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

Mama Mia! (2008)

Oh, the modern movie-musical. It seems that this genre has been hit or miss for quite some time. This is easy to understand because it is very easy go wrong with adapting a popular Broadway hit. You can make the film too much like the stage production and appear stagey and gimmicky or you can take too many artistic liberties and risks, drawing the ire of loyalists and getting “too weird” for general audiences. Somewhere in the middle lies the elusive perfect combination of the two. Mama Mia! does not fall into any of these categories.

The subject matter of Mama Mia! is tame stuff when compared to some of the more dramatic productions Broadway has churned out in the past. Young Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried) is getting married and she wants her father to walk her down the aisle. There is just one small problem with this- she doesn’t know who her father is. After snooping through her mother’s old diary, she narrows her search down to three possible candidates and invites all of them to her wedding in the hopes of sorting it out before the ceremony without her mother finding out. The men arrive earlier than expected and are surprised to learn that they are all possibly the bride’s father. Sophie’s mother (Meryl Streep) is equally surprised when she is confronted with her three former lovers.

All of this is set to the disco-tastic music of ABBA. Some songs work better than others but, on the whole, it’s rather evident that the songs were inserted around the story or the story written specifically with a song in mind. Some of the musical numbers feel more forced than others and the musical as a whole feels more manufactured than organic. Such seems to be the case with so-called ‘jukebox musicals.’ Interestingly enough, two former members of ABBA wrote the stage musical. This solidifies my belief that musicians should stick to what they’re best at.

To be fair, Mama Mia! isn’t a bad musical. In fact, it’s good to the point of entertaining you with jokes and songs aplenty. The downside is that this is a very safe production. It rarely makes you think and doesn’t make much of a statement about anything. Movie-musicals don’t necessarily have to do any of these things but I enjoy it when they do. Mama Mia! is pure sugar frosting. Nothing dynamic; nothing powerful. Just a cute, harmless puff piece that occupies less than two hours of your time.

Seyfried is charming as Sophie and really portrays the innocence of the character well. Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgård and Colin Firth provide plenty of give and take humor as Sophie’s three befuddled potential fathers. As long as one of these three is on screen, Mama Mia! is at its funniest. Meryl Streep works as Sophie’s quasi-scatter brained mother but her two friends (Julie Walters and Christine Baranski) have a tendency to go over the top. Maybe I feel this way because I am a man and don’t appreciate catty, corny female humor as much as others, but the women of Mama Mia! had me rolling my eyes more than rolling on the floor.

Simply put, you could do a lot worse than Mama Mia! It gets the job done in that it entertains you and doesn’t drag on in too many places. This easy, breezy aspect comes at a price though- the film never really leaves its mark on you. Fun and forgettable is fine because it is fun. But it is still forgettable.

RATING: 3 out of 5

The Importance of Being Earnest (2002)

Dry, witty British humor from legendary playwright Oscar Wilde will either sink or swim in the minds of American viewers, who typically don’t dig (or simply don’t understand) Brit wit. While The Importance of Being Earnest is humorous, it seems to drag on at only 97 minutes long.

The story is genuinely funny, but the actors could have done better. Everything is just too subdued, even the zaniness of the two lead men. My only other complaint is with Reese Witherspoon. It should be a general rule of them that British people should play British people in British comedies. Granted, I portrayed a British man in a play once, but I think this rule of thumb should be applied stringently with film portrayals. Granted, Reese Witherspoon is quite likely the only selling point of this movie, as those who are very gung ho about their literature just won’t accept an American playing a Brit, and Witherspoon is popular with the ladies and very likely the only person in the film that American audiences will recognize.

A rather decent production, but it’s the kind of movie you can only watch if you’re in the right mood for something of its kind.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5