The Ghost Writer (****1/2)

I vaguely recall when The Ghost Writer was released in theaters very early in the year, and i'm sure I just passed it off as a less-than-satisfactory winter thriller. After all, how many decent movies are released in the first months of any year? How shocked was I to discover that The Ghost Writer is definitely one of the best movies of the year!

Roman Polanski is a director I am not too familiar with, aside from The Pianist and his 60's horror flick Rosemary's Baby. While he is an exceptionally visual and emotional director, I think his work with The Ghost Writer could easily qualify as some of his best work.

The film is a great homage to the work of Hitchcock. It is in the silent moments that suspense is created - what we don't see as opposed to on-screen action. The story follows Ewan McGregor, a ghost writer assigned to complete the memoirs of a former Prime Minister, played with surprising depth and quality by Pierce Brosnan. As the past is resurfaced, current dramas and scandals arise, and the film takes an intensely thrilling turn. I can't think of any other way to appropriately describe it, other than a brilliant political thriller and sharply-tuned drama. All technical aspects are brilliant, with noteable praise going to the original score, easily some of the best work by one of the greatest living composers: Alexandre Desplat.

Unfortunately for the film, its early release date will most likely hamper its chances at any nominations - although they would be richly deserved. This movie will be proof that in order to win Oscars, you need not be the best of the year, rather a film released in the latter half of the year. This is a fabulous, amazing film.

(Awards potential (Based on what I believe the film deserves, not necesarily what it will receive nominations for): Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Brosnan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score)

True Grit (Mo***1/2 Jo****)

John says:
Having one of the best trailers of the year, I was entering into the showing of True Grit with mildly-high expectations. On the whole, the film is technically brilliant. The Western genre is perfectly recreated with beautiful sets, costumes, and camera work. After the movie was over, though, I realized that while the movie had few flaws, it simply did not live up to the expectations one expects when going to see a Coen brother's movie. As absurd as it sounds, True Grit was just too 'by the book.'

Right away it must be said, Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld carry the movie with ease. Each one's character is stubborn, determined, and completely believable. While it may not be a career-best piece for Bridges, it is nonetheless a solid performance, especially knowing it stands on equal footing with John Wayne's Oscar-winning turn in the same role 40 years ago. Hailee Steinfeld's performance easily steals the show. Her whip-smart performance and delivery of some of the most clever dialogue of the year equally matches Bridges and Damon and establish her as one of the finest young actors.

Having seen the original, I was surprised both at the similarities and differences. I am aware this film is based on a novel, but it is interesting seeing the different interpretations of the story. On the whole I still believe that the original may be a more enjoyable film, but the ending of the Coen's film, like all their others, is perfect and definitely left me wanting more, even though a majority of the film I found myself approaching bored with scene after scene of extensive dialogue.

My consensus? A finely-made Western with sharp performances and beautiful sets. The cinematography is exquisite (thanks to the immaculate Roger Deakins (though I am not sure if this should be the film he finally wins an Oscar for. It was beautiful, but nowhere near his best work..)) I suspect fans of the Coen brothers may find themselves more disappointed with this movie than others, which is interesting. It may help bring them a larger fan base and get people more interested in their other films, too.

Maureen says: 
Being a Coen brothers fan and having somewhat of a soft spot for old-looking movies and westerns, I had high hopes going into True Grit. Although certain aspects of my expectations were realized and then some, the bulk of the film did not quite live up to the promise of its predecessor. Although technically nearing perfection, this film simply does not have the "wow" factor to win at the awards this year.

The film began relatively slowly... although wonderful acting by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld steals the show from the get-go, the audience cannot help but wonder, "when is something finally going to happen?" This is uncharacteristic of the Coen brothers' usual style, which is perhaps why the film ends in an ultimately unsatisfying fashion. Truly, the acting by Steinfeld and Bridges carries the film; without them, it would hardly be interesting to the average viewer at all. To the actors' credit, however, the characters are developed fully and intricately, and both Steinfeld and Bridges should receive well-deserved nominations in the coming awards season. Steinfeld, in particular, holds her own against the well-established Bridges and Damon, and is the center of attention in nearly every scene.

Aside from the acting, the film is equipped with a variety of beautiful ornaments, including score, cinematography, art direction, and costumes. It seems hard to imagine that it will not be recognized for these categories at the upcoming Awards. Even with the beautiful sets and camerawork, however, the overall effect of the script was dull and monotonous. Often, scripts filled with dialogue can be as riveting as the most action-packed film; here, the talking falls flat and the audience finds itself looking at its collective watch.

Coen brothers fans will find this film different from nearly everything else they have ever done, and unfortunately, not always in a positive way. Though True Grit exhibits impeccable filmmaking and will undoubtedly be recognized with multiple nominations for this in the awards season, the film does not quite realize what should be the ultimate goal of any movie: entertaining the audience.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

*The Academy recently announced the film's Original Score was deemed ineligible for one reason or another. This is especially upsetting considering the score is one of the best aspects of the movie and is easily one of the best original scores of the year

The King's Speech (Mo***** Jo*****)

John says:
Having finally seen The King's Speech, I think I can finally say that yes, it has lived up to all my expectations, and yes, it is easily one of the best movies of the year. The cast is flawless, the filming is immaculate, and the story is memorable and powerfully moving.

Colin Firth stars as King George VI, a man lacking in self-confidence who is suddenly thrust into the role of King when his father dies and brother refuses the crown. He is supported by his wife, playes by Helena Bonham Carter, and his newly-found speech therapist, the lively Geoffrey Rush.

The movie succeeds mainly because of the stellar cast. When Colin Firth wins the Oscar in February (not if, WHEN), it will not be a sympathy vote for last year's A Single Man, it will be because his performance here is one of the strongest in recent memory, a man so pained by his past yet so focused on his commitments to his wife and country. Geoffrey Rush, playing the Australian doctor, is equally moving. He brings a certain sense of humor to the movie yet manages to portray one of the most sympathetic and loving fathers and friends. Helena Bonham Carter, fresh off her turn as Bellatrix Lestrange, also delivers a solidly warm performance. The three of them work amazingly on their own, but it's the time when they act off each other where the 'magic' really happens.

I don't think I have a single word of criticism for the film. I was completely engrossed in the story, amazed by the art direction and visuals, and completely absorbed by the story, one that I hadn't even been aware of before until seeing the film (yet now want to find out even more!). Easily a film that could and should win multiple Oscars, not because it's a historical drama or it 'fits the profile,' but simply because it's a damn good movie.

Maureen says:
Not only one of the best pictures of the year, but easily one of the most flawless historical dramas ever made. After watching it, comparisons to films such as La Vie En Rose come to mind (and if you know the extent of how much I love that film, that is quite something indeed). The King's Speech is emotional, completely engrossing, and impeccably filmed.

I cannot say enough about Colin Firth's performance in this film, and at the same time, I am utterly speechless. He gives a heart-wrenching performance, painting a perfect picture of the multi-faceted King. Firth's work with the King's stutter is outstanding, but it is only the icing on the cake to the portrayal of his character. I found myself completely and personally involved with the King, and Firth develops him in the best way possible. He manages to convey heartbreak, anger, insecurity, embarrassment, confidence, sadness, and joy; separately to perfection, but somehow combining them throughout the film in the King's overall demeanor. His performance fills out a movie that would stand well on its own and makes it all the more outstanding. Firth's work in last year's A Single Man, though excellent, looks like child's play compared to his acting here. I have seen few performances rivaling this one; among them, Cristoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (sure to go down in filmmaking history) and Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose. Both of these performances swept awards during awards season, and Firth is almost sure to do the same. In fact, I think it is safe to say that Firth's performance would be a strong contender in any Oscar race from any other year, with any other opponent. Especially considering Firth's lack of strong competition, I am officially predicting his win, and probably with a near-sweep of the Academy's votes.

Helena Bonham Carter (playing the King's wife) and Geoffrey Rush (as the King's speech therapist) are also impeccable in their roles, providing remarkable performances while still allowing Firth to shine. They embody the meaning of "supporting" actors. Each develop distinct characters that play off of each other, creating real theatrical magic. Though not as certain of wins in their respective categories as Firth is this year, both Carter and Rush deserve - and should receive - nominations and recognition.

The King's Speech is really all about Firth and his performance, but it does not succeed solely because of it. Technically, the film is perfect also. Wonderful lighting and cinematography throughout, beautiful costumes, smart editing, and a lovely, fitting score. The screenplay, which is (a little surprisingly) an original work, will be strong competition in the race this year also. The dialogue is perfectly constructed, giving the actors a solid foundation upon which to perform. The film is deserving of multiple nominations, and it will receive them.

Though the race for Best Picture seems it will be tight with The Social Network, my preferred film this year has become The King's Speech. Perhaps it won't win, but it won't be because it does not deserve to. A historical drama that is not really a history, or even a story about a king, but a tale of a man, his struggles, and how he overcomes them. This film receives my very highest recommendation.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Firth), Best Supporting Actor (Rush), Best Supporting Actress (Carter), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score)

The Fighter (Mo**** Jo***1/2)

John says:
The Fighter could have been a masterpiece - a movie dealing with issues ranging from poverty, drug addiction, lost chances, redemption, and family. Instead, we are left with a rather clunky piece of filmmaking with some of the best acting of the entire year.

The story follows Micky Ward, a boxer set on making it big like his older brother, played by Christian Bale. Bale, now addicted to crack, has the support of his mother (Melissa Leo) and sisters, but few others. An HBO camera crew follows the family around claiming to be making a documentary about Ward's comeback. Instead, they are documenting the reality of drug use in America.

Wahlberg's character meets and falls in love with Amy Adams, in one of her most fiery roles, and his opportunity for greatness is divided between taking the support of his family or the support of everyone else.

For whatever reason or another, the film just doesn't flow as a boxing movie in the way that Raging Bull or Million Dollar Baby do. Although the title suggests the story is focused on Micky Ward, the bulk of the plot deals with Christian Bale's character - his determinations and his addictions. By the time the final fight comes, we really don't even care.

In terms of acting, the 3 standout performances come from Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo. Each performance is flawlessly portrayed and endlessly layered. Expect all three to garner Oscar nominations, and each of them would richly deserve a win. The cast is not without its flaws - unfortunately the one flaw is in the title role played by Mark Wahlberg. Although the character requires little to no character depth or development, Wahlberg still lacks a heart and his performance falls far short of his costars.

Again, we are faced with a year for 10 Best Picture nominees. As much as I would disagree with its nomination, I'm sure it will still receive one simply based on subject matter and critical approval. Although I wouldn't highly recommend this movie, do see it for the stunning acting - easily the best of the year. (From most of the cast, at least...)

Maureen says:
Though certainly not the best picture of the year, notable and watchable if for nothing else, the terrific acting. The screenplay is unfocused and a bit choppy, making the film not quite realize its full potential, but it is entertaining nonetheless.

Mark Wahlberg stars in the title role as Micky Ward, "the fighter," an up-and-coming boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts. Christian Bale plays his older brother Dicky, a washed-up fighter and crack addict, and Melissa Leo is Micky's controlling mother and manager. Amy Adams, in a very new and different role for her, plays Micky's feisty and defensive girlfriend Charlene. Despite playing the title character, Wahlberg's performance is shockingly poor, despite having opportunities to develop emotions such as conflict, despair, embarrassment, and anger. He gives Micky almost no depth or emotion whatsoever, negatively coloring the feel of the entire movie. Thankfully, Bale, Adams, and Leo come to the rescue with outstanding supporting roles, more than making up for Wahlberg's lack of character. Bale is particularly outstanding and gives his best performance to date as the drug-dependent Dicky Ward. He conveys a range of emotions and mannerisms to perfection from beginning to end. One almost begins to wonder if he has a separate life as a crack addict! Nominations and likely wins are in store for Bale this awards season, as are nominations for Adams and Leo.

The actors - particularly Bale - make this film worth watching, which is good, as the script would not stand very well on its own. The potential for the story is there: drug addiction, family conflict, failure, overcoming obstacles... but instead of focusing on one plotline or integrating multiple issues into a single, moving story (i.e. American Beauty), the script seems confused as to which story to focus on. Is this a film about Dicky's drug addiction? Is it about Micky's career? Or is it about family conflict and internal issues within the Ward family in the small town of Lowell? The screenwriters touch on all of these issues, but do not develop any of them to their fullest extent, and instead we are left with a slightly unsatisfying film that tells you a little about a lot.

Aside from the acting, there is not much else of note except for the editing. The boxing scenes, especially, are exciting and well-filmed, and the movie may receive a nomination for this work. In another ten-Best Picture-nomination year, The Fighter will likely be a contender, but almost certainly not for the win.

Overall, I was entertained by The Fighter and would absolutely see it again - which is really the ultimate goal of any film, right? Even though its success is largely because of the superb acting, it still makes for a pretty good watch.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Editing, Best Supporting Actor (Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Adams & Leo)