The King's Speech

Last night I rewatched one of my favorite films of 2010, "The King's Speech." The first time I watched this movie I was thoroughly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I went in knowing the premise and that the acting was going to be good and left thinking that it was my favorite film that year.

While I still loved watching this film again, I watched it the second time with too high of expectations. Occasionally this happens. I build something up in my head and then when I see it again it can't create the same feeling of wonderment that I felt the first time. But with that said, it is still a wonderfully made and a wonderfully acted movie.

On second viewing I noticed just how brilliant Colin Firth's performance is. As an actor I have always loved Firth-I think it's virtually impossible not to love him if you are a woman who has seen the BBC version of "Pride and Prejudice". In the movie "A Single Man" I saw moments where Firth shined as an actor. Although I felt that the movie's style got in the way of the story and the acting, there was one moment when Firth's skills came through. For any of you who have seen the movie there is a moment when Firth's character gets a phone call in which he finds out his partner has died. In a heartbreaking moment Firth struggles to understand what he's hearing and to smother his sorrow. In that small scene Firth's eyes conveyed anger, sadness and heartbreak. It is a rare gift for an actor to be able to show so much emotion and feeling through their eyes and that's exactly where Firth excels.

In "The King's Speech" Firth embodies every aspect of the King. I have read a few interviews where Firth has talked about how he hard he worked on perfecting the stammer so it wouldn't be over exaggerated and unrealistic. His efforts to duplicate the speech patterns of a person who suffers from stammering are impressive, but what is even more impressive to me is the way he created a complex portrait of a man. In moments where he feels insuferior Firth carries himself differently. Here he is, a King, and yet when he has a meeting with the Prime Minister he sits timidly in his chair, his legs knock kneed and his shoulders hunched over. His entire demeanor shows that he is completely ashamed and uncomfortable. And, in contrast, in the scenes of therapy with Geoffrey Rush, Firth's King sits upright, feet firmly on the ground refusing to give up on himself. In his performance these differences are subtly expressed and seem as if Firth did it naturally making his portrayal even more believeable.

In the sessions with Logue and in the scenes with his wife we see a man who is fiery, tempermental, brave and tortured by his position in life. And of course, through it all Firth's eyes show in every moment the struggle and the true nature of this man. It is this portrait which carries "The King's Speech" and makes it one of the most entertaining and moving movies I have seen lately.

Award season is in full swing and with the Oscar nominations being announced on Tuesday everything I have read is comparing "The King's Speech" with the other leading film, "The Social Network". I have seen both movies twice and I loved both. I agree with most things I've read that the two exhibit two very different kinds of filmmaking. "The King's Speech" is an uplifting, joyful movie with wit and tenderness throughout- it is like a great Hollywood classic. It's also expertly made by an extremly talented director and perfectly acted by not only Firth, but also Bonham Carter and Rush.

"The Social Network" is a fascinating story surrounding one of the most interesting current phenomenons, Facebook. The fast paced dialogue, the "Rashoman" style story, the talents of a great director like Fincher and some great performances come together to make a movie that cannot be compared to something that is made in a more classical way such as "The King's Speech" or even "True Grit". This is exactly the problem with an award show like the Oscars. All three movies are fantastic in themselves. It is not fair or possible to say that one is better than the other. But with that said, I will still watch the Oscars. I will still make my predictions. I will still stay up all night in order to see them live. As a movie lover the one big night when movies are celebrated is still important, no matter what the outcome of the awards are.

That being said, here's my complete list of favorite movies for 2010 in no particular order (I have yet to see "Another Year", "Nowhere Boy", "127 Hours", "The Company Men" and "Blue Valentine"- all of which I think I could possibly enjoy as well):

1. The King's Speech
2. The Ghost Writer
3. The Social Network
4. The Town
5. Toy Story 3
6. Shutter Island
7. Black Swan
8. The Fighter
9. True Grit
10. The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest
11. The Kid's Are All Right
12. Winter's Bone

Least Favorite- The A Team and Grown Ups

Sherlock

Lately I've been noticing how certain tv shows seem to be better than most movies coming out. It seems that the majority of movies being made right now are lacking in some way and I think that the difference in the quality of movies is because of the caliber of scripts being produced. While developments in technology have really made movies exciting and breathtaking (Titanic, Benjamin Button, etc), it is quite obvious that movies cater more towards special effects rather than stories of quality.

I think this is especially apparent when comparing the Guy Richie version of Sherlock Holmes with the BBC television version called "Sherlock." When I saw the movie "Sherlock Holmes" I was looking forward to a fun mystery with a great actor and a creative director. In the first half of the movie that's exactly what I got. The music was exciting, the story was interesting, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law had great chemistry and looked like they were having great fun playing Holmes and Watson; it was a refreshing new take on an old story. And then, to my dissappointment, the story was taken over by special effects. It seemed that the movie just became one impossible action sequence followed by the next. I am really hoping that the next movie of Sherlock Holmes concentrates more on the mystery and interesting characters. There's a lot of potentional especially when you look at who's in it. It has some great actors like Noomi Rapace, the original Lisbeth from the Millineum trilogy movies, and Jared Harris, or Lane Price- the British guy from Mad Men. I sure hope they use these skilled actors talents and concentrate less on the special effects.

In contrast, the BBC version called "Sherlock" is the smartest, most interesting and fun versions of Sherlock I have ever seen. In my mind Benedict Cumberbatch is exactly what Sherlock should be. Tall and lanky with high cheek bones and a weak chin, he exudes oddness. And, in comparison with Jude Law, Martin Freeman is much more relatable as Watson. The two actors play off each other perfectly and are given time to flesh out their roles so that they are what carry the stories- not the action.

The modernization of "Sherlock" also gives a breath of fresh air into the Holmes story. Set in modern London I have noticed just how much the city plays a role in the show. Sherlock and Watson zip around the city in a taxi passing the London tower, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Thames. Modern technology like cell phones and computers are constantly being used through out and are so central to the stories now that it's hard to imagine Holmes solving crimes without them. Overall, "Sherlock" has taken a genre which I have never been all the crazy about and made it fascinatingly entertaining.

I am so impressed with certain television shows right now that when I think about what I'd like to watch 90 % of the time it is some tv show.

My top television series are:
The Sopranos- there is no doubt that it is the greatest acheivement in television history so far.
Mad Men- Wonderful acting and great characters. A fascinating look at the 60's in America. Superb on all levels.
Sherlock- for all the reasons I listed above.
Battlestar Gallactica- Tom and I watched this series together and enjoyed every minute of it (which is saying something because Sci Fi is not my favorite genre)

Roman Holiday

I have no idea how many times I've seen "Roman Holiday" but I know it's been awhile since the last time. I was planning on watching another movie but Tom decided he wanted to see that film so I switched on RH.

I doesn't matter how many times I see RH, I never get tired of it. There is something so magical about it. I think it's the case where everything came together perfectly. A great romantic script which was written by a blacklisted writer during the McCarthy trials. A fantastic use of a city which is really the third character in the movie. A skilled director who knew he had something wonderful with Audrey Hepburn. A talented costume designer whose clothes still look stylish. Great chemistry between the two lead stars. And, of course, the star making performance by Hepburn.

There are a few times when an actress jumps off the screen the way Hepburn does every scene she's in. Whenever she is absent from a scene the movie's energy drops a bit. There are moments when the camera catches the breathtaking beauty of Hepburn and shows just why she has become an icon.

The final scene, which is not always a favorite for viewers, has a moment that probably won Hepburn the Oscar. She is attending a press conference and sees Joe Bradley with the press. She knows he will not publish her story and realizes that he is in love with her. She turns to walk away, but then looks back, smiling a huge smile with a tear in her eye. She is so radiant and sad all at once. In a look we know that she is broken hearted to say goodbye to the freedom she had on her Roman holiday and to say goodbye to Joe. As I rewatched it I realized that no other ending would have been so moving or right. What makes the whole movie work is that she faces reality and decides to live her life as a princess.

Julie and Julia

I just watched "Julie and Julia" for the second time. I first saw this movie in the theater with Tom, my parents and Jay and Buelane. I remember how charming this movie was and I especially remember hearing Jay and Buelane laugh every time Meryl Streep did something very Julia Child like. After watching it a second time Tom made the comment that it must be a really nice movie for people who remember watching Julia Child and while I agree with him, I think it's a nice movie no matter what your knowledge of Child is.



The first time I saw it I wasn't sure it was necessary to include the Amy Adams part of the movie. I agreed with my dad that Julia Child was interesting enough that the whole movie could have been exclusively about her. But after a second viewing, I'm glad they put the Amy Adams story in the movie. I think watching Amy Adam's character struggle through the recipes connects us, the audience, more because we can relate to Julie. Her adoration of Child and her struggle to make it through every single one of Child's receipes shows just how remarkable Child's cookbook was. Since we don't get to see the success and fame Child's obtained after her cookbook was released (the movie concentrates on Child's journey in creating the cookbook) Julie's efforts in blogging through every recipe, watching old Julie Child's cooking shows, even watching the SNL version of Child, shows just how influential and famous Child's became.



Meryl Street's portrayal of Child is a joy to watch. You can really tell how much she enjoyed being Child and lights up the screen whenever she's on. This viewing though I really enjoyed and was impressed by Amy Adam's perfomance. A week ago I saw "The Fighter" where she plays a tough woman who refuses to take shit from anyone, even a porch full of angry sisters. I loved her in both movies. She's one of those actresses that I'll see every movie she's in because she always gives a good performance. She's a really good actress that can be so likeable and so believeable in every role she plays (unlike other leading ladies such as Jennifer Aniston or Katherine Heigl-- how do they keep getting roles)?



Rating- 3.5/4

I give this movie three and a half stars. A good script and great acting come together to make "Julie and Julia" and fun and entertaining movie. For someone who isn't interested in cooking I was completely hooked from the moment it began. It even got me to officially start my blog which I have been meaning to do for three years.