watched the film in 2D, but I could see why Scorsese decided to use 3D techniques in this film. For instance, in this scene, we are not so scared by the train coming ahead to us on the screen, but 3D will at least help understanding how the audiences at that time felt about the Lumière brothers’s famous film “Arrival of a Train at a Station”(1895). Though I saw it in 2D and I had really no complaint about 2D version, I could notice clearly where Scorsese used 3D effectively in the other good scenes, and I am interested in watching the film again in 3D. Like Wim Wenders’ documentary “Pina”(2011), I guess that is the sign of a good 3D film made by the director who fully understands how to use 3D.

After witnessing this important moment of the film history, Méliès decided to make his own movies and, in the end, he made 531 films between 1896 and 1913. The production of “A Trip to the Moon”(1902), one of his famous films which has been always remembered with that immortal image of the rocket shot from a large cannon and then stuck into the moon’s face(ouch!), is fascinatingly reproduced in Scorsese’s film with lots of details to be appreciated. While trying to create the fantasies on the screen, Méliès developed several important film techniques and special effects to be used by other filmmakers later, and that made him one of the most influential pioneers in the film history.

The heart of “Hugo” lies in the second part of the story. As a young movie fan who used to go to the movie theaters with his dad, Hugo decides to help Méliès by showing him that he and his legacy are not forgotten at all, and that is what must have come close to Scorsese himself, who is both a great director and a great movie buff. I fondly remember how entertaining he was in the documentary “A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies”(1995). As many of you know, he has been in love with movies since he was young, and, in that documentary, he passionately talks a lot about the movies he loves with his vast knowledge on film techniques and history. Even though you have never heard about the films he talks about, he will entice you to have an interest on them and you will probably see them someday.

Any movie buff like me will be amused by the growing relationship between Hugo and Isabelle. We love to show others the movies we like, and so does Hugo, who shows Isabelle the world she has never encountered before. In exchange, she leads him to her equally beautiful world filled with many books at the bookstore run by Monsieur Labisse(surprisingly genial Christopher Lee). Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz are good together as the smart, inquisitive kids with lots of eagerness; they want to know, and they will certainly not be stopped by the adults surrounding them. That is how they come upon one important book in the library, written by a kind film scholar René Tabard(Michael Stuhlbarg, amiable and gentle) who gives a brief but informative lecture on the early era of the film history to them and us.

Scorsese has been the leading champion of film restoration and preservation, and he emphasizes their importance to us through the painful chapter of Méliès’s life. At the end of his illustrious career, Méliès became bankrupt, and his studio was closed, and he burnt his sets and props out of rage. And, this is the saddest part, most of his films he had were destroyed completely; they were melted down and then used for making shoe heels. As a result, more than half of his works were lost forever; it was a great loss to us.

However, “Hugo” is not just about this despairing loss – it is also about the hopeful rejuvenation through resurrecting dreams. In the end, thanks to the kids’ sincere efforts, Méliès becomes happy to see his works being resurrected and coming back to the welcoming audiences who appreciate his works. As of 2011, around 200 films of Méliès were restored and available, and that fact makes the finale of “Hugo” more moving and poignant. I must mention that, in spite of the recognitions and appreciations he belatedly received, Méliès‘s final years were a little less rosy than what is shown in the finale, but we are dealing with a historical fairy tale adapted by John Logan from Brian Selznick’s award-winning illustrated children’s book “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, not the precise historical facts.

“Hugo” is a delightful movie for all audiences. It is a lightweight work compared to other notable films in Scorsese’s career, but it is as technically impressive as his best films, and its story as personal to him as theirs. Even if you do not know much about the movies, you will be entertained by its unadulterated energy inside its story. If you know a little more about movies than others, you will be reminded with joy and wonder that why we love to watch movies.

By the way, though the movie is intended as a family film, the kids may be a little disappointed because they do not get what they usually expect from other lesser family films and animations. But some of them may learn something about movies and their artistic values as the portal to the dreamworld shared by their parents. At present, I am considering about showing it to my cousin’s young son. He is a clever elementary school kid, and he likes watching movies with my brother’s laptop. I think he will be very receptive toward what Scorsese wants to show and tell him.

I have been predicting the winners for more than 10 years, but I have never been able to predict correctly. My most correct prediction was in 2004, but, as you know, that was the most predictable year in the last decade due to the complete sweep with 11 awards by “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”(2003).

Anyway, I again submitted my prediction to Roger Ebert’s site, and here’s my guess. Let’s see what will happen on Feb. 26th, folks.

Best Motion Picture of the Year
The Artist (2011): Thomas Langmann
The Descendants (2011): Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011): Scott Rudin
The Help (2011): Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, Michael Barnathan
Hugo (2011): Graham King, Martin Scorsese
Midnight in Paris (2011): Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
Moneyball (2011): Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt
The Tree of Life (2011): Sarah Green, Bill Pohlad, Dede Gardner, Grant Hill
War Horse (2011): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy

“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”, “The Help”, “Moneyball”, and “War Horse” are not nominated for Best Director, so they do not have a chance at all. We all know it will be a miracle if “The Tree of Life” or “Midnight in Paris” wins, and “The Descendants” will probably be rewarded only with Best Adapted Screenplay award. With 11 nominations and 10 nominations, respectively, “Hugo” and “The Artist” has been competing with each other, and it seems “The Artist”, a funny, loving homage to the silent film era, will get the award considering that it won Golden Globe, BAFTA, PGA, and DGA awards. Like “Hugo”, the movie could have been included in my Top 10 list if I had watched it before 2012, but “The Tree of Life”, Terrence Malick’s stunning visual meditation on the universe and our life on the Earth, would still have remained at the top of my list.

Prediction: “The Artist”
Preference: “The Tree of Life”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Demián Bichir for A Better Life (2011)
George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)
Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)
Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

It’s a really shame that they did not nominate Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter” or Michael Fassbender in “Shame”, but let’s focus on what we get here. Demián Bichir and Gary Oldman are clearly rewarded with nomination only, and Brad Pitt has been losing his momentum. Many people believed George Clooney, who gave one of the best performances in his career, was the front runner at first, but, as I correctly predicted, it is becoming quite possible that Jean Dujardin will get the award for his funny, moving performance, and now he has already won Golden Globe, SAG, and BAFTA awards. His silent film performance is naturally showier than his competitors’, so he will get the award, and I will be happy for that.

Prediction: Jean Dujardin
Preference: Jean Dujardin – and kudos to George Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Viola Davis for The Help (2011)
Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)
Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Now it is getting clear that the race is between Meryl Streep and Viola Davis. Though it is her 17th nomination and she has not won since 1982, I think “The Iron Lady” is not good enough to persuade the voters despite her recent BAFTA win. Therefore, my conclusion is Davis will win the award, though I think she should have won the award for her heartbreaking performance in “Doubt”(2008). Michelle Williams may make an upset with her beautiful performance as Marylin Monroe(I have not seen her movie, by the way), and so may Glenn Close, who has not won the award yet, but I have not heard much buzz around them. In case of Rooney Mara, one of my favorite performances of 2011, I am glad that she gets nominated, but I don’t think she will win.

Prediction: Viola Davis
Preference: Rooney Mara

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)
Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)
Nick Nolte for Warrior (2011)
Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)
Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)

Kenneth Branagh, Nick Nolte, Jonah Hill, and Max von Sydow all have taken a backseat while Christopher Plummer are competing with Albert Brooks, who is criminally overlooked by the voters. Therefore, Plummer will win the award for his fabulous young-at-heart performance in “Beginners”.

Prediction: Christopher Plummer
Preference: Christopher Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)
Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)
Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids (2011)
Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

The nominees are all scene-stealers who deserve the nomination. We all thought that Jessica Chastain will win the award because of her impressive outputs in 2011, though she was good but not at her best in “The Help”. And then her co-actress Octavia Spencer, who has a major career breakthrough with her nice performance, becomes the front runner with her win at Golden Globe, SAG, and BAFTA. Meanwhile, Melissa McCarthy stole the show in “Bridesmaids”, and McTeer was astounding in “Albert Nobbs”, and then there is Bérénice Bejo, who was as effortless as Dujardin in “The Artist”.

Prediction: Octavia Spencer
Preference: Bérénice Bejo

Best Achievement in Directing
Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)
Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)
Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life (2011)
Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)
Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

The question is simple; will it be Scorsese or Hazanavicius? I think the latter will win considering that he won DGA award.

Prediction: Michel Hazanavicius
Preference: Terrence Malick

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids (2011): Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
Margin Call (2011): J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi

It’s a good time to give the award to Woody Allen, who scored the 15th Best Screenplay Oscar nomination for his delightful comedy. Like Roger Ebert, I really hope he will attend the ceremony even though the chance is quite low.

Prediction: Midnight in Paris
Preference: A Separation

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
Hugo (2011): John Logan
The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Bridget O’Connor, Peter Straughan

Alexander Payne scored again with his new movie “The Descendants”, and he and other co-writers deserve the award for their rich human drama. Maybe “Moneyball” or “Hugo” can make a sneak attack, but we will see.

Prediction: The Descendants
Preference: The Descendants

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
A Cat in Paris (2010): Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico & Rita (2010): Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011): Jennifer Yuh
Puss in Boots (2011): Chris Miller
Rango (2011): Gore Verbinski

I have seen all of them, and my favorite is “Rango”, and I am sure it will the award.

Prediction: Rango
Preference: Rango

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Bullhead (2011): Michael R. Roskam(Belgium)
Footnote (2011): Joseph Cedar(Israel)
In Darkness (2011): Agnieszka Holland(Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (2011): Philippe Falardeau(Canada)
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi(Iran)

I only watched two of them, but I do not think other three nominees can be as powerful as “A Separation”. But “In Darkness” can be a surprise winner, because it is about, well, the Holocaust.

Prediction: A Separation
Preference: A Separation

Best Achievement in Cinematography
The Artist (2011): Guillaume Schiffman
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Jeff Cronenweth
Hugo (2011): Robert Richardson
The Tree of Life (2011): Emmanuel Lubezki
War Horse (2011): Janusz Kaminski

All nominees are visually impressive. I knew instantly that Emmanuel Lubezki would get the nomination for his stunning work when I saw “The Tree of Life”, and I think he has a good chance at this time.

Prediction: The Tree of Life
Preference: The Tree of Life

Best Achievement in Editing
The Artist (2011): Anne-Sophie Bion, Michel Hazanavicius
The Descendants (2011): Kevin Tent
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter
Hugo (2011): Thelma Schoonmaker
Moneyball (2011): Christopher Tellefsen

This award usually goes to Best Picture winner, so I guess it will be “The Artist”, but it is also possible that its competitor will win.

Prediction: The Artist
Preference: Hugo

Best Achievement in Art Direction
The Artist (2011): Laurence Bennett, Robert Gould
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011): Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan
Hugo (2011): Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo
Midnight in Paris (2011): Anne Seibel, Hélène Dubreuil
War Horse (2011): Rick Carter, Lee Sandales

“Hugo” is the most cinematically bountiful one. I was completely won over by its fantastic production design.

Prediction: Hugo
Preference: Hugo

Best Achievement in Costume Design
Anonymous (2011/I): Lisy Christl
The Artist (2011): Mark Bridges
Hugo (2011): Sandy Powell
Jane Eyre (2011): Michael O’Connor
W.E. (2011): Arianne Phillips

I think “Hugo” also has a good chance in this category, but “The Artist” can win, too. I will not be surprised if “Jane Eyre” wins. The British period dramas always have had big advantages in this category, you know.

Prediction: The Artist
Preference: Hugo

Best Achievement in Makeup
Albert Nobbs (2011): Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnson, Matthew W. Mungle
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011): Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, Lisa Tomblin
The Iron Lady (2011): Mark Coulier, J. Roy Helland

Two other nominees look small compared to “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2”.

Prediction: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Preference: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
The Adventures of Tintin (2011): John Williams
The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource
Hugo (2011): Howard Shore
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Alberto Iglesias
War Horse (2011): John Williams

Welcome back, Mr. John Williams, but the award will go to Ludovic Bource, whose score for “The Artist” was one of the crucial elements in the film.

Prediction: The Artist
Preference: The Adventures of Tintin

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
The Muppets (2011): Bret McKenzie(“Man or Muppet”)
Rio (2011): Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett(“Real in Rio”)

Do I need to say anything?

Prediction: The Muppets
Preference: Who Cares?

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson
Hugo (2011): Tom Fleischman, John Midgley
Moneyball (2011): Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco, Ed Novick
Transformers: Dark of the Moon(2011): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin
War Horse (2011): Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson, Stuart Wilson

There is no well-liked blockbuster nominees, so the award will go to “Hugo” or “War Horse”.

Prediction: Hugo
Preference: War Horse

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Drive (2011): Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Ren Klyce
Hugo (2011): Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty
Transformers: Dark of the Moon(2011): Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl
War Horse (2011): Richard Hymns, Gary Rydstrom

The same can be said about this category, too.

Prediction: Hugo
Preference: Hugo

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011): Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, John Richardson
Hugo (2011): Robert Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann, Alex Henning
Real Steel (2011): Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor, Swen Gillberg
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, Daniel Barrett
Transformers: Dark of the Moon(2011): Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler, John Frazier

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is the most impressive one,  but….

Prediction: Hugo
Preference: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Best Documentary, Features
Hell and Back Again (2011): Danfung Dennis, Mike Lerner
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (2011): Marshall Curry, Sam Cullman
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (2011): Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky
Pina (2011): Wim Wenders, Gian-Piero Ringel
Undefeated (2011): Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin, Rich Middlemas

Another mistake of the Academy awards – they failed to nominate excellent documentaries like “The Interrupters” or “Project Nim”. I have seen four nominees, and they are all nice, anyway. I will vote on “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory”, the latest chapter on the West Memphis 3, while thinking about how cool it will be to see Wim Wenders on the stage with the award.

Prediction: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Preference: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory or Pina

Best Documentary, Short Sub
The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (2011): Robin Fryday, Gail Dolgin
God Is the Bigger Elvis (2012): Rebecca Cammisa, Julie Anderson
Incident in New Baghdad (2011): James Spione
Saving Face (2011): Daniel Junge, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (2011): Lucy Walker, Kira Carstensen

Prediction: The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Best Short Film, Animated
Dimanche (2011): Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (2011): William Joyce, Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna (2011): Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll (2011): Grant Orchard, Sue Goffe
Wild Life (2011): Amanda Forbis, Wendy Tilby

Prediction: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

Best Short Film, Live Action
Pentecost (2011): Peter McDonald
Raju (2011): Max Zähle, Stefan Gieren
The Shore (2011): Terry George, Oorlagh George
Time Freak (2011): Andrew Bowler, Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic (2010): Hallvar Witzø

Prediction: The Shore

My Far-flung correspondent review  for “Bullhead”(2011), which is recently nominated for Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, has just been posted at Roger Ebert’s site.

If you want to read it, click here.

The review was revised from my original review written in December 2011.

Even with a good performance at the center of the story, “The Iron Lady” is unfortunately as bland as them. While covering so many things that occurred during the life of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, its unclear tone uncannily reminded me how those biographies in my childhood years were as shallow as, say, 40 pages including the diverse illustrations which impressed me more than the monochromatic texts themselves. One thing happens to him/her in these books, and then, one or two pages after, the other thing happens; one thing happens to Thatcher in this film, and then the other thing happens within 10 minutes. And it goes on and on.

That is certainly not the fault of Meryl Streep, who has always tried her best 100%(or more) whatever characters she accepted to play. When I began to love movies during my elementary school years, she was barely a name of some great film actress to me, but her immense talent had suddenly come upon to me during the end of my undergraduate years in the 2000s. Her terrific performances in “The French Lieutenant’s Woman”(1981), “Sophie’s Choice”(1982), and “Silkwood”(1983) completely knocked me out, and I sort of understood why she has not gotten the third Oscar yet. Well, how can she surpass “Sophie’s Choice”, which features one of the great performances not only in her career but also in the film history?

Shortly after impressing me with her serious movies from the 1980s, she surprised me and others with the second breakthrough in her career through Spike Jones’ smart delightful comedy “Adaptation”(2002), for which she got the recording-breaking 13th Oscar nomination. She then moved on while having more fun ever than before along with additional Oscar nominations. She showed she could sing and dance “Momma Mia!”(2008) while giving another terrific powerhouse performance in “Doubt”(2008). She was inarguably the best thing in “The Devil Wears Prada”(2006) and “Julie & Julia”(2009), and I enjoyed her performances in spite of my reservations toward both imperfect movies.

I think I have said too much about her in this review, but, people, I cannot help it, because “The Iron Lady” gives a very little to Streep to work with and there is nothing much to talk about the movie itself accordingly. Sure, Streep does not disappoint us; right from the point when its production still photos came out, we predicted that she would perfectly nail the role regardless of whether the film would be bad or not. Its trailer re-confirmed our notion while she was gaining the buzz for another recording-breaking Oscar nomination, and, what do you know, she does received it as a serious contender along with several awards including recent BAFTA Best Actress award.

Streep is all ready for her show in the film. She rises to the occasions whenever supposedly big scenes are handed to her, but the people behind the camera do not seem to go along with that. Thatcher still remains as a famous political figure admired or hated by British people for many reasons as shown in the film, so it is understandable that the movie takes a neutral position, but the movie does a worse thing than taking sides – it does not express any opinions or insights on this strong-willed, authoritative woman who rose in the world filled with the men who looked down on her. I only saw her through the world news on TV, but she was distinctive enough to be stored in my childhood memory. Compared to that, the movie did not leave much impression although Streep does an expert impersonation of Thatcher.

The screenplay by Abi Morgan is more or less than the scrapbook of Thatcher’s crucial moments in her life, which are freely reminisced by an old, senile Thatcher in her later years. The movie looks through them with no clear focus or direction. Even before we get interested in one part, the movie quickly moves on to the next stage of Thatcher’s life along with the temporal dragging stop at old Thatcher’s part, and this pattern frustratingly continues throughout the film. The director Phyllida Lloyd tries to speed up the pace with the quick montages of TV news and Thatcher pushing her decisions all the way, but we are left with nothing to think about except watching what many of us have already known. There are threats from IRA, and then there is her harsh decision to close the mines which would leave many workers angered and unemployed, and then there is the Falklands War, which, according to what the film presents to us, did not have much of strategic advantages except it was nice as the show of force for her fellow British people. And then the Cold War is over, and then, well, she is forced to resign.

I do not mind such a storytelling method a little disorienting like that. In another scrapbook biopic film like “La Vie en Rose”(2007), there was enough space for the emotional contents to flesh out its three-dimensional character and hold the fragmented pieces together. However, in case of “The Iron Lady”, while the facts are crammed into less than 2 hours of incoherence, there is not anything besides them to present, and that is not enough to support Streep’s performance. In one scene, Streep is left alone in the meeting room after the other officials left out of the room, and she looks blankly a little above the camera. I knew she was completely in her character, but I personally wondered whether she searched for any direction she could find right at that moment.

The performers playing supporting characters are also as underutilized as Streep herself. Jim Broadbent is playing a dotty, dutiful husband not so far from his Oscar-winning turn in “Iris”(2001). Whether he complains to her or tries to cheer her up, he always stands by her even after he passed away; his character is a pure storytelling device for inducing her to remember her good or bad days. As the younger version of Thatcher, Alexandra Roach deserves better as much as her counterpart. Maybe you can find several recognizable actors like Olivia Colman and Richard E. Grant, but they quickly come in and then quickly come out as the movie is busying itself with running along its facts and chronology.

“The Iron Lady” is a tepid biopic with a plenty of wasted potentials. There is nothing new in it, and it does not even present its subject compellingly. Though Streep is good to watch, the movie sadly fails to elevate her diligent work to the next level while not making any choice. Sometimes it hesitates about whether it should be drama or comedy, so her performance frequently reminds me of her previous performance as Julia Child in “Julie & Julia”(2009). You know that something is wrong with a biopic film if its real-life figure unintentionally makes you recall other one a lot.

The movie is about a bunch of unlucky guys who happen to face one of the harshest sides of nature and have to go through it for their survival. The temperature is below zero even during day. The blizzard frequently slaps them with no mercy. They have little chance of being rescued in the vast area surrounding them. To make the matters worse, there is also terrible menace watching on them. They must do something, or they will possibly meet the end worse than the accident they have just survived from.

They are the employees returning from an isolated oil drilling rig in some remote region of Alaska. The job of Ottway(Liam Neeson), a professional hunter, is protecting other workers from the attacks from wild animals in that area. He is very good at what he is paid for; when he sees a wolf suddenly running toward the workers, he instantly shoots it with cool, precise professionalism. To him or other guys, this place is like the dead end of their lives, and we even see him attempting suicide with his rifle at one moment.

So it is ironic that he later becomes the leader for other few survivors after their plane to Anchorage crashes to the snow field in nowhere. They may survive for a while if they just stay there like the survivors in “Alive”(1993), but there is one big problem; there are a pack of wolves, and it seems these beasts will not be content with the dead bodies. Ottway suggests that they go south for more chance of survival, so they set for their rather hopeless journey.

But the wolves are still preying on them. I must say that the wolves in the film terrified me a lot. Through the animatronics, the trained animals, and some CGIs, the movie vividly presents them as the dreadful creatures of nature not only savage but also creepy. One of the most intense scenes in the movie is when the characters realize that they are surrounded by the wolves in the middle of night; only their glowing eyes are shown, but the sense of dread is escalating along with their gradual appearance in the deep darkness. Even when their fangs are not shown on the screen, their howling in the air has enough spooky quality to scare us. But these are not supernatural entities; they are the vicious force of nature, and that makes them more realistically horrible.

And the nature threatens them not only with wolves and cold weather. The director Joe Carnahan, who wrote the screenplay with Ian Mackenzie Jeffers based on Jeffers’ short story “Ghost Walker”, gives us a despairing but gripping tale of survival with extreme human conditions. Though he previously bombarded us to numbness with the mindless actions in “The A-Team”(2010), Carnahan skillfully controls the horror elements in the story to build the suspense and dread at this time. The movie is not entirely humorless, but the level of tension is never lowered even when we are allowed to see the grim humor inside the characters’ circumstance. The cinematography by Masanobu Takayanagi is excellent with bleak icy beauty – it looks beautiful while reminding us its vast cold harshness inside it.

Liam Neeson has been appearing in several films below his talent for a while(and now he will appear in “Taken 2” in this year), but he always brings considerable seriousness to those movies, and he is again good as a tough guy who knows how to confront the dangers surrounding him and others. As shown through his dream/flashback, Ottway has been haunted by the memory of his deceased wife(Anne Openshaw) with despair, and he has almost lost the will to live. But now, his instinct is stimulated again in the middle of wilderness where he is really on the edge of his life, and others follow him with no choice, because they also want to live even though there is not much future for them even if they manage to survive in the end.

The other actors accompanying him, including notable actors like Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Nonso Anozie, and James Badge Dale, are given less defined characters compared to Neeson, but they are also crucial to the drama. They give their respective characters more humanity and gravity than we expected; they are not the mannequins to be dispatched one by one along the plot. There are some conflicts between them, but they wise enough to stick together for their survival though the chance is pretty low for them. I especially remember one sad scene when one character makes his final choice with intractable logic. Maybe there is still little chance for him, but he knows he is finished, and he chooses to accept that fact along with the inevitable end coming to him. This indeed sounds like a cliché, but the actors make it work, and the movie respects his decision.

“The Grey” is an effective chiller. Its last shot is rather redundant because it exists solely for giving the audiences little relief, but that remains a minor complaint compared to what this terrifying film has built from the start to the finale. It is now mid-February, but it becomes colder again here in South Korea, and I became more conscious of the cold night when I walked out of the local theater right after watching it at last night. I was again thankful for the modern civilization providing me a ride, thick clothes, a warm room where I can sleep. What chance will I have if I am hurled into their situation in the film, as a clumsy, bumbling graduate?

Oh, by the way, when I described its synopsis to one of my lab colleagues a few hours before, he was not so concerned about the wolves. He even joked that they could eat wolves. I’d love to see his reactions while he is watching the movie. Maybe he will propose that we South Koreans also have to make wolf-meat soup along with dog-meat soup, if only for killing them all.

“War Horse” surely can be criticized as a manipulative sentimental melodrama with its character thrown into the horrors of war, but it is an excellent film belonging to the second category mentioned above, and it is as good as it can be. As a sort of cross between “Black Beauty”(1994) and “Au Hasard Balthazar”(1966) wrapped in war film, the movie has the beautiful scenes reminiscent of those classic films made a long time ago by the great directors like John Ford. When I saw the country village, the wide green field where horses can gallop freely, and the big blue sky above it, all of which rendered gorgeously on the screen during the first half of the film, I nodded with appreciation and delight. When the story moves to the battlefields of World War I, there are equally harrowing moments filled with the horrors of war, and that familiar lesson about war is effectively delivered to us while we are horrified and saddened by what its central character and others go through.

Its central character does not talk, because it is a horse, after all. We see the moment of its birth, and then its happy time with its mother on the green field. When it grows up, it is sent to the auction in the village, and that is how he is owned by Ned Narracot(Peter Mullan), a farmer with drinking problem. Although the horse is a thoroughbred not ideal for his farm work, Narracot is determined to buy it just because he wants to spite his landowner(David Thewlis) who also wants to buy that horse. Narracot wins, but he spends all of the money in his pocket, much to the dismay of his wife Rose(Emily Watson), who must have been tolerating a lot from her husband with understanding and love(“I might hate you more, but I’ll never love you less.”)

Anyway, their son Albert(Jeremy Irvine) is excited to see the horse; he was there when it was born and he has always wanted to have it. While their story is unfolded with the imminent financial problem they have to deal with, the film, shot in Devon and other locations in England, shows the beautiful landscape surrounding them, and the Narracots’ residence adds additional beauty in the middle of this background, with a funny goose whose brash ferocity reminds me of those fearsome avian hoods in my university campus.

Albert and his horse, named Joey by him, become closer to each other while going through their hard time, but they are soon separated. World War I breaks out, and, because they run out of money, Albert’s father sells to one chivalry officer(Tom Hiddlestone). Of course, there is a moment of tearful goodbye, but the movie does not overplay it. We never get a clear idea about what Joey thinks about its situation in the film(in Michael Morpurgo’s novel, the horse tells us its story like “Black Beauty”, by the way), but the drama in the film works because the director Steven Spielberg indirectly suggests its feelings to us through its eyes and behaviors – that is better than a talking(or narrating) horse.

The second half of the film is about the bleak journey Joey goes through during the war. In the war where the modern weapons like machine gun, tank, and mustard gas were used, using horses in battle are wasteful and pointless, and that point is chillingly presented in one sequence when the British cavalry attempts a sneak attack on their enemy. The sequence is mostly restrained except when the cinematographer Janusz Kaminsky’s camera captures soldiers and horses charging into the field in long shots with the sense of an epic film, but its tragic horror outside the screen is papable even though we only see the German soldiers shooting their machine guns and the horses without riders running past them. There is also a grueling moment when Joey and other horses are forced to drag the big cannon up to the steep hill; I was relieved to see that no animal was harmed during the production, but it looked realistic enough to me.

While managing to survive, Joey is moved around several people it comes across. Whether they are German or British or French, most of them are kind and generous to Joey and they give it some help. Each of them is no more than the place Joey drops by(the actors are good; Niels Arestrup is notable as an old French farmer with his sick but plucky granddaughter), but there are touching moments here and there, such as when the British soldiers and the German soldiers help together the horse entangled in barb wires. Though they are all scared and tired in the trenches, they still have enough human compassion to help a poor creature unintentionally stuck in no man’s land, and they forget for a moment that they are enemies.

While Joey is going through this ordeal, Albert worries about his horse, and he later enlists in the army with his friend when he becomes old enough. I guess I do not spoil any of your entertainment if I say that they finally meet each other in the end. We can see its ending coming from the beginning, but the movie presents it more effective and emotional than we expected. The scene looks achingly gorgeous with the sunset, and John Williams’ Oscar-nominated score dramatically swells, and we are very happy for the ending Joey deserves after so much horror it went through.

“War Horse”, which is nominated for the Academy awards in 6 categories including Best Picture at present, is a movie with respectful classic styles which is quite honest about what it intends to do. We can see instantly that it tries to manipulate your emotion, but Spielberg handles us with deftness as he did in many of his successful works, and the film is a moving story with the good scenes to be remembered and one horse we care about. You can call it a sappy melodrama, but how can possibly we feel nothing when the animal is scared by the danger it cannot fully understand?

Sidenote: Morpurgo’s novel was also adapted into the acclaimed play with the same name, and, from what I saw in those wonderful YouTube clips, it might be more interesting and powerful than this film. I’d love to see the play at theater.

My Far-flung correspondent review  for “The Front Line”(2011) has just been posted.

If you want to read it, click here.

The review was revised from my original review written in July 2011.

But it was possible at least in South Korea during the 1980s, and I and other South Korean audiences who watched the film at last night know that too well. The movie evokes not only the looks and feelings of South Korea during the 1980s, but it also presents the certain disgraceful examples of South Korean male during that era. While watching its pretty unlikable protagonist, I said to myself; oh, I knew such dudes like him. They annoyed me and others like hell with their constant bluff and bragging, especially they were drunk like asshole. And some of them were actually my family members.

His name is Choi Ik-hyeon(Choi Min-sik), and he is a seedy custom employee living in Busan, a big port city which is the second largest city in South Korea. Port city usually draws the crimes like contraband trade, and Busan is no exception; there are always the people trying to smuggle something in or out of South Korea, and it is Ik-Hyeon and his colleagues’ job to catch them – and extort money for ignoring them. Their excuse: everybody does(and that’s true).

Unfortunately, there comes a sudden internal investigation and someone must take a fall, so Ik-hyeon is about to be fired because he has the least number of children among them. However, at one night, he happens to acquire the considerable amount of methamphetamine by chance, so he gets an idea; why not selling it to some local mob organization in the town?

That is how he comes to encounter a rising young boss, Choi Hyeong-bae(Ha Jeong-woo). At first, they are just a seller and a buyer, but Ik-hyeon goes further. Once he finds that Hyeong-bae is a distant relative of his(both are from the Choi family of Kyeong-joo), he begins to insinuate himself into Hyeong-bae’ organization. He proves to Hyeong-bae that he is a valuable asset to Hyeong-bae during the competition with the other local crime boss Kim Pan-ho(Jo Jin-woong), so he soon finds himself at the top – or near the top, at least.

Now, you will wonder, how can he do all these things even though he is just an ordinary ex-public servant who is not so bright? The movie sarcastically tells that all he needs for being successful is the right connections, and he does have them. There are the countless intertwined connections amidst the people in South Korean society based on family ties or school ties or other kinds of ties, and how you are connected with them will affect your life and career considerably if you are born in South Korea.

How Ik-hyeon uses these connections for his advantages and benefits is the funniest element in the film. When he is treated not so nicely by Hyeong-bae and his gangs at their first meeting, he immediately visits Hyeong-bae’s dad, who reminds his son that Ik-hyeon is an elder to Hyeong-bae in their family. Even if he is a tough guy, Hyeong-bae obeys to his father like a good son; he bows politely to Ik-hyeon and begins to treat him like his godfather. Such a mechanism like this works very well for Ik-hyeon in other cases, such as when Hyeong-bae and others are arrested by the local police. All he has to do is finding anyone powerful enough to move the law system in his family tree, to whom he can approach with the money or other kinds of bribes as lubricant through other elder family member who can introduce him as a cousin of uncle of cousin of father of cousin of… never mind.

The director/writer Yoon Jong-bin has been providing the uncomfortable but unflinchingly realistic presentation of the flaws and weakness of South Korean males and their consequent ramification. His first work, “The Unforgiven”(2005), was a low-budget film with the searing insight on how damaging the order of the ranks in South Korean military system is to young men going through their obligatory military service and how meaningless it is outside the system. His second work, “The Moonlight of Seoul”(2008), was a dry, unsentimental film about the daily life of male escorts who are nothing but trouble to the women around them.

“Nameless Gangster”, which is his third work, is no exception. Ik-hyeon is a sleazy ‘half-gangster’ with petty style but no substance. Elated by his new associates, he thinks he is a lion, but he is actually more or less than a greedy, opportunistic hyena who is coward to the strong and pompous to the weak; in other words, he is your average piggish South Korean male during the 1980s who can be far more immoral and unethical than the gang members he is associated with. Compared to him, Hyeong-bae and his gangs look like lesser evil; they certainly are dirty criminals, but they have their own codes and ethics, about which Ik-hyeon cannot care less.

The movie is personal to the director; his father was a high-ranking police officer in Busan, and he witnessed many people visiting his father for a favor, which was not so different from what is shown in the film. Yoon Jong-bin is no Martin Scorsese in case of style and storytelling, but his earnest approach to his story without the glamor we usually expect from gangster films is commendable. The recreation of the 1980s is convincing and realistic to me, especially in case of the cars rode by the characters in the film. I was young at that time, and I wanted to get in those expensive cars like Grandeur made by Hyundai(and I used to get my wish from time to time thanks to my rich relatives).

No matter how they try to look cool, the characters are basically pathetic caricatures stuck in their criminal mindset, but they are colorful ones with which the actors have a ball while doing their job flawlessly. Choi Min-sik, best remembered by the international audiences for his operatic performance in “Oldboy”(2003), is back on his full-throttle mode. His character is so repellent that we do not care about him much, but Choi Min-sik’s riveting performance grips us to his insatiable hunger for power and money. He is a vain and foolish jerk, but he is cunning and manipulative enough to find a way out for himself. We do not like him, but we watch him with amusement and disgust while wondering how far he will go while clashing with others or how he can get out of his troubles.

Choi Min-sik has the terrific ensemble supporting him. Ha Jeong-woo plays his boss character with restrained amusement(this is his third collaboration with the director). Hyeong-bae can tolerate the towering arrogance of his indulgent elder who suddenly become attached to his organization with no reason except their family ties because it is a rule, but he can be ruthless when he thinks it is necessary. Jo Jin-woong, Kim Seong-gyoon, who plays Hyeong-bae’s top lieutenant, and other actors are believable as the individuals of underworld roaming around the streets of Busan; they all wear suits, but you can easily tell apart one from the other even when you do not know their names. Ma Dong-seok is Ik-hyeon’s brother-in-law inadequate as a recruited enforcer(he says he can beat anyone in a fair fight because he is a teakwondo master – I doubt that, though he really is), and Kwak do-won is a bullying prosecutor who is as principled and uncompromising as his ambition and his system allow. Among her co-actors, Kim Hye-eun shines in few scenes as the co-owner of the night club which is the cause of the conflict in the story. As usual, girls know better than boys, and she tries to be tactful as much as she can among her bad boys.

The original Korean title of the film is “War against Crime: Golden Age of the Bad Guys”, which is rather ironic considering how its story ends. The good time is eventually over for these idiotic crooks on October 13th of 1990, when the president of South Korea declared “War Against Crime” on TV and lots of gang members of the criminal organizations around the country were promptly arrested and jailed. There are several betrayals while everything in their world is crumbled down like the house of cards near the finale – and some of the characters will be ended up in prison for a long time.

“Nameless Gangster” is a very entertaining film which is bitingly funny and realistic to me and other South Korean audiences, and you may also enjoy it as a funny guide to the dirty side of South Korean society which still remains with us even after more than 20 years. The movie slyly comments that South Korean government at that time was not that different from the gangsters in the film. The main figures of the government usurped the country with coup d’état just like the gangsters snatch the management rights of nightclubs and hotels with clubs and fists in the film, and, believe or not, there was the time they worked together ‘harmoniously’ when they were useful to each other. As a matter of fact, “War Against Crime” was no more than a public show for the people when the government needed to set an example to cover their latest corruption. In such a society like that, it is no wonder that the line between an ordinary man and a gangster is not clear at all.

Its epilogue reminds us that South Korean society has not been changed much even in the 21th century. People like Ik-hyeon did anything necessary for themselves and their family, and they survive, and they manage to maintain their proud position as someone’s father, or someone’s grandfather later. The movie gives some human side to Ik-hyeon through his few scenes with his family, who gets lots of benefits thanks to his criminal activities. I think he has no regret about his deeds because everything is justified for his family, but how do his kids think about him? I don’t know, but maybe I and other South Korean audiences also have to ask ourselves a question – how did some of our fathers survive through that era for supporting us?

But most of people do not come to Lourdes just for enjoying fresh air and pretty scenery. As some of you know, Lourdes has been well-known as a place of the mass pilgrimage since a young girl named Bernadette Soubirous serially encountered the Marian apparition at the grotto outside the town in 1858(Her story was later fictionalized into the novel which was then adapted into 1943 film “The Song of Bernadette”, for which Jennifer Jones won Best Actress Oscar) and the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes was established a few years later. It was said that the water from the spring in the grotto had healing power, and many people have been visiting that place with the hope of miraculous healing. I have a certain amount of doubts(according to the scientific analysis done by the chemists, the water is just plain underground water), but, anyway, several cases of ‘miraculous healing’(or scientifically inexplicable medical cases, shall I say) were reported, and some of them were officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

However, if God exists, and if God really proves his existence to us through the healing water of Lourdes, we may say he is as generous as Las Vegas casino managers. I used the phrase ‘some of them’ in the paragraph above, but that was a mild expression; only 67 cases were recognized as the authentic miracle by the Church after their thorough investigation process(the last recognized one happened in 2005) – that is quite a low odd considering that the place has been visited by around 200 million people since 1860.

 None the less, the people still have been coming to Lourdes with the hope not so different from the one we have when we come to Las Vegas, although the chance of getting a jackpot is higher than the chance of getting healed by Lourdes water. Whether this is absurd or not, it is good for the town. Around 5 million people come to this small town with the population of 15,000 every season, so the mass pilgrimage has become its main industry. In one brief shot in the film, the people gather together for a group picture with the Rosary Basilica(built in 1899) behind them, and I could not help but think of the castle in Disneyland. Minus their hopes and beliefs, they are more or less than the tourists visiting a theme park.

I am afraid I sound grouchy to you(I must confess; I am a skeptic atheists whose family is officially Buddhist on the record), so I have to assure you that “Lourdes” is neither anti-religious nor religious. Maintaining its neutral position, it calmly observes the people who visit the town and the other people who help them in this religious system. The caregivers are volunteers, and some of them, if not all of them, are devoted to their work. I was a little touched by a young caregiver who has become a little more serious about her duty than before while helping the disabled people.

A group of pilgrims in the film are as diverse as the passengers in the Airport films, coupled with various kinds of illnesses and disabilities. Many of them need wheelchair or walker to move around; some of them can move for themselves, and the others still need others’ help. We see a mother and her mentally ill daughter in wheelchair who have been to Lourdes many times. We also observe a couple of middle-aged women who seem to come here just for tourism(one of them wants her eczema to be cured, but I do not think she is not that serious) and throw sarcastic one-liners from time to time. In case of another middle-aged woman, she is a quiet lady with faith, but she has some questions to ask during this pilgrimage. And we also have the priest, the guards and their chief, and the caregivers and their strict, fastidious supervisor.

But this is not a variation of that famous movie cliché called “Ark movie”. The movie gives us little knowledge about their backgrounds, let alone their names or the information about their illnesses. For instance, one reviewer said one certain character is the other character’s mother, but I am not so sure about that. Some illnesses like dwarfism are quite apparent to our eyes, but, while watching one character in wheelchair, I was not sure about the cause of her general paralysis. Some character suddenly reveals her health status at one point, but it is because her body cannot help itself, not because she wants to show it to others around her; the movie even avoids the possibility of melodrama inside that character and moves on according to the itinerary.

Their procedures over the week observed in the film are interesting to watch even to the outsiders like me. They visit the grotto, and they wait in a long line(the more you are disabled, the sooner you can go inside the grotto), and they bath with Lourdes water or drink it. The blessing ceremony is held at the big hall filled with lots of the people, and there is an amusing sight in which one of them attempts to move closer to the altar because she thinks that will increase the probability of miracle. They watch the video together showing the testimonies of the people who experienced the miracle(or did they?). They and others gather at Rosary square in the evening where the hundreds of candle lights brighten dark night. On the last day, they will have a picnic at the mountain meadow(It’s only for the people who can walk, by the way), and a farewell party in the evening will follow.

Meanwhile, something happens. Is it a miracle? The movie never explains or tries to explain it. There is no music but only silence in that scene, and the camera quietly focuses on one of the pilgrims, Christine(Sylvie Testud), on her bed at one night. And then, she suddenly begins to do something impossible considering her medical condition. On the next morning, everyone is surprised and most of them naturally think it is another miracle from God.

Or is it? She is soon diagnosed by a doctor for confirming whether it is a miracle or not, and the doctor says it might be the temporary recovery observed in many other people who visited Lourdes, but she is happy to be freer than before. Now she does not need the help from others when she wants to enjoy the ice cream for herself at the cafe in the sunny afternoon, and, when she does it, my God, she does look really happy. I do not remember seeing her in other films before except “La Vie en Rose”(2007), but I can say that Sylvie Testud is a wonderful actress. Though she does not move much in her wheelchair, She slowly holds the movie with her serene, weary face while never asking for pity; we come to care about her(well, who can’t?), and we are joyous to see her face far more brightened than before thanks to this sudden happening.

While it is possible that this is not a miracle, there are lots of questions in the film regardless of how you think about it. As one character asks, what should we do if we want a miracle? Is there any particular way for receiving it from the existence high above the sky? And why does God show his power rarely, though he is said to be almighty enough to heal many sick people on the earth who need help? And, at least in some characters’ view, why does God seem to be not so fair, when there must be people more devoted and desperate than Christine? The people in the movie ask such questions and others to the priest from time to time, but the priest does not give any satisfying answer for them – one of his answers is the one you have probably heard many times from the men of monotheistic religions. To be frank with you, I could not help but burst out a laugh when he said that. Oh, come on, father, that is a cliché – but it can be true, perhaps.

The director Jessica Hausner is not judgmental on her subject or her characters. The camera looks at the people like the unseen observer with a cool, objective attitude and carefully composed shots. In the marvelous opening scene, the camera patiently watches the dining hall while it begins to be occupied by the people one by one, and our attention is slowly increased along with a slow, subtle zoom-in. There is a serious undertone, but the movie is not entirely humorless. There is a small funny joke about Jesus and the Virgin Mary told to the priest, who is a man of religion both easy-going and sincere, and I think it will also make my Catholic acquaintances laugh.

The final sequence of the film, the evening party on their last day, reminds me why some of us, if not all of us, need the religion or its alternatives like Alcoholic Anonymous. The life is basically miserable for most of us(after all, we are approaching to the darkness called death from the beginning), and the life is particularly terrible for the people like Christine, and we all are worried about whether our life has a meaning or not except passing the genetic information to the next generation. Regardless of whether God exists or not, it is nice to be with others, and we are consoled at least for a while that we are not alone, like the people in the film. The music plays, and the people drink, and they dance(but only the people who can move legs, of course). The movie treats Testud and the other actors equally as the human beings with each own matters in its austere but humane view. They show envy and skepticism while congratulating Christine, but it is the behavior as human as the young pretty caregivers showing their interest to the young handsome guards.

“Lourdes” is a very thought-provoking film accessible to you even if you do not have a religion; you will have lots of things to talk and discuss about after watching it. When the final single shot of doubt is hurled in the finale, we have another interesting questions about the ambiguous last shot as a consequence; was it not a miracle, after all, or was it ‘cruel’ miracle and God intended it for a different outcome? And how does Christine think about that? I have no clear conclusion even after re-watching, and neither does the film. Testud neither says nor reveals anything at that moment, either – but let’s say she makes an exit as graceful as the movie does.

But I have a sincere wish that they will give it a shot, because the movie is not just a mere homage to the films of the past. The people who made this movie know not only how the silent films during the 1920s look, but also how easily the great silent movies from that era can grip our attention and touch our heart. While you can appreciate its style, you can also care about the story and the characters, and you will be touched by the genuine emotions behind its exemplary technical achievements.

The story is a familiar old-fashioned show business melodrama we have encountered countless time in other films including “The Star is Born”(1954) – and it has a good background for telling the fall of its hero and the rise of its heroine simultaneously. It is late 1920s, and Geroge Valentin(Jean Dujardin) is a quintessential silent film star gleefully enjoying his status at the top. In the opening scene, his latest adventure movie is again received well by the audiences, and he gladly appears in front of the applauding audiences with his usual charming smile at the end of its premiere.

When he comes out of the theater, he accidently comes across a young woman named Peppy Miller(Bérénice Bejo), who is one of his fans as well as an aspiring actress. Their brief encounter luckily helps her career thanks to the reporters surrounding them, so she comes to work in the movie studio where Valentine is one of its major starts. Of course, they meet again later at the movie set, and they soon discover their mutual feelings from each other. As I said, this is a silent film, so they do not talk, but Dujardin and Bejo have nice chemistry together; the scene where Valentin gives Miller one tiny but crucial thing she needs to be a star actress is one of the lovely moments in the film.

 However, their small relationship is interrupted by the sudden progress in their industry. The talkie is introduced, so the new era is about to begin, and Valentin experiences the same decline which many of the silent film actors did during that transition phase. As reflected in “Singin’ in the Rain”(1952), now they must talk in front of the camera, or they will perish into the oblivion. Refusing the talkie, Valentin sees his fame and popularity quickly crashing with the gradual disappearance of silent films. In contrast, Miller is on the rise to her stardom with her talkie films.

The director/writer Michel Hazanavicius made a loving tribute to the silent films of that era he depicts. The screen ratio is 1.33:1 instead of the wide screen ratio we are accustomed to. Its cinematography, production design and costumes are so faithful to the looks and atmospheres it tries to reproduce that you can mistake it for some restored classic film produced during that era. Except the one nightmare scene featuring sound effects and another crucial scene, the soundtrack is mostly covered by the gorgeous score by Ludovic Bource, which is very important in setting the moods and feelings as the scores for the silent films were during that time. There have been some talks about whether it was appropriate to use a part of Bernard Herrmann’s score for “Vertigo” during the melodramatic climax sequence in the film, but, as far as I can see, I do not see any problem with that; they use Herrmann’s music in a respectful way along with the swelling emotions to justify their choice. There is a pretty good chance that Bource will win Best Score Oscar, and, if he does, he deserves the award.

The actors are convincing as the characters living in the world of silent films with the right kind of mannerisms in their performances. Jean Dujardin has received several awards including the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival in the last year for his performance, and he is also nominated for Best Actor Oscar as predicted. In two funny spy parody films directed by Hazanavicius(“OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies”(2006) and “OSS 117: Lost in Rio”(2009)), Dujardin was hilarious as a bumbling(and incorrigibly insensitive) spy while channeling the dashing image of Sean Connery, and now he is channeling the silent film stars like Douglas Fairbanks Jr. As a matter of fact, he could have been a good silent film star; his wonderful work is both delightful and poignant, and the range of emotions – confidence, affection, desperation, rage, and many others – he conveys through his expressive face without any dialogue while swinging through his dramatic character arc is a marvel to behold.

His co-performers are also fun and joy to watch. At his opposite, Bérénice Bejo is marvelous with the quality of the classic movie actress, and their interactions through their faces on the screen remind me why silent films still remain emotionally accessible and effective even when their era ended a long time ago. James Cromwell is reliable as Valentin’s ever-faithful chauffeur, and John Goodman is a nice movie studio boss who willingly follows the change of the trend while feeling sorry about his star. And there is a scene-stealing Jack Russell terrier named Uggy, who plays Valentin’s royal dog. Along with another memorable Jack Russell terrier in “Beginners”(2010), Uggy deserves the award for the best dog performance of 2011.

People around me usually underestimate the power of silent films. I have watched many silent films through DVDs, and I found many of them quite powerful. They do not talk, but they somehow tell me their stories in their own way, and I marvel again and again about how the great silent films work on the emotional level. I fondly remember the moment when I watched “Man with a Movie Camera”(1929) while enthralled by the frantic images and the electrifying performance of Alloy Orchestra at 2010 Ebertfest, Not so long after that, I watched a more restored version of Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis”(1927) in the Jeonju International Film Festival with others, and we were all quietly and completely immersed in that great film during more than 2 hours.

“The Artist” may not be as great or powerful or ambitious as these masterpieces I mentioned above, but it is a small precious germ which is also one of the most charming films in 2011. This is basically exercise in style, but it is a tremendous work with lots of things to be appreciated, and it also has lots of hearts to be felt through its sincere story which is sad but ultimately optimistic. The change is inevitable, but there is always a way to move on(Since this film is a comedy, so this is not a spoiler, folks). I have no idea how the movie will approach to South Korean audiences, but I know one thing for sure; now or then, the silent movies know no language boundary.