The King's Speech** (2010)

Featuring a powerful one-two punch in the acting department and a solid supporting cast, all one needs to do is see this film to understand why it claimed Best Picture at the Oscars. While younger audiences may yearn for something more contemporary and faster-paced, The King’s Speech mirrors its subject matter with a measured pace that is both satisfying and rewarding.

The film follows Britain’s Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) along his journey to Kinghood (as George VI) in the 1920s and 30s as he struggles to overcome his pronounced speech impediment. Helping him through his struggle to sound like the leader of his people is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a quirky Australian actor and speech therapist. In confronting his client’s stammer, Logue also helps Albert/George confront feelings about his brother Edward and other memories that influence and exacerbate his speaking issues.

Let’s not kid ourselves here, this film is all about Colin Firth’s performance. It is darn near flawless. People work for years to conquer speech impediments, making it difficult to accurately determine how much progress Albert/George makes as we jump through the years. The way Firth pins down the intricacies of the stammer is impressive because actors are notorious for underplaying and overplaying disabilities to movie-ruining effect. Firth’s performance makes this film, no doubt about it.

Fortunately, this film is not like many biopics in that it is not a one-star show. Geoffrey Rush is delightful as Logue, providing most of the humor opposite of Firth’s pathetic and angry straight man role. Helena Bonham Carter isn’t given much to work with as the Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother, not the current queen) but it’s a refreshing break from her usual eccentric roles. Guy Pearce is perfectly slimy as Edward, the weasel who makes Albert/George’s life miserable as a person and as a royal.

As something of a history buff, I am probably better able to appreciate this film’s sets, costumes and visual effects than some in my generation. Period details are often lost on people uninterested in things that aren’t flashy and hip. So if you can’t get into the story being told in The King’s Speech, you’ll be too bored to appreciate the subtle and intricate details the filmmakers are careful to include.

There may not be anything in the way of unique or fancy camerawork on display in this film but the story doesn’t require it, so that cannot be considered a negative. Younger audiences may be turned off by the old school approach the filmmakers are going for but if you’re over the age of 21, chances are you will be able to see this film for what it is- a great true-life story told through great performances. In short, a great film.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

This film suffers from a case of toomuchitis. It is a prime example overindulgence in cinema and it brings the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to a far from satisfying conclusion.

Lord Beckett, now in possession of Davy Jones’ heart, uses Jones to track down and kill as many pirates as possible. The pirates, of course, are not happy about this and sing a creepy pirate song to summon the nine pirate lords to council together to take action against Beckett. The only problem is that Captain Jack Sparrow is one of the pirate lords and is, well, dead. Sort of. He is trapped in Davy Jones’ locker, so his friends and associates band together to rescue him.

To do this they need to steal a map from Sao Feng, a pirate lord from Singapore. There is lying, stealing, action and adventure that all starts out the film making very little sense. It is very hard to figure out what is going on and it is even more difficult to try and piece together the plot as it is dispensed piece by piece throughout the film. Deals are made and broken; agreements are made and abandoned; and it’s all so long and confusing that it barely makes any sense.

The first hour focuses on rescuing Sparrow from Davy Jones’ Locker, which features Jack commanding a ship crewed by multiple versions of him. This essentially drives Sparrow and the audience a little bonkers. One Jack is enough, thank you very much. Their escape is bizarre and long-winded.

The story next moves onto all the swindling, double-crossing, deal-making and fighting. None of the double-crosses and the numerous sub-plots play out as well as Disney hoped they would. Instead of an inspired tale of twists and turns, I was left to ask “Huh?” far too frequently for any movie.

It’s sometimes hard to tell what is driving the characters as well. Are they acting upon old information we were supposed to remember from the first two films or is there something new going on? Speaking of characters, several supporting characters have reduced roles and either fade to the background or are rubbed out of the story completely.

Most of the visual effects are pretty good, but there is a sense of “been there, done that” in At World’s End. It’s hard to make naval battles look fresh and original in the third installment of the series, and the music falls back on familiar themes and never really hammers home the action with fresh beats or twists on the old familiar score.

So, in some ways, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End suffers in excess, but those same examples of excess are also examples of not enough. While the film is nearly 3 hours long, there’s not enough action or cognizant story to make it all worthwhile. While there is an overabundance of neat CGI work, there’s not enough character and emotion behind it all to make you care one way or another about the characters.

The final two insults come at the end of the film.

First, Will Turner (played by Orlando Bloom) is killed by Davy Jones. Will gets some semblance of revenge by stabbing Jones’ heart, thereby taking over as captain of The Flying Dutchman, but as captain he may only step foot on dry land once every 10 years, royally screwing up any kind of happy ending for Will and Elizabeth (Kiera Knightley). It’s a very dour way to conclude your story. Evidently there is a clip at the end of the credits that undoes all of this, but that seems to fly in the face of all the information given to us in the film.

Secondly, it’s left somewhat open-ended. Jack is cast off the Black Pearl yet again but he first steals a map pointing the way to Florida and the supposed location of the fountain of youth. This leaves the door open for Disney to make yet another Pirates film should they choose to do so. This essentially leaves us like the first installment left us- with some form of resolution, but not enough to go home and be completely satisfied and assured that the tale is over.

To be frank, At World’s End does a poor job of wrapping things up from Dead Man’s Chest because it adds too many new things to the mix to iron out evenly at the end. It is too long, too twisty-turny and spends too much time reveling in Jack Sparrow because it thinks that is what we want.

If you have only seen the first installment, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, stop where you are. Parts 2 and 3 will only dilute the fun and satisfaction of the original.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Munich* (2005)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This is a very challenging film to watch. It’s violent and intense but also emotionally jarring. The main characters display a wide range of emotions and mental states. From cold and calculating to outright paranoid, this film really has a good sense of itself.

In 1972, several Palestinian/Arab terrorists executed Israeli athletes during the Summer Olympic Games in Munich, Germany. The world was shocked and the event is well-documented in history. What is not so well-documented is Israel’s response to the slaughter. Several former Israeli operatives have come forth over the years and told accounts of top-secret Israeli hit squads. Israel has denied any such accusation and continues to maintain that no such assassin teams ever existed, yet refuses to declassify many government files related to these operations, which cover a good stretch of time throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Munich is based on a book written by a former member of one of these “never existed” hit squads assigned to kill specific PLO supporters believed to be members of the terrorist network behind Munich. Eric Bana stars as the leader of the team as they move throughout Europe over the course a few years, following information in the hopes of finding another of their targets. Along the way the team shares tender moments with each other and slowly become disillusioned with their task.

While they initially view their mission as simply wiping out enemies, they discover the human side of their targets, encountering their intended victims’ friends, families and children. This makes it all the more difficult to carry out their mission as they begin to ponder how the bad guys seem so normal when taken out of context of blind faith and the Munich massacre. Some critics and moviegoers complained that this portrayed a sympathetic view of terrorists and was irresponsible for director Steven Spielberg to do so.

It’s called character development, people- deal with it. These moments and nuances call to mind the saying “One man’s terrorist is another man’s hero.” It helps hammer home the point that, in situations like Munich and its aftermath (and even today), both sides of the battle are engaged in shady tactics and both sides have blood on their hands. There is no justification for this kind of activity, no matter how badly you want to think there is.

Eventually, things begin to fall apart for the team, as members are killed and those remaining realize that they are now being hunted by Palestinian hit squads. Bana’s character especially plunges into extreme paranoia. He examines everything around him, looking for signs of the very same booby traps and setups his team had been using to eliminate their own targets. In the end he questions what good his mission did- sure he took out targets that were believed to have masterminded terrible bloodshed, but those assassinations resulted in little more than emboldening his foes even further in their cause.

Munich is a solid film, though it runs a tad longer than the average Joe can tolerate, and provides a unique study of violence begetting more violence and what some people are willing to do in the name of God. I think it was worthy of an Oscar nod, despite being a dark horse for winning.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Shakespeare in Love** (1998)

Plain and simple, there are too many fruitballs in the Academy. There is no reason for this movie to have won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, one of the most gripping, moving and emotionally jarring films ever made. Instead of choosing a clearly superior film loosely based on a true story full of bravery during one of mankind’s most horrific hours, the Academy decides to honor a piece of pure fiction taking place in an idealized vision of the Renaissance, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies. And pleather.

Of course, Shakespeare in Love isn’t trying to be accurate in anything it does, which, I guess, is the beauty of it. Just like theatre, the film is flooded with convenience and the use of deus ex machina. There’s plenty of ham to go with the overabundance of cheese as well.

Instead of the drab garb of a repressed middle and lower class, the streets are filled with vibrant colors and fabrics that may or may not have existed back then. The Bohemian lifestyle of living for love despite wretched conditions is perpetuated and glorified in an all too unrealistic way here, and the Renaissance period is whitewashed, where even the potential of plague and illness don’t muck up the fluffy white clouds on the horizon for our characters.

But don’t get me wrong. For what it is, Shakespeare in Love is a solidly good film. It’s exactly the kind of thing its audience is looking for- a fictitious love story set up ambiguously during real events (a la Titanic and Pearl Harbor) with all the frills of a fancy theatre fruitball jolly-fest. And for delivering what the audience wants, it’s a good film. Good costuming and some good camerawork too, which is why it has such a good rating.

As far as my personal tastes go, this one is a dud. But, since I try and keep things in a cinematic perspective, I’ve got to give credit where credit is due, even though the thought of Shakespeare in pleather gives me the chills.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5