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)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 (Mo ***1/2 Jo ***1/2)

John says:
Finally we near the end of the entire story - we've seen these characters develop from adorable, innocent kids through to the darkest, most mature moments. Overall I would like to say this first part of the last chapter was a success, but on the whole I can't help but voice concerns that overall, the film is much too dependent on its upcoming finale to function as a film of its own.

David Yates, the director of films 5 through to the end, is an amazing visual storyteller, and part 7 may very well be the most stunning - possibly out of all the Potter films. The technical wizardry behind the camera is astounding - with notable praise going to cinematography and visual effects - many of which were practically seamless, almost invisible. Similar praise can go to the score. Alexandre Desplat, one of the best composers working today, is the best thing to happen to the series since John Williams left. His music is moody, layered, effective, and totally in-tuned to the world of Harry Potter.

Each of the films seems to have a stand-out star, and this film is dominated by Emma Watson as Hermione. In previous films, her performances have been satisfactory to say the least, but finally we see her mature into a real actress, and there is never a moment you don't trust everything she is saying or believe every emotion she is portraying. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint likewise have become fine actors - not to mention the rest of the all-star cast.

On the whole it was a very faithful adaption of the book - maybe the closest to the source material any Potter film has yet come, yet certain omissions were surprisingly missed. Yes, they split the book into 2 parts in order to fit as much in as possible, but - for instance, they still managed to almost completely cut the Dursley's out of the picture. Could they really not afford to spend maybe 2 minutes wrapping their minute story up? What was that mysterious mirror Harry is constantly looking at? Are we supposed to believe Harry is really in love with Ginny when she is seen for one second and his focus is more on Hermione? (at least in the film) Clearly I know the answers, but like other Potter films, I am concerned with how much the average audience will understand and interpret from the plot based on the film alone.

By the end of the film, though, I couldn't help but feel a bit unsatisfied. Yes, the ending is a 'cliff-hanger' to those who haven't read the books, but ultimately, the episodic nature of the first half of the book doesn't easily lend itself to a complete story, let alone a fulfilling plot for a feature movie. I have a feeling that Part 2 will tie up many loose ends and have more of a grandiose feel, but until then, I can't help but think that Part 1 had so much going for it, yet mysteriously managed to avoid greatness.

Maureen says:
The long-awaited final installments of the Harry Potter series have arrived. For better or for worse, the decision was made to present the final installment of the series in two parts. After seeing this film, though well-made and exciting to watch, I can't help feeling as though this is a weak preview part 2 - the REAL finale.

David Yates once again does an outstanding job with the making of this film - arguably, his finest Harry Potter work to date. The visuals were stunning and had me on the edge of my seat the entire movie. The 2 1/2 hours flew by. It was engaging, exciting, and spectacular to watch, with almost undetectable effects. Acting was also particularly outstanding, most notably from Emma Watson (Hermione) and Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix LeStrange), who as usual stole the screen whenever present. The score, as well, was mysterious, exciting, unique, and complemented the outstanding cinematography perfectly. There was enough humor to keep the script entertaining but also enough serious moments to keep it interesting. A large part of the book itself involves silent traveling, which could have made for a boring film, but Yates and the actors managed to make the silent moments emotional and intriguing.

Although the cinematography and editing were excellent and the film was generally very faithful to the book, certain artistic liberties were questionable at best. For example: not to give anything away, there was a provocative fantasy sequence that - it is safe to say - does not fit in with J.K. Rowling's intentions for the book. This tainted the entire scene and even, to a certain extent, the rest of the movie. I also must agree with some other critics in saying that the film seemed rather "jumbled" at times, which was not helped by the presence of shaky, Bourne Identity-style camera work. Had I not read the book, I likely would have been confused by the editing and plot twists. And although I went into the film expecting the ending to be anti-climactic, I was still left feeling like something was missing.

This film is certainly not the best Potter film nor my favorite, and in fact, finds itself toward the bottom of my Potter list... but it was absolutely 2.5 well-spent hours and does well in its ultimate job of raising plenty of anticipation for Part 2.

(Awards potential: Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound, Best Cinematography)

127 Hours (*****)

Slumdog Millionaire move over, Danny Boyle's latest work also may be his greatest. What began as a skeptical night of going to the movies transformed into an experience I don't think I will ever forget. The story of a man who gets his arm trapped behind a rock somehow manages to become a profound reflection on each and every person's life and the individual paths we all take.

The movie is in many ways similar to Boyle's previous film - Slumdog Millionaire - a colorful, fast-paced, dramatic yet inspiring story of life's worst situations transforming the characters into better people.

Of course, the story mainly focuses on Aron Ralston, an adventurous, albeit naive mountain climber who - of course - find himself in the worst situation: trapped in the middle of no where with no means of help. Any other director (I literally mean ANY other director) would have ruined the film and lost the true meaning of the story. Boyle makes it seem easy, oftentimes with unusual means - split screen, superimpositions, dreams, etc. It's highly stylized to say the least - but it works so well.

I could go on for hours praising each individual aspect - the score (our lovely AR Rahman), the cinematography, the editing, the sound design (!) but it all rides on James Franco's shoulders, and his is a towering performance. It's not necessarily a showy role, but he makes the most out of every little moment and pause - it's the silence that he manages that really holds our attention.

Although the running time is around an hour and a half, the intensity of each moment leaves you pinned - and time seems to stop. You might ask yourself, how could a movie set in a narrow canyon possibly hold our attention for 10 minutes, let alone over an hour? Well - it just does. In many ways it's a story about survival. Our tensions build as we see his water supply get lower and lower and the littlest changes in weather remind us how dangerous it is. At the same time it also manages to be a moving drama, a story about a man reflecting on his past relationships, love affairs, and family ties. If you were about to die, how would you feel about the life you had led thus far?

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best movie I've seen all year. No other movie in recent memory has had such a huge impact on me - physically and emotionally. All the pieces are here, and they all work brilliantly together. In fact, stupendous is probably the best word I can think to use to describe it.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Franco), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Makeup)

Waiting For Superman (*****)

Waiting For Superman is as good of a documentary I have ever seen. The story focuses on the American public school system - its flaws, its champions, teachers, parents, students. Like any great piece of non-fiction film making, its powerful because it somehow manages to connect the audience with it's subjects, in this case, middle school students just hoping for a proper education.

I was surprised at two things when watching the film. First, how easily the information was presented. Walking in I was somewhat intimidated and possibly even put off by the subject matter. How interesting could learning about schools really be? In all honesty it was engrossing. Ideas are presented clearly and concisely with animation used to help drive in certain points. It was in that regard a very visual story. Second, the decision to focus the story on a handful of students was perfect in regards to the topic. As we learn about the flaws and problems children face in school, we are presented with actual children - kids and their parents trying their hardest to rise up and become successful by any means possible.

As fascinating as the documentary was to watch, ultimately its focus was on our country as a whole. We are raised to believe that America is 'the land of opportunity,' but after watching this I began having second thoughts. Not to spoil anything, but when a little girl who wants to grow up to become a doctor can't simply because her name wasn't pulled out of a hat, then something is wrong. How is it that years and years of political focus on reforming our educational system has had practically no effect at all?

I haven't seen any other documentary made this year yet, but I am almost positive this will remain the best I will see. Go see it immediately!

(Awards potential: Best Documentary, Best Original Song ('Shine'))