It’s hard work to convincingly fake a stutter. Seriously, give it a try. No easy task. This alone makes Colin Firth’s performance something special. Add in all the depth and emotion he brings to his character, and you got yourself a performance made of gold. Firth plays Prince Albert (the man who would later become King George VI), who’s plagued with a debilitating nervous stammer. Knowing that he may soon take the throne, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) hires unorthodox speech therapist Lionel (Geoffrey Rush) to help him. We already know this is going to be one of those stories: the story of how these two people forever make an impact on each others lives and become unlikely friends in the process. Formula inspirational Oscar stuff. But if a film adeptly applies this formula, and manages to do it well, this formula will almost always work without fail. And in the case of THE KING’S SPEECH, it gets the royal treatment it deserves.
Is it the best picture of the year? No. Best ensemble cast? Quite possibly. Helena Bonham Carter, who most have come to identify with the strange roles she’s played in FIGHT CLUB, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, SWEENEY TODD, and the HARRY POTTER series, shines as the King’s loving and supportive wife. What surprised me most with her ability to portray someone sensitive, delicate, determined and, well… normal. And of course she does so while maintaining that ghost white pallor her face always seems to have. But like I said before, this is Firth’s movie, through and through. He engages the audience more so than any other actor this year. He’s very easy to sympathize with, and combined with Lionel’s quirky persona (a fantastic performance from Rush), watching them interact with each other is intriguing, especially in the scenes where Lionel pushes and provokes Albert (hearing Colin Firth curse incessantly–which you will luckily get to experience–is like hilarious music to my ears).
Have you ever had something you wanted to achieve so badly, but the more you failed the more you gave up? Most of the time insisting that it’s impossible is easier than enduring more failed attempts. Albert (or “Bertie” as Lionel likes to call him) has gotten used to using this defense mechanism. In one of the first scenes, it shows him attempting to make a public speech. Watching him stammer like that, the pain and embarrassment so evidently etched into his face, made my heart hurt. The frustration he suffers through afterwards was palpable. During his first grudging visit to Lionel, Lionel does something rather interesting: he has Albert put on headphones with loud music playing (preventing him from being able to hear his own voice) and has him read something aloud. Lionel, who had been recording Albert’s reading, gives him the record for him to listen to on his own convenience. In perhaps my favorite scene, Albert listens to the recording…and hears his voice, the voice he is so used to loathing and hearing crack in the middle of his choppy sentences, speaking clearly. And so Albert and Lionel’s journey begins.
When the inevitable speech came at the end of the movie, I was holding my breath. I knew he was going to prevail. But nevertheless, I wanted it so badly, and Lionel, Albert and Elizabeth wanted it so badly, that we were like one joint unit. The end shot is exactly like you would expect–when Albert walks outside after his speech, surrounded by people congratulating him, he makes eye contact with Lionel and they smile at each other in solidarity, Karate-Kid-style. And who am I kidding, I was right there with them, a proud smile plastered on my face.
Rating: A-
Jack Black only knows how to play one person: Jack Black. This is pivotal information, because whether or not you like Jack Black is a key factor in deciphering whether or not you will be able to enjoy GULLIVER’S TRAVELS in the slightest. How much you love the childhood story is irrelevant. Jack Black is key.
Like I was saying, Jack Black plays Jack Black, only in the film he goes by a different name, Gulliver. When we first see him he’s playing with two Star Wars action figures, employing voices and all. He plays Guitar Hero in between breaks at work. We have a hardcore nerd (in the worst sense) on our hands here. Gulliver works in the mail room at a travel magazine, his place of work for the past 11 years. Probably the only thing keeping him content there is his insane crush on Darcy (Amanda Peet), a travel editor at the magazine. He knows he’s just drifting through life, letting it pass him by. He’s even referred to (more than once, I might add) by himself and others as “the little guy in the mail room” (pun much?). But big things (see, I can do it ,too) are soon to happen to Gulliver. When Darcy asks him to take on an assignment at sea to report on the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, the fun begins. While at sea, Gulliver gets caught in a terrible storm (but I suspect the special effects were worse to endure than the storm), and he wakes up to find himself tied down, and surrounded by an army of little people… lots and lots of little, thumb-sized people, in a strange land called Liliput.
A world where Jack Black is a giant. Oh the possibilities. A house is on fire and all the people inside are going to burn to death! So, of course, Gulliver pees on it. To be honest, I was just relieved that they didn’t show us a giant version of Jack Black’s member in 3-D. We are subjected to his ass in 3-D, but hey, you win some, you lose some. You’d be surprised how good the cast is though, especially for a silly movie like this that has only had bad buzz surrounding it since the debut of its first trailer. Our main Liliputians are played by Emily Blunt, Jason Segel, and Billy Connolly. Blunt plays the beautiful Princess Mary, and Segel the lowly commoner who fancies her, Horatio. Their charm was the saving grace of the film, and I have to admit that I enjoyed watching Gulliver coach Horatio in the real way to court a woman. Most of the humor was flat though, and more often than not we’re overwhelmed with pop culture reference after pop culture reference – TITANIC, Kiss, Marky Mark, you name it – and while amusing, referencing to things of much more value than the film you’re starring in does not a good movie make.
Rating: C
MEET THE PARENTS is a modern classic. Who can forget seeing Robert De Niro hook Ben Stiller up to a lie detector machine, or Stiller trying to describe how to milk a cat? Then came MEET THE FOCKERS, which thanks to the fresh new presence of Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman as Greg’s eccentric parents, was amusing enough. Now the excuse (and trust me, it is nothing more than a poor excuse) for the 3rd one: it’s time to meet the baby Fockers! Greg and Pam have been happily married for 10 years, and now have two adorable twins. When the whole family gets together to celebrate the twins’ birthday, havoc ensues (surprise!).
Lately it seems like there is a distinct downside to creating something good: it will almost always lead to something bad. The humor that made MEET THE PARENTS the great movie that it was–there are no traces of that wit or relevance here. Relying almost entirely on mistaken situations (ones that could very easily be cleared up if God forbid any of the characters had the foresight to actually communicate with each other), tired movie references (Godfocker, really??), and physical humor, LITTLE FOCKERS is nothing more than the product of a studio that wants more money, and actors that clearly didn’t have any better options…not to mention a god-awful script. I mean really, the director of the first two peaced out on this one for a damn good reason. Although significantly downgraded in quality, we do get some of the same old, same old, “I’m watching you”, De Niro-style material…which I would have been fine with, perfectly content with even–if it were not for the fact that any time the film deviated from the same old, it found itself in comedy-for-retards territory. Kids projectile vomiting is NOT funny, no matter what anyone says. One of the horrendous additions to the film was Jessica Alba playing a peppy drug company rep. Yeah she’s gorgeous, I don’t think anyone needs to be convinced of that. But no amount of hotness could detract anyone from how annoying and mind-numbingly ditsy her character is. If I were a doctor (or a nurse, in Greg’s case), I would stay as far as humanly possible away from any drug she’s associated with. Anyone who raises their fist and says “knuckles” to try and gain my good graces will not succeed.
A friend of mine referred to LITTLE FOCKERS as “as good as you can expect from the 3rd of the franchise”. To me, that’s not good enough. Why make a third if you already know its going to be mediocre? Because the filmmakers are guaranteed to make loads of money, that’s why. So the more pressing question must be asked: Why see the 3rd if even the trailer looks mediocre? I know why people will see it. It’s the same reason why I had a shred of hope that it might actually exceed my expectations. I just love these characters. Unfortunately, when the third in the franchise plays out like the pointless, not just mediocre, but bad, movie it is, I have to warn all those tempted to waste their money: re-watch the first two again instead. You still have the chance to keep your love of the characters and the first film in tact. It’s too late for me.
Rating: C-
I’ve never been a western kinda gal. Most westerns I’ve tried to watch carry that slow-like-molasses pace, employing those same ingredients time and time again. I’ve come to believe that if I’ve seen one good western, I’ve seen them all. The Coen brothers seem to be the only filmmakers that can make me not only tolerate a western, but actually enjoy it. Due in no small part to all around excellent performances from the cast and a sharp and witty script, TRUE GRIT will be a western lover’s new favorite movie…and worthy journey even for those who are indifferent to the genre. A remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, TRUE GRIT follows Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) a 14-year old girl who hires U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to help track down her father’s murderer (Josh Brolin).
The film’s best quality is how well defined the characters are, Mattie especially. She’s a headstrong girl; she’s not afraid to haggle with someone if she feels they’re trying to take advantage of her financially, and she never passes up the opportunity to threaten people with legal action. In short, she’s quite a pistol. I wish I had some of her spunk when I was her age. Paired with the eye-patch-wearing, words-slurring Cogburn, they make quite an interesting duo. Bridges takes on his role as Cogburn with full force. It may not be remembered years to come like his iconic role as “The Dude” in the Coen brothers’ THE BIG LEBOWSKI, but he does a hell of a job as this rough around the edges drunk…maybe even worthy of an Oscar nomination. Matt Damon rounds out the main cast as LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger helping Mattie and Cogburn who’s keen on bringing down the same man. This is Damon like you’ve never seen him. He’s not using his pretty boy looks here, especially in one shocking scene when he spanks the crap out of Mattie because she pisses him off. Damon, is that really you? He could have fooled me.
What kept me going, even during the “slow” parts when not much was going on, was the unexpected humor. Filled with some great one-liners, TRUE GRIT found a steady balance of laughs, shoot-outs, and suspense. The best way to keep a viewer interested? Don’t give them what they crave until the last possible moment. While watching I felt so bad for Mattie; she wants to avenge her fathers death, wants to bring his killer to justice, and people are giving her a hard time because of her age. But I felt for her cause, and I wanted that bastard dead. When you have an actor as famous and capable as Brolin in the role of the killer, you’d expect the film to use him as much as possible. Instead, the Coen brothers wisely don’t even show him until the very end, when Mattie comes face to face with him. They make the most out of his super short screen time though, with an end that kicks the crap out of the one in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (sorry, but I’ll never understand that abrupt ending)… an end that is both satisfying and fitting. Delicious retribution delivered!
Rating: B+
I usually react in one of two possible ways after seeing a truly awful movie. Most often, I want to find a gun and shoot all those involved dead…but sometimes (albeit rarely), the second reaction occurs: I leave the theater not angry, but baffled. Instead of wanting the filmmakers to die a painful death, I instead, ironic as it may seem, want to be in their company; I want nothing more than to amiably sit down with those involved, and have a real, honest conversation with them during which I would get to ask them the inevitable question: why, why, did you think making this movie was a good idea? Because really, I want to know. I want to shake hands with those who pitched the idea and got it green lit, because they are clearly Jedi masters of bullshit. This phenomenon occurred as I walked out of the theater in a daze after experiencing YOGI BEAR. To be fair, YOGI BEAR isn’t the suicide bombing I was expecting…just a simple train wreck.
If you’re under the age of seven (and I would be really weirded out if any of you out there reading this were), then maybe you’ll find some fulfillment from the non-stop slapstick of YOGI BEAR. We get bears who walk and talk like humans, steal picnic baskets, hurt themselves (constantly), dance, water ski and steal more picnic baskets…which, believe me, gets very old, very quickly. Why is any of this funny? Because they’re bears! Get it?? No, I don’t either. And all of this is somehow squeezed into a thin plot involving a documentary filmmaker, Erica (Anna Faris), who comes to Jellystone Park to make a movie about Yogi (Dan Aykroyd) and Boo-Boo (Justin Timberlake). When greedy Mayor Brown decides to shut down the park and sell the land (there always needs to be a villain, right?), Yogi, Boo-Boo, Ranger Smith and Erica must find a way to save the park before it’s too late.
I’ll admit, Boo-Boo is so adorable (and very well-voiced by Timberlake) that when I was staring into his big brown eyes, for a few seconds I would forget that I was in a no-laughs movie that will make any parent dragged to it by their child wish they opted for an abortion. I love kids’ movies. Hell, TANGLED, TOY STORY 3, and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON are three of my favorite movies of the year. So I know the difference between a good animated movie, and one that exerts no effort into the script. These writers know that they don’t need to be clever in order to sell movie tickets to preschool kids and their parents (at 3-D prices, no less), and they fully take advantage of that fact. The 3-D was pretty great, but that fact just made me all the angrier that this technology would be used to charge innocent people more money for a movie as unworthy as YOGI BEAR.
Rating: D+
When I started hearing the non-stop hype surrounding THE FIGHTER, I was honestly a little annoyed. What says “Oscar bait” more than an inspirational boxing movie that’s based on a true story? Do we really need another one of these? The list of acclaimed boxing movies is endless: RAGING BULL, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, ALI, CINDERELLA MAN, ROCKY, and so on and so forth. Nonetheless, despite my prejudices, I must admit that THE FIGHTER is a fantastic addition into the genre. The film is about the early years of real life fighter Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), and his brother and trainer Dicky (Christian Bale), who helped lead him to a title win. While I am getting tired of seeing another one of these movies come out every single year, I’m starting to understand the fascination they bring out in people. To have a dream like this, and to go after it with such fervor, is no easy feat. It’s painful. It’s humiliating. And you need to have your wits about you to be able to knock down someone bigger than you–or as we saw in one of the movie’s best scenes, someone who has 20 pounds on you.
Wahlberg plays Micky sincerely and with the amount of heart necessary for someone with his resilience. What takes the film from good to great though, is Christian Bale’s phenomenal performance. I read somewhere that people who came across Bale while filming mistook him for the real Dicky. Now I don’t know anything about what the real guy was like, but Bale plays the character so specifically, with such a particular way of walking and speaking, that I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true. With his many layers, this is no easy character to play; Dicky wants so badly to have a second shot at glory and to be there for his family, but drugs and crime get in the way, leading to him having a stint in prison. A lot of the film (and at times maybe more than I would have preferred) focuses on the family dynamic, but not just the one between Micky and Dicky; it extends even further, bringing their mother (Melissa Leo) and many sisters into the mix as well. I felt like I totally knew all these people. I understood their jealously (much of it directed towards Micky’s bartender girlfriend Charlene, a wonderfully unexpected performance from Amy Adams) and dependence on Micky’s boxing career, even though they were far from likable. The fighting scenes were spectacular, and at times, I wished there was more fighting than family drama, because those scenes were just that good. And this is coming from someone who actually dislikes boxing.
Rating: B+
If you’re seeing BLACK SWAN because you want to see a “dance movie,” then you’re seeing it for the wrong reasons. This thriller is as far as you can get from the likes of CENTER STAGE, and it is its intensity, boldness, and blatant sexuality that will seduce any viewer…or at least those who can handle it. When Nina (Natalie Portman) gets cast in the coveted role of the Swan Queen in a new take on the classic ballet Swan Lake, everyone knows she’s perfect to play the role of the naive, innocent white swan… but can she play the evil, seductive black swan as well? This is the question that’s posed numerous times by the artistic director, Thomas (Vincent Cassel). In one scene, Thomas invites Nina back to his place for drinks. While there, he asks if she’s a virgin. I was taken aback by his bluntness towards Nina, but it’s understandable why someone might think she is. With her soft-spoken nature, over-protective mother who she still lives with, and her somewhat reserved, straight-laced manner, she’s like a poster child for purity. It’s not much later that we meet her exact opposite, Lily (Mila Kunis). She’s outspoken, and her every look, every movement is dripping with sensuality. Plus, at least to Nina, she seems to be after her and her role.
Director Darren Aronofsky has crafted a uniquely remarkable film. His combination of the grace and elegance of dance with the horror that Nina is experiencing is one that you would never expect to go well together… but in fact, they run parallel to and compliment each other much like the two roles Nina must master. There are a multitude of cringe-worthy scenes, some which had me covering my eyes long after the shot was over just to ensure to myself that it was, in fact, over. If you’re squeamish about fingernails, then you’ll be doing the same. Don’t be surprised if you hear gasps echo throughout the theater during some scenes (I’d be more surprised if you didn’t). Much of the time, it’s not even what’s on screen that’s causing anxiety in the viewer, but the way the film plays them up. Instead of overwhelming the audience with your standard “things popping out at you” gimmick to get a scare, we’re almost always exposed to the characters’ horrified reactions first… and then the horror that they are seeing/experiencing. There is no shortage of trippy, psychosis-inducing imagery in this movie.
Natalie Portman is, without a doubt, as good as she’s ever been. She not only looks like a ballet dancer (thanks to losing 20 pounds and 8 hours of training a day) but she dances so beautifully that it’s like she’s been doing it all her life. She manages to jump from her natural, white swan demeanor to her paranoid, disturbed self with the snap of a finger. From the very beginning of the film, Nina’s mother often calls her her “sweet girl”…and while she seems as sweet as sugar, you can just tell that underneath the surface she’s a little off-balanced. With a movie like this, it’s really hard to try and talk about it to someone who hasn’t seen it. Anything I say about it will make it seem like the absolute strangest movie (which, granted, it is)… but it’s one that you must experience for yourself to fully understand just why every movie fan can’t stop talking about BLACK SWAN.
Rating: A
How do you know a movie sucks? When you constantly look over at The Kidd with eyes pleading to promptly leave the theater, that’s how. I consider myself to be somewhat of a “chick flick connoisseur”…but I’m now embarrassed to admit that I found myself endlessly hopeful that HOW DO YOU KNOW would be the movie to reinstate the impression that chick flicks can actually be great movies. Let’s look at the facts: it’s written and directed by James L. Brooks, the mind behind AS GOOD AS IT GETS. This alone was enough to spark my interest. Then add in a stellar cast made up of Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson, and well…how can you blame me for expecting something worthwhile? With 90% of the funny moments coming straight from the trailer, HOW DO YOU KNOW leaves us with a movie that’s 100% unnecessary.
Once upon a time there existed a thing called a “plot”. However, HOW DO YOU KNOW seems to have sidestepped this useless device (insert sarcasm here), choosing instead to center the movie around four unlikable characters. No, really. Nothing happens in this movie. Zip. Zero. Zilch. And instead of just putting us out of our misery after an hour and a half, someone somewhere allowed for this movie (with, let me say it again) NOTHING going on, to run to two full hours. Two full hours of four unlikable characters biting each other’s heads off and arguing… sometimes with no real reason other than because they want to argue. The main character is Lisa (Witherspoon), a 31-year-old athlete who just found out that her softball career is at an end. Witherspoon, who I view at the epitome of “girly” (she’ll always be Elle Woods to me), surprisingly plays the jock gal well. But nevertheless, at times I found it supremely hard to like her. She keeps jumping from a horrendous relationship with Matty (Wilson, playing the big-time athlete/womanizer) to entertaining the idea of starting one with George (Rudd, totally in his element as an awkward but sweet guy in a financial crisis), who she has absolutely no chemistry with.
The main problem with this is that no one likes watching someone who’s indecisive… especially when there’s no reason for her to be with either guy in the first place. She changes her mind so many times within the last hour of the film that it was headache-inducing (can you say whiplash?). If I was able to get on board with at least one character, or if I even cared in the slightest when that obligatory end kiss came with the “lucky” (psh) man she choose, then maybe I would have been able to enjoy a light movie with some laughs. But unfortunately, once a romantic comedy loses its romance, then its condemned to rom-com hell, and, in the case of HOW DO YOU KNOW, it’s not finding redemption any time soon.
Rating: D
Never before has such blatant lovemaking between a cinematographer and actress taken place right before the audience’s eyes. Verging on obnoxious and exploitive, THE TOURIST is an hour and forty minutes of showcasing Angelina Jolie’s breathtaking beauty… yet unfortunately, not her acting ability, which I can only assume is hidden somewhere underneath all that expertly applied makeup on her face. I’m not even sure if this is her fault for taking the role, the screenwriters’ fault for writing such boring characters, or the director’s fault for directing them as such…but nevertheless, I can almost hear the director in the background shouting for Angelina to lift her face so that her cheekbones perfectly catch the light, while keeping that same private smile on her face for the entire film… even while she’s being shot at. That’s one of the major downfalls THE TOURIST suffers from; the constant calmness of the characters (Depp in particular) makes the already lackluster action that much less interesting. I don’t know about you, but if I’m being constantly shot at, I feel like that would be a good time to become the least bit panicked… especially if you’re just a poor innocent “tourist” (and yes, you will hear that word used an obscene number of times throughout the film).
The role of this innocent American tourist is filled by Johnny Depp, who plays Frank, a man who meets the mysterious Elise while on a train to Venice. What he thinks is a chance encounter soon turns into a situation of mistaken identities, leading Frank and Elise on a run for their lives. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t amused by THE TOURIST. The more the movie progressed, the more ridiculous it became. It was such an experiment in bad filmmaking at times that it was fun to watch, if for no other reason than to laugh at it. Accompanied by an embarrassingly over-melodramatic score that would randomly come on out of nowhere, it seemed like a student filmmaker’s idea of how to rev-up a movie while requiring the actors to do as little acting as possible.
All in All, THE TOURIST is a mediocre addition to the Angelina-Jolie-spy-movie genre, one that somehow manages to take two of the hottest stars out there today, and one of the most beautiful cities in the world, only to produce one of the silliest movies now in theaters.
Rating: C-
Quirkiness and charm need to come naturally. If a movie tries too hard to emanate these qualities, severe backlash occurs – instead of coming off as off-beat and original, they end up feeling unnecessary and annoying. Well, welcome to TAMARA DREWE: a soap opera-like, British sex romp (minus the sex appeal) with too many characters to keep straight, or to even care to try. When Tamara Drewe, a once ugly duckling turned sex kitten (thanks to a nose job) returns to her old family farm where she grew up to settle her late mothers estate, she turns the whole village upside down, including an old flame, has-been rock star Ben (Dominic Cooper), 15-year-old Jody who’s in love with Ben, and the writers at a farmhouse retreat. With snippets of clever British humor, TAMARA DREWE seesaws back and forth from having a good direction to trying too hard to be quirky and different…making it feel like a girl who seems attractive at first glance, but when you get closer, see that she has pounds of makeup caked onto her face. And unfortunately, TAMARA DREWE wasn’t even particularly attractive from far away.
The performances were good enough, I suppose; despite her particularly boring character, Gemma Arterton plays Tamara with the teasing nature that would drive any guy of any age insane. But the real star, I must say, is her daisy-duked ass—which is given far more screen time than the actresses face…or any other actors’ for that matter. Even so, the film is so flat at times, and I had such indifference towards all of the characters and their relationships, that no number of shots of her ass half hanging out of her shorts brings the sizzle the movie needed to actually get cooking.
Rating: C-