not exactly a quote

I recently got hooked on Friends. I watched the entire series over a period of a few weeks. I had never seen it before, but now it’s one of my all time favorite sit-coms. It was attracted to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip because it stars Matthew Perry and I was interested in seeing how his post-Friends career went.

Perhaps because it only lasted one season, I was surprised to see how many people online were saying how great Studio 60 was. Some even suggested it was prematurely canceled because it was too good. This all piqued my interest even more, but I was still expecting a sit-com with Perry attempting to duplicate the massive success of Friends. IMDB only described it as “A behind-the-scenes look at a fictional sketch-comedy TV show.”, so I was thinking it would be along the lines of 30 Rock. But just in the first few minutes of the first episode, I realized it was nothing like 30 Rock, it was more along the lines of the Academy Award winning 1976 film Network.

It starts out with the head writer of the sketch-comedy TV show being told that one of the sketches has to be cut because it will offend the religious among their audience. The writer fights the decision as much as he can but inevitably resigns to his fate. However, shortly after the show goes live, he can’t take it anymore. He interrupts a sketch and goes on a Howard Beale-worthy tirade about how the FCC’s censorship and religious boycotts are lowering the standards and quality of TV programming and infringing artists’ freedom of speech.

The series was created and written by Aaron Sorkin, who recently won an Oscar for writing the screenplay for The Social Network. It has a great, if eclectic, cast that includes: Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, and Ed Asner, as well as many other recognizable faces from both comedic and dramatic backgrounds. This show is a wonderful example of how much actors can shine when given well written material, especially performers you may underestimate. I’ve enjoyed Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet in other roles, but here they really prove their acting talents.

I still have twenty-one episodes to go, and I may post about this again as I continue through the series, but I can already tell you Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is worth the time if you ever get a chance to watch it. And like Firefly, Arrested Development and so many others before it, I can say it’s a show that was ended long before it’s time.

In A Single Man Colin Firth plays George, an English Professor who is trying to cope with the death of Jim, his partner of sixteen years. Through disapproval of their relationship, Jim’s family barely tells George of the death and does not even let him attend the funeral. Eight months later, he still reminisces of the life he had with Jim, can’t move past the sorrow of his loss and so he decides that he doesn’t want to live anymore. He plans his suicide meticulously: gets his personal affairs in order, gathers any pertinent financial and legal documents, writes a number of personalized suicide letters, and chooses the suit he wants to be buried in. He methodically lays all of these things out on his desk and proceeds to strategize where and how he will do the deed. Through all of this he has encounters with various people: a little girl at the bank that reaches out to him, a Spanish immigrant who is an aspiring actor and gigolo, a close friend of twenty years (Charley, played by Julianne Moore), and a student who senses his increased sadness and offers him companionship in one form or another. These cause him to reexamine his life and choices.

The film was not the tragedy I was expecting. Nor was Firth’s performance. Yes the subject matter alone lends itself to the tragic, but he plays the part much more restrained then other actors might have in a role such as this. Only once or twice do his emotions physically manifest themselves through his strong exterior appearances. This actually serves to add even more depth the the character.

Julianne Moore’s role in the film also defied expectations. It was smaller part than I thought it would be. And while I assumed she would play the comforter of her bereaved old friend, she was more of a reminder of better times; of the life George once had.

I usually don’t pay much attention to a film’s technical aspects and end up focusing on the more obvious ones such as story and performances. But one thing that impressed me the most about A Single Man was it’s lighting and color. When the people that bring light back into George’s life become a part of the story and picture become visibly brighter. This beautifully compliments the film and it’s themes.

 A few times in my life I’ve had moments of absolute clarity, when for a few brief seconds the silence drowns out the noise and I can feel rather than think, and things seem so sharp and the world seems so fresh. I can never make these moments last. I cling to them, but like everything, they fade. I have lived my life on these moments. They pull me back to the present, and I realize that everything is exactly the way it was meant to be.

After watching the movie, I looked it up online and read some comparisons to American Beauty. This didn’t strike me originally, but once it was pointed out I could see the connection. On the surface, A Single Man is about coping with tragedy. But underneath that is the wonderful theme of rediscovering the meaning and purpose and beauty of life.

Now that I’m back from my hiatus, I’ve got to get caught up on a couple movie reviews. I’ll start with a re-watch from a couple weeks ago, You Kill Me. I took a break from my regular film viewing habits and watched this again on a whim.

I was originally drawn to the movie because of it’s director, John Dahl. I used to be a huge fan of his movie Rounders (starring Matt Damon and Edward Norton. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. It’s easily one of the best poker movies), so I had high hopes for You Kill Me. Plus I’m a sucker for a dark comedy, which this definitely qualifies as.

Ben Kingly stars as Frank Falenczyk, a hit man for the Polish mafia in Buffalo, New York and an alcoholic. When drinking causes him to botch a major hit, Frank is sent to San Fransisco to dry up by attending AA. He is also set up with an apartment and employment at a funeral home, a job he eventually adjusts to quite well, as a hit man he’s accustomed to death. Here he meets and begins to date Laurel Pearson (Tea Leoni). When the Irish mafia tries to encroach on Polish territory, Frank is forced back to New York to finish his job.

The cast also includes Bill Pullman, Luke Wilson as Tom, Frank’s sponsor, Philip Baker Hall as the head of the Polish mafia, and Dennis Farina is the head of the Irish.

After going to a few AA meetings, Frank finally gets up and says, “Hi, my name is Frank I’m an alcoholic. I kill people for a living.” After all, it’s Alcoholics Anonymous right? Material like this leads to some humorous situations and dialogue. Kingsly is especially good with the dead pan delivery of some of his lines.

However, the movie didn’t quite live up to my original expectations and I can’t say it improved with a second viewing. I’m not sure exactly what it is lacking. Maybe they just didn’t go as dark as the material would have allowed. But it is a decent, little known movie that’s worth checking out if there’s nothing better to watch.

Now that I’ve watched Cat People and The Curse of the Cat People, two films I was familiar from clips and whatnot, I’m entering unchartered territory with the remaining seven Val Lewton movies I’ll be reviewing in this series of posts. The first of these is I Walked With a Zombie. Once again, here are the links to the other entries on this topic: The Horror…The Horror: Creativity Through Censorship And Other Limitations, Part One: The Cat People, and Part Two: The Curse Of The Cat People.

It seems Pride And Prejudice And Zombies is not the first mash up of classic romantic literature with zombies. No, Lewton beat them to the punch going on seven decades ago. I Walked With A Zombie is loosely based on Jane Eyre. It was originally taken from a scientific articles by Inez Wallace, but Lewton felt this story would have been to cliched so we rewrote the story to include elements of Charlotte Bronte’s novel.

Betsy Connell is a Canadian nurse who is sent to the West Indies to care for Jessica Holland. Jessica is the wife of Paul Holland, a wealthy plantation owner, and is said to be “mindless”, and a “mental case” (a refreshingly non politically correct term if I ever did see one), and some believe she is already dead and is now a zombie. Betsy quickly falls in love with Paul and becomes determined to give him what she believes he wants by finding a cure for his wife. She stops at nothing, not even the natives’ voodoo powers, in her attempts to achieve this.

I walked with a zombie. It does seem an odd thing to say. Had anyone said that to me a year ago, I’m not at all sure I would have known what a Zombie was. I might have had some notion – that they were strange and frightening, and perhaps a little funny. But I have walked with a Zombie.

This is the narrated line that opens the film. It serves to engage the audience’s intrigue right from the start. Though it does have it’s highs and lows, once the natives and their voodoo rituals come into play the movie elevated to new heights. With these supernatural and superstitious elements come a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. And one of the natives is down right creepy looking, even by today’s standards.

Again, Lewton and director Jacques Tourneur found creative ways to work around budget limitations and the production code in the portrayal of the films more violent and horrific content. When one of the characters is stabbed to death it is inter cut with a voodoo ritual ending in the stabbing of a doll that coincides with the actual stabbing. This serves not only to veil the real violence of the scene, but actually makes it all the more exciting and reveals much about the characters and story.

The zombies are not the half decayed, flesh eating menaces we think of today, they are simply lifeless humans that go about catatonicly. But Lewton and Tourneur utilized shadows and sounds expertly to signal the approach of the zombies. We usually only see the zombies’ shadows (which are stunningly gorgeous in black and white) and hear their slowly rhythmic footsteps. They toy with the audience this way, slowly building the tension. This makes the scenes even more thrilling as we not only don’t know what the zombies are capable of, but we can’t see who they are or what they plan on doing. 

With a running time of just over an hour, the film doesn’t have a lot of time to develop relationships, but it still manages a beautiful portrayal of selfless love. In so many stories, characters will do anything and everything to be with the person they “love” with giving a single thought to the needs or desires of anyone else. But when Betsy falls in love with Paul, she works even harder to find a cure for Jessica. She truly wants whatever will make Paul happy, even if it means she can’t be with him.

Next in the series is The Body Snatcher. It is based on a story by Robert Louis Stevenson (who also wrote Treasure Island and Kidnapped). The cast includes horror icons Boris Karloff AND Bela Lugosi. I’ll probably be watching it in the next day or so.

I remember when I first heard about Rango. Johnny Depp and, his Pirates of the Caribbean director, Gore Verbinski were re-teaming on an animated movie about a lizard. Sometime later, a teaser website was created with just cars zooming past on the highway, then that silly, bright orange, bug-eyed, wind up fish floating across the screen. This wasn’t much to go by, but it seemed like an interesting setting for a quirky film. And when I finally saw the first image of Rango, it was the first time I remember laughing as just a picture of a character.

Upon it’s release, I began read great things about the movie. It was being called a film for film lovers, full of references and homages to other classic films. This piqued my interest even further. I was finally able to watch the film the other night and it didn’t disappoint.

Rango is a chameleon who doesn’t know what to do with his life. Through a series of accidents, he is left alone in the desert. He wanders about for a time before he happens upon the western town of Dirt. Here he finally finds a place where he can stand out. The town is running out water and it’s citizens come to see Rango as a hero and look to him for help with the crisis. He has to face a hawk, a rattlesnake, thieves, corruption and his own inhibitions in his attempts to remedy Dirt’s water shortage and find meaning in his life.

The multitude of quirky characters boast an impressive list of vocal talent: Johnny Depp as Rango, Isla Fisher as Beans, Abigail Breslin as Priscilla, Ned Beatty as Mayor, Alfred Molina as Roadkill, Bill Nighy as Rattlesnake Jake, Stephan Root as Doc, Merrimack, and Mr. Snuggles, Harry Dean Stanton as Balthazar, Ray Winstone as Bad Bill, and Timothy Olyphant, with a dead on Clint Eastwood impersonation, as Spirit of the West.

Rango is indeed rife with film references. The story was inspired by Chinatown. The title is a spin off of the 1966 film Django, which helped launch the spaghetti western genre.  The entire movie is a reference to the genre in general. 

Many of the characters are also based on other characters or actors. Depp is said to have fashioned Rango and his speech patterns after those of Don Knotts (I heard someone compare Rango to Knott’s The Shakiest Gun in the West). Beatty modeled his performance off of John Houston’s in Chinatown. Rattlesnake Jake was meant as a reptilian version of Lee Van Cleef, a regular player in spaghetti westerns. And Rango asking Spirit of the West, “Didn’t you used to be called the man with no name?” wasn’t the only reference to Eastwood’s the man with no name trilogy

On top of all this, the owls singing about the narrative throughout the film reminded me a bit of Nat King Cole and Stubby Kaye in Cat Ballou. And in a scene when the citizens of Dirt are going to get water, Mayor refers to it as the day of deliverance several times. I couldn’t help but wonder if this was a not so subtle reference to another Beatty movie, Deliverance. The references don’t stop there. The list goes on and on.

The film’s animation is quite stunning, and the unique way Verbinski filmed the movie is also noteworthy. Instead having the individual actors recording their lines in a studio, he had them all together on stage performing their roles, often with basic sets and costumes. As Depp said, “Instead of motion capture, it’s kind of emotion capture, using the actors as a reference for the emotionally animated characters.”

Then there’s the 3D, or rather the lack thereof.  It’s the first non 3D animated movie since what? Princess and the Frog two years ago? 3D lost it’s appeal to me almost immediately and now I can’t hardly stand it. This is a topic for more in depth discussion another time, but suffice it to say, not being in 3D was yet another aspect that excited me about the film and I hope 2D will catch on again.

From working at a theatre, I hear a lot of public reactions to movies. The main complaint I heard about Rango is the questionable content in a “kids” movie. Yes it’s action gets somewhat violent, yes it has some smoking, and yes it contains some mild profanity (“ass”, “damn”, “hell” etc.). But to me, people need to get over the idea that an animated movie is automatically a “kids” movie. More and more now days, animation is directed as much or more to adults as it is at children. However, this is another topic for another time. This is especially true of Rango. Most of it’s jokes and references, that will fly right over the heads of kids, are a delight for adults.

Along with these references, the film is full of hysterical one liners. I expect all of this makes it a film that would benefit from repeat viewings. I for one look forward to see it again.

I continued my way through the work of producer Val Lewton tonight with The Curse of the Cat People. If you want to read my first two posts on this topic you can do so here: The Horror…The Horror: Creativity Through Censorship and Other Limitations  and Lewton-a-thon Part One: Cat People. This post contains some spoilers of the first movie, Cat People.

The Curse of the Cat People is a sequel in name only. In fact, Lewton wanted to title it Amy and Her Friend but the studio insisted Cat People be used in the title. After the box office success of the first film, they wanted to cash in with a sequel. Both movies have many of the same actors and main characters, but gone are the cat people and the stories couldn’t be more different. Although the film was marketed as “A thrilling sequel to The Cat People”, it is really not the horror movie the first film was, but more of a psychological drama.

After the death of Irena, Oliver Reed has remarried, to his co-worker Alice, and has a six year old daughter named Amy. The girl has difficulty making friends and usually stays off by herself, in her own little world. Oliver tries to get her to spend time with other children. He discourages her from telling stories worrying she will believe them and be driven mad as Irena was over the Cat People. But as a result he stifles her dreams and imagination and comes to distrust her. And when Amy begins seeing and befriends the ghost of Irena, these concerns only increase.

When Amy asks Irena where she had come from, she responds, “You wouldn’t understand. I come from great darkness and deep peace.” It seems death has served Irena well. In the first film, she was an agent of terror. Here she is almost angelic and brings comfort and companionship. 

As with the panther in Cat People, Irena’s ghost in the film is not outright shown initially. We only sense her presence through changes in the wind, shadows, and hearing her sing to Amy. Only this time, the unseen does not bring terror, but somthing mysterious and seemingly calming.

Ann Carter is wonderful as Amy. She brought a great sense of mystery to the role. At first she seems a bit off and we wonder if she will turn out like Irena. Or is she just lonely child in need of a friend, not matter what form it may take?

The film contains themes of loneliness, friendship, and imagination, especially in regards to childhood. When Amy fails in her attempts to befriend the other children a void is left that must be filled. This is all so acutely stated that the film has been used in college psychology courses.

I knew this film would be much different from it’s “prequel”, but it was still hardly what I was expecting. I figured it would still contain more thriller elements. It’s tempting to say I enjoyed Cat People much more than The Curse of the Cat People, but I’m not sure if it’s really a fair comparison. I had some difficulty getting completely into it at first, but when Irena’s ghost entered the story it became much more intriguing. It’s not a horror or anything like the original, but it is a good stand alone film.

Before you read on, I would recommend reading my recent post on horror films and limitations, if you haven’t already. It talks, in part, about the film’s producer, Val Lewton, and offers an introduction to my interest in his work. This is the first of nine posts I’m planning on Lewton’s movies. I expect their common thread shall be this idea of limitations and horror in the unseen. Each film has a cheesy, pre-tested title and a shoe string budget, but the creativity that comes out of this is astounding. I first heard of and saw clips from Cat People in one of Martin Scorsese’s documentaries. It intrigued me at the time and I found it included in a boxed set of Lewton’s films quite a while back, but never got around to watching it until now.

In Cat People, Irena is Serbian immigrant working as a fashion artist in New York. She meets, falls in love with, and marries an American, Oliver Reed. But from the beginning she is fearful for the relationship, she believes in the ancient Serbian myth of the Cat People and that if she falls in love and become jealous she will be transformed into a panther and kill people. At first Oliver dismisses this as fairy tales, but when Irena’s behavior becomes increasingly strange, he decides to seek psychiatric help for her. The more we learn about Irena, the more the tension slowly builds. Is she just insane and can she be cured? Or is the myth true and what exactly is she capable of?

Lewton was only given a $150,000 budget, not much even in 1942, meaning that not very many special effects could be used. But this led to the genius of the film. The panther is rarely shown. We only see it’s shadow, hear it’s growls, and witness the aftermath of it’s attacks. This serves to ratchet up the suspense. We’re constantly wondering what it actually is, when it’s going to show up again, and what it will do when it does. With the small amount of violence the censors allowed in those days, if they had done it any other way it easily could have come out extremely unrealistic. And when compared to todays horror movies showing anything and everything for shock value, I found this subtle approach to be the more successful technique.

The film is beautifully lit and utilizes shadows expertly. And it’s glorious black and white photography extenuates the contrast between the light and the darkness. Watch for the scene in the swimming pool. It is a perfect example of all this and is the most suspenseful scene in the movie.

It has a running time of only seventy-three minutes. This time constraint puts a limit on how much the relationships in the film can develop. Irena and Olive go directly from meeting to falling in love to getting married. This is more of an observation than a criticism. It bothered me at first, then I realized that relationships are not the focus of the film, but a way to introduce Irena’s issues. More romance would have just been filler getting in the way of the story.

Simone Simon is excellent as Irena. At first I wasn’t sure if her performance was going to be any good. But as story progresses and Irena becomes more and more obsessive, Simone becomes increasing creepy in her portrayal.

Cat People inspired a sequel of sorts two years later as well as a remake in 1982 by director Paul Schrader (best known for scripting Taxi Driver). From what I understand, the sequel, The Curse of the Cat People, is basically unrelated but I’ve heard great things about it. I’ll probably watch and review it tomorrow night as part two of my series of Lewton posts. As for the remake, I’d be interested to see a more modern take on the story, but I doubt if it will be as good of a movie as the original. It has held up incredibly well after almost seventy years and is still extremely thrilling.

Criterion successfully drained my bank account pretty good in the last week. First, in celebration of their 50,000th Facebook fan they offered 50% off of all in stock Blu Rays and DVDs for 50,000 seconds. I only meant to spend $100.00 or so, but my total ended up at $262.20. I just couldn’t whittle it down anymore. Then, I ended up going to Las Cruces with my dad and sister yesterday where I always have to hit up the Criterion section of Barnes & Noble. There I bought four more movies. I may regret spending so much money later, but I’m quite happy now. I got some good ones.

A few of the films I bought from the sale are ones I have owned before, but were stolen when my apartment was broken into last year. Also, several of them are films Martin Scorsese recommends in his wonderful documentary A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies.

Scorsese considered John Cassavetes his mentor. He shows clips from Cassevetes’ Faces that intrigued me, which it the main reason I bought this set originally and why I picked it up again last week.

Another filmmaker Scorsese talks about at length is Samuel Fuller. A while back I had bought and watched his film Pickup on South Street, which I thoroughly enjoyed. So when I heard Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss were being released, I was thrilled to finally be able to check them out too.

The clips Scorsese showed of the Preston Sturges film Sullivan’s Travels made it look like a fun movie.

I’ve heard great things about all of these from multiple sources. I knew about Francois Tuffaut’s 400 Blows, but I didn’t know he made four sequels to his debut film. Jules Dassin’s  Rififi is supposed to be one of the best heist movies ever made. And Bicycles Thieves is another of the films that was stolen and I felt compelled to buy again.

In David Gilmour’s memoir The Film Club, he speaks very highly of Under the Volcano and the Malcolm Lowry book, of the same title, it is based on. So when I saw Criterion had released the film, I thought I’d give it shot.

These two have yet to come in because Criterion ran out of stock. The Sweet Smell of Success is yet another film Scorsese talks about. Both Roger Ebert and Brad Brevet (my two favorite film critics) referenced Le Samourai in comparison toThe American. Since I enjoyed The American so much (my review), I wanted to see how they compare.

After watching Breathless a while back (you can check out my review of it here), I was interested in checking out more of Jean-Luc Godard’s work. Barnes & Noble had five of his other films. I had never heard of any of them, but 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, Band of Outsiders, and Vivre Sa Vie sounded the most interesting to me. The fourth film is not one of Godard’s, but another French director by the name of Alain Resnais. I had never heard of him before yesterday. I ran into a book about him at a used bookstore in Las Cruces and happened to find several of his films at Barnes & Noble. The plot of Last Year at Marienbad is one I could not pass up on.

You can expect to hear more about these over time as I watch them. I’m debating having a Val Lewton (who I didn’t talk about in this post, but I did in this one), Cassavetes, or Godard marathon.

Are you familiar with any of these filmmakers or their movies? Thoughts?

My mom called me last week suggesting an obscure old movie a friend had told her about entitled, The Loved One.I had never heard of it, but when she said it starred Jonathan Winters, I was intrigued. She ordered it from Amazon and we watched it tonight. It has an ensemble cast and thus multiple story lines. So it’s difficult to explain, especially without spoilers, but here goes.

Dennis Barlow, an aspiring poet, leaves England when he wins a free airline ticket to Los Angeles. Upon arrival he contacts his uncle, Sir Francis Hinsley, who agrees to let Dennis stay with him. 

Francis is a retired artist who now works at a film studio. He, Henry Glenworthy, producer D.J. Jr.,and actor Dusty Acres are working on a new film. But when word comes down that D.J. Sr. is displeased with the project, Francis and Henry are promptly fired. Henry contacts his high powered brother, Blessed Reverend Wilbur Glenworthy, for help. Hinsley, on the other hand, goes home and hangs himself (that may sound like a spoiler, but in the context of the movie, it’s not really).

Dennis is left to handle Hinsley’s  funeral arrangements. He goes to the Blessed Reverend’s high-class funeral parlor, Whispering Glades, where the deceased are referred to as “the loved one”. Here he is offered a variety of options for all aspects of the funeral from clothing and shoes to casket and cemetery section. The sections also come with a wide array of choices each marked with elaborate statues, such as Homer for the poet’s section.

Along the way, Dennis meets and falls in love with cosmetician Aimee Thanatogenus. However, the Blessed Reverend forbids relationships with “the waiting”. On top of this, the embalmer, Mr. Joyboy, also has his sights on Aimee and she despises The Happy Hunting Ground pet cemetery, where Dennis secretly works with Henry. However, he is undeterred by these difficulties.

As I said, my initial attraction to the movie was Jonathan Winters. He is a comedian I grew up with, thanks to my dad. Winters plays not one, but two characters, Henry and the Blessed Reverend. As usual, he is hilarious in both roles. He is an expert with reactions and facial expressions and has a wonderful manic sense just under the surface waiting to burst out.

The movie has plenty of other great actors. Robert Morse (Cooper from Mad Men) as Dennis, Milton Berle as one of the pet cemetery customers Mr. Kenton, James Coburn as an immigration officer, John Gielgud as Francis, Tab Hunter as a tour guide, Liberace as Mr. Starker the funeral director, Roddy McDowall as D.J. Jr., and Rod Steiger as Mr. Joyboy. And for any M*A*S*H fans that watch closely enough, Jamie Farr AKA Klinger has a brief cameo as a waiter.

Director Tony Richardson had just come off an Academy Award win for Tom Jones, so he was free to do whatever he wanted in his next movie. And boy did he. The Loved One’s tagline is “The motion picture with something to offend everyone!” It takes incredibly irreverent looks at death and religion and it is filled with sexual innuendo. I’m sure that was all shocking in 1965.

The film revels in absurdity with varying degrees of success.  Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny. Liberace is hilarious as he displays casket and clothing options: water proof, moisture proof or damp proof caskets, split-back suits to avoid difficulties with stiff limbs, and shoes that adjust to the curling of rigor mortis, or rig mo as he calls it. And Rod Steiger is great when he is embalming Francis and experimenting with different facial expressions. However, much more of the film is head-scratchingly bizarre. Mr. Joyboy’s gluttonous mother drools over televised food commercials and gorges herself on her meals. Her son sings of all the food he’s serving her and has nightmares of bringing her live lobsters that devour her instead. And when the Blessed Reverend decides to convert Whispering Glades into a retirement center because it’s not profitable enough as a funeral parlor and has to find a way to “get rid of the stiffs”, the plot just becomes more and more absurd.

I suspect this might be one of those movies that grow on you with repeat viewings. But this first time through, I found myself more dumbfounded than entertained. I’m not sure if I will give it another chance anytime soon or not.

I was finally able to watch The King’s Speech Saturday night. But before I begin my review, I want to say one thing from the get go: as I mentioned in my post about the Oscars, I didn’t think the film deserved to win Best Picture. I enjoyed several of the other nominated films much more. This is not to say that it’s not a good movie. It is one of the best of the year and it deserved it’s nomination. But, in my opinion, it was not the best movie of the year. But it did win, as I expected it to, so I’ll get off my soap box and move on.

The story concerns King George VI’s attempts to overcome a terrible stammer during his journey to the throne. It begins when he is just the Duke of York preparing to give his first radio broadcast speech, the prospect of which terrifies him. His inability to control his stammer shocks and disappoints not only the Royal family, but the whole of the British Empire. He later watches with envy as his father, King George V, eloquently delivers his own radio address. Several doctors have treated him, but none can cure him. When his father dies and his older brother, King Edward VIII, proves incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the throne, being crowned the next King seems imminent. But can he rise up to this difficult task? Kings are supposed to be the people’s voice, but he can hardly speak. And with the threat of World War II looming, the people needed a voice more than ever. In a final desperate attempt, he hires Lionel Logue, a controversial speech therapist who uses many unorthodox methods of treatment.

Colin Firth is wonderful as King George VI, he more than deserved his Oscar for Best Actor. Along with the stammer, which I’m sure was extremely difficult to portray sensitively and realistically, he had to play a character fearful and completely drained of self confidence as well as courageous and perseverant. He managed all of this and with great humanity. 

It goes without saying that Geoffrey Rush is great in the film. He always is. In playing Lionel Logue, he makes himself an equal to the King while still respecting his position. He is then able to gain the King’s trust and form an unlikely friendship. This might sound silly, but I was perhaps most impressed by Rush’s flawless delivery of a complicated tongue twister.

The rest of the cast is fantastic as well. It is nice to see Helena Bonham Carter as a elegant character after so many wild roles in Harry Potter and Tim Burton movies. Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII was a pleasant surprise, I either didn’t know or had forgotten he was in the film. Michael Gambon was almost unrecognizable as King George V. And Timothy Spall was much better than I expected as Winston Churchill.

He has done a lot of work in television, but this is only director Tom Hooper’s third feature film. In his acceptance speech for Best Director, he gave a special thanks to his mother. She had attended a reading for a theatrical production of The King’s Speech in London and called Hooper telling him she had found his next film.

I also learned during the Academy Awards that the films writer, David Seidler, had a stammer as a child. Yet he delivered a flawless acceptance speech saying that this story gives hope to everyone with speech impediments. This added even more depth to the movie for me.

Apparently Seidler has been trying to make this movie for quite some time. When he first began thinking about it, he wrote the Queen Mother requesting permission. She asked that he not do it in her lifetime as it would bring back to many memories for her. He respected her wishes.

The film was rated R for one scene containing profanity. Lionel Logue notices that the King doesn’t stammer when he swears, so he has him use this as an aid in his regular speech. What follows is a beautiful rant containing a string of juicy curse words, including seventeen “fucks”. They are preparing the release an edited PG-13 version in which they took out several of the “fucks”. This might make the film a bit more accessible, but I think it will take away from it as well. Not only is the scene incredibly humorous, but it is an important part of the narrative.

I don’t know much about the actual story, so I’m not sure how historically accurate the film is. I did read the Queen Elizabeth II, who in the movie is only a child, saw it and enjoyed it. But I also heard that a journalist named Christopher Hitchens berated the screenplay.

While I may disagree with the Academy somewhat, The King’s Speech is an interesting and inspirational story that is very well acted. I’m glad I was finally able to see it.

I wasn’t able to watch The 83rd Annual Academy Awards live on Sunday because I was working. I went the entire night avoiding Facebook and the movie sites it typically visit so as to not run into any spoilers. I was finally able to watch the show this afternoon and evening. From what I’ve read online, a lot of people really disliked it. I didn’t find it as horrible as it’s made out to be. It definitely had it’s low points, but it had a few highs as well.

I remember being pretty disappointed in Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin hosting last year, so I was hoping Anne Hathaway and James Franco would do better. Hathaway was a fair enough host, but Franco seemed entirely disinterested. And they both had their rough moments. Hathaway’s song about the unnamed Hugh Jackman refusing to join her in a duet was completely pointless. Franco coming out dressed in drag was bizarrely stupid. Oh well. Maybe next year.

I did enjoy their opening sketch where they were integrated into clips from the Best Picture nominees. Much of it was rather humorous and the editing was impressive. That said, I can understand the argument that is wasn’t a good fit for the Oscars. In fact, quite a few things seemed out of place. The clip setting many of 2010’s movies to songs was nothing that anyone couldn’t find on YouTube. A montage of random people on the street answering “What is your favorite movie song?” is fine for a talk show, not the most prestigious awards show in Hollywood. And the choir of fifth graders singing Somewhere Over The Rainbow was cute but left me wondering why.

Okay, I’m starting to feel like I’m bashing the show as much as everyone else. Let’s get to some of the stuff I did enjoy.

Most of the presenters were the typical faces reciting obviously scripted jokes as they announce their category. But there was a couple surprise guests this year that were great and atypically unique. My favorite was Kirk Douglas doing Best Supporting Actress. The screen legend received a deserved standing ovation. Although he is in his nineties and has difficulty speaking due to a stroke a few years ago, he still did an amazing job and was hysterical flirting with Hathaway and teasing reading the winner.

Billy Crystal was another presenter that stood out. I’ve only been watching the Oscars for a few years so I’ve never seen Crystal host, but watching him here made me want to. However, his segment seemed like a strange exercise in introductions. Hathaway introduced Crystal introducing clips of Bob Hope hosting past shows which introduces Robert Downy Jr. and Jude Law presenting the award for Best Special Effects. 

And Steven Spielberg was not particularly special in presenting Best Picture, but I loved what he had to say about the winner versus the other nominees: “In a moment, one of these ten movies will join a list that includes On the Waterfront, Midnight Cowboy, The Godfather and The Deer Hunter. The other nine will join a list that includes The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, The Graduate and Raging Bull. Either way, they’re in good company.”

I also liked the way they did Best Actor and Actress this year, with the presenters speaking directly to the nominees in the audience. Especially with Jeff Bridges presenting Best Actress. He has an amazing natural presence and way of speaking. He was probably the only presenter that didn’t seem like he was going off of a script.

As for the winners, there wasn’t very many surprises. Wally Pfister won Best Cinematography for Inception when I was expecting and hoping for Roger Deakins for True Grit. And Tom Hooper won Best Director for The King’s Speech when I figured David Fincher would win for The Social Network. Everything else was pretty predictable. I even found myself announcing some of the winners before the presenter.

Often in acceptance speeches, winners just emotionally rant as many names as they can before the clock runs out. But like the presenters, a few of the winners rose above the norm in their speeches.

Upon winning Best Supporting Actress for The Fighter, Melissa Leo’s excited enthusiasm was infectious. She even dropped an f-bomb saying: “When I watched Kate do this two years ago it looked so fucking easy.” This of course was censored, but it was referenced multiple times though out the rest of the show.

It was great to see Christian Bale finally win an Oscar. It was long over due. And it’s nice seeing him repair his public image after a rough couple years. He gave a great speech in which stated: “Melissa. I’m not going to drop the f-bomb like she did, I’ve done that plenty before.” Bale also paid tribute to the real Dick Eklund.

And I really enjoyed Randy Newman’s acceptance speech for Best Original Song, We Belong Together from Toy Story 3. It was refreshingly unique. He was quite witty about listing names being bad television and wanting to make good television but that he couldn’t completely. 

I can’t say I was completely satisfied with all the winners, no matter how expected they were. I knew they wouldn’t, but I would have loved to see True Grit and 127 Hours win some of the awards they were nominated for, especially True Grit. How does The Wolfman win one Oscar and Alice In Wonderland two while True Grit and 127 Hours go home empty handed? And I didn’t feel like The King’s Speech deserved Best Picture or Director. Don’t get me wrong, it was fine movie, I just enjoyed some of the others more.

Maybe this years Oscars were as bad as they say. But I enjoyed them more than I have in the past, probably because I’d seen more of the films this years and was more familiar with the nominees and which ones would likely win.

What about you? How did you like the show? Were you happy with all the winners?

127 Hours opens with images of bustling cities and crowds of people. This offers a stark contrast to where Aaron Ralston is preparing to go. He gathers everything he thinks he will need for the trip, drives to a trail off of the road, and mounts his bike riding the rest of the way to Blue John Canyon in the vast desert of Utah. He doesn’t take anyone with him. He doesn’t tell anyone where he is going.

Aaron is quite the adventurer. The enthusiasm for hiking and canyoneering he exudes is surprisingly infectious. As he bikes towards the canyon, he flips his bicycle and takes a nasty tumble over the handle bars face first into the dirt and rocks. Yet he is hardly phased. He pulls out a camera, smiles, snaps a picture of himself lying on the ground and takes off again. When he reaches the canyon, he leaves his bike and sets out afoot.

Soon after, Aaron happens upon a couple of female hiker who have lost their way. He introduces himself and offers to guide them to “the dome”. Upon arrival he tells them the way the guidebook would have them go, then offers to them his own secret, more exciting entrance: free falling from a canyon crevice into a pool of water. Eventually, he leaves the girls and strikes out on his own again.

As he crawls down into a narrow canyon, a boulder comes loose and falls, crushing his arm literally between a rock and a hard place. He tries moving the rock by hand, chipping away at it with a pocket knife, and even using a make shift pulley system. But all his efforts are futile. As he screams for help, the camera zooms out further and further revealing how deep into the canyon he really is. Over the next 127 hours, Aaron reflects on his life, remembers his family and friends and records messages for them on his camera recorder. He dreams and hallucinates of freeing himself. He never gives up on his attempts to do so, not even upon the realization of the extreme action he must take. Through all of this, we witness the power of the human will to survive.

127 Hours is based on a true story. The real Aaron Ralston is quoted saying “the movie is so factually accurate it is as close to a documentary as you can get and still be a drama.” It’s a story most of us have heard and know how it ends, but watching it all unfold on screen is still remarkably thrilling.

I read some people complained that the film took to long to reach the action. I guess they were expecting an hour and a half gore fest. But to me, the anticipation of the inevitable ending made everything that preceded it all the more exciting. We squirm, and often forget to breath, through every increasingly severe requirement for Aaron’s survival. We would have become acclimated to full on violence all the way through. But this way, we are given just enough to keep us on edge right up to the major pay off of an ending.

Danny Boyle, who previously directed films such as Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire, brought his typical stylized vision to the film. The desert and canyon settings are stunning already and Boyle’s camera effects add even more visual intrigue. He often utilizes a split screen to show not only multiple locations, but multiple camera angles. This really enables us to get inside Aaron’s head and see things from his perspective. Boyle also uses a lot of point-of-view shots. For example, we watch from inside a water bottle or the tube of a camel back while Aaron is drinking, providing an exciting portrayal of his dwindling resources. 

James Franco is amazing as Aaron Ralston. He carries the film as the only main character in a single claustrophobic location. He brings the intensity needed for the role as well as some moments of comic relief. While he records himself stuck in the canyon, he puts on a talk show of sorts “interviewing” various aspects of his personality about how he got himself in this predicament.

127 Hours is not for the faint of heart. It is incredibly violent and gut wrenching at times. But if you can stomach it, it’s an amazing portrayal of a fascinating story. I would normally consider the saying “it keeps you on the edge of your seat” a gross cliche, but in this case it’s quite an accurate description. It is easily one of the most exhilarating movies I have ever seen.