Of the movies that have come out this year, there are only a small select few that I can say are the best of the year, and The King’s Speech is one of them. Again there is not much else to be said other than how fantastic the actors were and how well made this movie was.
Colin Firth is fantastic as the stuttering Duke of York (Prince Albert) who later became King George VI. Everyone from the leads to the small supporting cast such as Jennifer Ehle (Pride and Prejudice the 5 hour version), Timothy Spall, and Derek Jacobi, there is hardly a thing I would change, and that is saying much.
Tom Hooper, the director of great TV films and series such as John Adams and Elizabeth I, did his first theatrical film last year, The Damned United (pardon the title). That being one of my all time favorites, he tops himself this year. He has a unique way of editing his movies and shooting them. Nothing is ever centered and he uses that to genius. The set pieces are elegant and historically accurate, much like the costumes. But where other period pieces are led astray, your attention is on the actor in them and not the surroundings. And like his previous films, this is no exception. We do not dwell on the beautiful sets and gorgeous dresses and suits, but we look at Colin Firth or Geoffrey Rush or Helena Bonham Carter. And that is quite the feat.
If you get a chance to see this movie, without hesitation, see it. It doesn’t matter if you can’t or don’t see R films, because the only reason why it is R is because there are two scenes where Colin Firth uses the f-word to help with his speech therapy, so it has to R. So see it if you love these films and see it if you don’t.
*Like many other movies such as The Dark Knight or No Country For Old Men, if I could, I would give it more stars
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Tourist (The short version*):2 stars
The Tourist was a fun movie, and that is all. Nothing great, nothing catchy about it, The Tourist was a slight disappointment. With a great cast like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie (how is surprisingly the best in the movie *cue the torches and pitchforks*) and Paul Bettany. The movie was a rehash of the much more energetic and masterful Duplicity (review coming soon). The twists and romance and complexity of Duplicity were being copied in this movie and are utterly seen by those who have seen said movie. There is not much to be said other than it being poor filmmaking. The only plusses were Angelina Jolie, the music (who composed Duplicity and composes music that would have worked as well in Duplicity). Don’t see it.
*A longer version may be coming later
*A longer version may be coming later
Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges: 2 stars;5 stars
Jeff Bridges is a fine actor, one of the best American actors at work today. I have never been a diehard fan of him, but I appreciate his work and see why so many like him. After watching him in K-Pax and in The Big Lebowski, I learned how good he can be. But he has made a few bad films. Tron: Legacy and True Grit are his two most recent movies, one was good and one was great.
Tron: Legacy has too many flaws to be considered a great movie, Jeff Bridges being one of those. He tries too hard in his acting, giving to much force to either the good guy or the bad guy. And with all the technological marvels in this movie, they still cannot upgrade the aging-backwards technology. The look of a younger Jeff Bridges still makes it look like they injected Botox into his face. And what is with those creepy, out of this world, eyes? This movie is far from being one of the best movies of 2010. There are good thing in the acting too, like Michael Sheen and Olivia Wilde, nut where the movie flourishes are the visual effects. There is no other upside to the confusing, ridiculous sequel that may have children and older audiences cheering, but not much else.
It is True Grit that Jeff Bridges shines all the rest of his performances. The whole movie is a masterpiece by the extremely talented and genius Coen Brothers. Nothing is bad in this movie, not one major flaw that I can find (there are flaws, just nothing big). It is among one of the most genius pieces of filmmaking that I have seen in a long time. Every actor, every set, every musical note (composed by the mediocre Carter Burwell who finally has made a score that I enjoy), and every word said is a stroke of genius. This one is a must see.
See True Grit. Avoid Tron: Legacy
Tron: Legacy has too many flaws to be considered a great movie, Jeff Bridges being one of those. He tries too hard in his acting, giving to much force to either the good guy or the bad guy. And with all the technological marvels in this movie, they still cannot upgrade the aging-backwards technology. The look of a younger Jeff Bridges still makes it look like they injected Botox into his face. And what is with those creepy, out of this world, eyes? This movie is far from being one of the best movies of 2010. There are good thing in the acting too, like Michael Sheen and Olivia Wilde, nut where the movie flourishes are the visual effects. There is no other upside to the confusing, ridiculous sequel that may have children and older audiences cheering, but not much else.
It is True Grit that Jeff Bridges shines all the rest of his performances. The whole movie is a masterpiece by the extremely talented and genius Coen Brothers. Nothing is bad in this movie, not one major flaw that I can find (there are flaws, just nothing big). It is among one of the most genius pieces of filmmaking that I have seen in a long time. Every actor, every set, every musical note (composed by the mediocre Carter Burwell who finally has made a score that I enjoy), and every word said is a stroke of genius. This one is a must see.
See True Grit. Avoid Tron: Legacy
Monday, December 20, 2010
Capote v. Infamous
Within a year, there were two movies that came out about the famous (or should I say infamous) Truman Capote. Both of these films revolve around the story behind how he wrote his most famous and last book, In Cold Blood. These films are Capote and Infamous.
Capote is the more famous one, having been nominated and won several awards. The tone of the film is much more dramatic and intense than that of Infamous, which is good. These events that take place are not fun loving, goofy little scenarios. They are important and should be taken seriously. That is where Infamous goes off the deep end. Everything seems to be a joke and Douglas McGrath (the director) takes every opportunity to make the audience laugh, even when he shouldn’t.
Now the acting was quite good for each of these movies. I dislike Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) with a fiery passion. He is a terrible actor who can never correctly portray the characters well. Toby Jones (Infamous), however, is a fantastic actor who I always have enjoyed watching him, whether it be Amazing Grace, The Painted Veil, or The Old Curiosity Shop, he has never disappointed me. The descriptions of these actors have one exception, their own respective Truman Capote performance. Hoffman is AMAZING as Truman and deserved any of the awards he received for it, and Toby Jones performance was good, but I did not believe that I saw Truman Capote, just some gay man that was trying to write some novel.
The rest of the cast for both of these films were tremendous, especially the supporting cast for Infamous. Sigourney Weaver, Juliet Stevenson, Jeff Daniels, and Sandra Bullock all were great in their portrayals of these people. Other than Toby Jones, Daniel Craig is the only actor that I can pick out every actor in that movie and say was bad (which is sad because I normally like him). In Capote, I only know three of the other actors besides Hoffman and all three are good: Catherine Keener (who is as good as Sandra Bullock in the role of Nelle Harper Lee), Chris Cooper (better than Jeff Daniels as Alvin Dewey, the investigator of the crime), and Bruce Greenwood (who is great but I do not know who played his character in Infamous).
Over all, Capote was the surprising better of the two. Infamous has a great cast and a great director, but not all are at the top of their game. Capote is where this story stands on its own two feet in acting, screenwriting, and editing.
Capote: 4 stars/Infamous: 3 stars
Later this week: Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges and The Tourist.
Capote is the more famous one, having been nominated and won several awards. The tone of the film is much more dramatic and intense than that of Infamous, which is good. These events that take place are not fun loving, goofy little scenarios. They are important and should be taken seriously. That is where Infamous goes off the deep end. Everything seems to be a joke and Douglas McGrath (the director) takes every opportunity to make the audience laugh, even when he shouldn’t.
Now the acting was quite good for each of these movies. I dislike Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) with a fiery passion. He is a terrible actor who can never correctly portray the characters well. Toby Jones (Infamous), however, is a fantastic actor who I always have enjoyed watching him, whether it be Amazing Grace, The Painted Veil, or The Old Curiosity Shop, he has never disappointed me. The descriptions of these actors have one exception, their own respective Truman Capote performance. Hoffman is AMAZING as Truman and deserved any of the awards he received for it, and Toby Jones performance was good, but I did not believe that I saw Truman Capote, just some gay man that was trying to write some novel.
The rest of the cast for both of these films were tremendous, especially the supporting cast for Infamous. Sigourney Weaver, Juliet Stevenson, Jeff Daniels, and Sandra Bullock all were great in their portrayals of these people. Other than Toby Jones, Daniel Craig is the only actor that I can pick out every actor in that movie and say was bad (which is sad because I normally like him). In Capote, I only know three of the other actors besides Hoffman and all three are good: Catherine Keener (who is as good as Sandra Bullock in the role of Nelle Harper Lee), Chris Cooper (better than Jeff Daniels as Alvin Dewey, the investigator of the crime), and Bruce Greenwood (who is great but I do not know who played his character in Infamous).
Over all, Capote was the surprising better of the two. Infamous has a great cast and a great director, but not all are at the top of their game. Capote is where this story stands on its own two feet in acting, screenwriting, and editing.
Capote: 4 stars/Infamous: 3 stars
Later this week: Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges v. Jeff Bridges and The Tourist.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Chronicles of Narnia: 4 stars;2 stars; 4 stars
The Chronicles of Narnia are the greatest children’s books ever written. But it is unfair to call them children’s books. The morals and ethics and stories they teach and tell are meant for people of all ages. One thing about the adaptations of these books into movies have done is keep C.S. Lewis’ teachings intact. The analogies to God and the many Christian aspects of Aslan and these characters are apparent. And that, in and of itself, is a reason to watch these movies. They aren’t just for entertainment; they are here to help teach us as an audience to be better as humans.
The first film, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, may have its flaws here and there, but they are few. Some dislike the child actors, some dislike the battles because they are not as cool as those of the PG-13 or R battles, but considering how many terrible child actors are out there and hat this is a PG film meant for little kids, the actors and the battles are good. The pros of this film far outweigh the bad.
The four children actors, Georgie Henley (Lucy) and Skander Keynes (Edmund) and Anna Popplewell (Susan) and William Moseley (Peter), are all good in their own way in this film. Considering how many terrible child actors there are out in film and television, these four did a good job. William Moseley (Peter, the whiny boy) is the weakest link of all of them, but that, to me, isn’t as apparent until Prince Caspian. The other three, especially the surprising Georgie Henley as Lucy, are great with their adult co-stars.
Where these movies really shine are the adult actors and the voice talents, with the likes of Liam Neeson and Ray Winstone and Rupert Everett doing the voices for Aslan and Mr. Beaver and Mr. Fox. Tilda Swinton is exceptionally charming and scary as the White Witch. James McAvoy is really loveable as Mr. Tumnus. A+ across the board.
Prince Caspian is where the films take a turn for the worst. The screenplay writers did a great adaptation for the first, but something went wrong and the second one fell short in both characterization and plot. Just like the first, the adult characters were all marvelous, some of them, yes even I, never heard of before. The younger actors were not directed well enough to be as good as they originally were. They botched Peter’s character and nobility from the books, added unnecessary battles that could have all been avoided if they had kept to the book, and ruined the look of the perfect Aslan from the first. And Mr. Gregson-William’s score for this one was almost a complete rehash of his previous work.
And now we get to the most recent installment. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was as visually stunning and nigh perfect as the first. Where this film lacked was in the special effects. The new actors and old actors alike were all good, especially young Will Poulter who plays the newcomer Eustace Scrubb (he actually sounds like an adult; a child not just talking like an adult, but sounding like one). Fans of the book will be glad to know the majority of the events are in this one, but in a different order. Elements were left out, but not to the quantity as Prince Caspian had. This one was a good addition to the series, maybe better than the first. Fans will enjoy it.
Next: The Tourist
The first film, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, may have its flaws here and there, but they are few. Some dislike the child actors, some dislike the battles because they are not as cool as those of the PG-13 or R battles, but considering how many terrible child actors are out there and hat this is a PG film meant for little kids, the actors and the battles are good. The pros of this film far outweigh the bad.
The four children actors, Georgie Henley (Lucy) and Skander Keynes (Edmund) and Anna Popplewell (Susan) and William Moseley (Peter), are all good in their own way in this film. Considering how many terrible child actors there are out in film and television, these four did a good job. William Moseley (Peter, the whiny boy) is the weakest link of all of them, but that, to me, isn’t as apparent until Prince Caspian. The other three, especially the surprising Georgie Henley as Lucy, are great with their adult co-stars.
Where these movies really shine are the adult actors and the voice talents, with the likes of Liam Neeson and Ray Winstone and Rupert Everett doing the voices for Aslan and Mr. Beaver and Mr. Fox. Tilda Swinton is exceptionally charming and scary as the White Witch. James McAvoy is really loveable as Mr. Tumnus. A+ across the board.
Prince Caspian is where the films take a turn for the worst. The screenplay writers did a great adaptation for the first, but something went wrong and the second one fell short in both characterization and plot. Just like the first, the adult characters were all marvelous, some of them, yes even I, never heard of before. The younger actors were not directed well enough to be as good as they originally were. They botched Peter’s character and nobility from the books, added unnecessary battles that could have all been avoided if they had kept to the book, and ruined the look of the perfect Aslan from the first. And Mr. Gregson-William’s score for this one was almost a complete rehash of his previous work.
And now we get to the most recent installment. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was as visually stunning and nigh perfect as the first. Where this film lacked was in the special effects. The new actors and old actors alike were all good, especially young Will Poulter who plays the newcomer Eustace Scrubb (he actually sounds like an adult; a child not just talking like an adult, but sounding like one). Fans of the book will be glad to know the majority of the events are in this one, but in a different order. Elements were left out, but not to the quantity as Prince Caspian had. This one was a good addition to the series, maybe better than the first. Fans will enjoy it.
Next: The Tourist
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Killing Bill Indeed: 5 stars each
Tarantino is one of the great of directors of our time (one of the worst actors, though). I have given reviews on some of his other films previously, but now I have finally seen Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2.
The movies are both greatly shot and written. Tarantino is a very creative writer. He mixes slower scenes with faster paced scenes very well because of his writing. There are many great one-liners and stories that the characters say throughout the film. However, the first one is the best because of the fighting.
The best thing about the first film is the bloody mess that the Bride creates as she searches for Bill. In the second film, we do not get that much fun in the second. The second film is more psychological horror than just a bloody horror. Quentin Tarantino does a very good job using this, but it isn’t nearly as much fun to watch.
The only problems I can really find with this movie are Uma Thurman and a few inconsistencies in the script. We do not hear the Bride’s name throughout the first film. It is bleeped out every time someone says it until the end of the movie. I think they should have kept it a mystery forever and we only know her by the Bride. And just like Pulp Fiction, this is one of Thurman’s best role. Granted, it is not a great performance, but definitely well for her. There are plenty of other actresses that could have plaid her.
Good movies, if you like gory films and don’t mind a f-word or s-word or b-word every other word.
The movies are both greatly shot and written. Tarantino is a very creative writer. He mixes slower scenes with faster paced scenes very well because of his writing. There are many great one-liners and stories that the characters say throughout the film. However, the first one is the best because of the fighting.
The best thing about the first film is the bloody mess that the Bride creates as she searches for Bill. In the second film, we do not get that much fun in the second. The second film is more psychological horror than just a bloody horror. Quentin Tarantino does a very good job using this, but it isn’t nearly as much fun to watch.
The only problems I can really find with this movie are Uma Thurman and a few inconsistencies in the script. We do not hear the Bride’s name throughout the first film. It is bleeped out every time someone says it until the end of the movie. I think they should have kept it a mystery forever and we only know her by the Bride. And just like Pulp Fiction, this is one of Thurman’s best role. Granted, it is not a great performance, but definitely well for her. There are plenty of other actresses that could have plaid her.
Good movies, if you like gory films and don’t mind a f-word or s-word or b-word every other word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)