THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)

Oscars. That's what everyone is saying whenever this film is brought up. Some are even saying its a sure fire winner, playing the Royal Card - the Yanks love a film about the Royal family. I've had some bad experiences over the years though when seeing films that have Oscar hopes (Titanic for example), so I wasn't sure how this would sit with me.......

So I made my way down to the lunchtime showing at the Richmond Curzon (staggeringly good value at £5 per ticket with my membership) to see what all the fuss is about.



I can tell you that they are all spot on. And the some. Everyone who says this film is great, every critic who says Colin Firth is brilliant in this, every punter on the street who says it moved them to tears throughout, they're all right. The truth is that all the hype still didn't prepare me for how good this film is.

At the centre of it are two mesmerising performances, Colin Firth as George VI (getting the majority of the plaudits) and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue, a speech therapist enlisted to help the Duke of York overcome a debilitating stammer. Firth's George is riddled with insecurities, deeply introverted with a lack of confidence that stems from his condition. His depiction of a stammerer is so convincing, it's incredible, with it only really surfacing when nervous and under pressure. Whilst relaxed with family, it barely surfaces - a nice touch that adds to the teetering, fragile personality of George.  Logue is the opposite. Charming, sure of himself, over familiar with his regal patient. Their evolving relationship is very much at the heart of the film, the historically significant issues of war and abdication become subplots as the friendship blossoms and the future king becomes more dependant on Logue (similar in this respect to the director Tom Hooper's last film, The Damned United with Brian Clough and Peter Taylor's relationship being vital). It's an absolute pleasure to see two such fine actors up against each other in so many scenes, at times battling each other, at others complimenting one another. A real masterclass. Like Federer v Nadal.

The two leads are supported more than ably by a stellar cast that help push the film into the 'special' realm. Helena Bonham-Carter (a joy to see her in something that isn't either a Potter film or directed by her husband) is great as George's wife Elizabeth (who many would know as the Queen Mother). She is a pillar of strength to her husband's vulnerability but is also mischievous with a cheeky sense of humour. You can tell from her looks at George that she is really in love with him and every stammer that he makes is like a jolt of pain on a nerve to her. Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII is perfectly suited as the playboy King (dare one suggest that he is a possibility of what might occur if Prince Harry was made up). Michael Gambon is excellent in his few scenes as George V, throwing gravitas around as King and father. Timothy Spall turns in brilliant show as Winton Churchill, all be it a slightly hammed up version. Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop, conservative and straight, but compelling with it. It just goes on and on. On paper the strength in depth of the cast is astounding but on screen it's ten times better.

The tone of the film was far from what I expected as well. The subject and the cast would suggest a typical British period piece, perhaps suited to the small screen better, however we are treated to a proper cinematic film. Tom Hooper really makes this feel like a proper film and has not let normal expectations hold him back. Sweeping montages, epic camera shots, moody London streets. Special mention must go to how he shows how daunting the prospect of public speaking is to George VI - a first person view where spectators and crowds seem huge, towering over the microphone at the forefront of the screen. You are with George, and you too are overawed.

It's a comedy too. Not in a Jane Austen, chortle kind of way, but proper comedy. There are some hilarious moments of banter between George VI and Logue, confident one liners from the latter, self-deprecating humour from the former. There are some nice, subtle jokes about out of touch Royals, Elizabeth trying to figure out how to use a lift for example, and  Hooper and the writer David Seidler (barely a noticeable credit to his name before this) get real mileage out of the remarkable situation, the King being so dependant on an average speech therapist.

For every laugh though, there is a lump in the throat. It's not just a touching finale, as is so often the case these days. I honestly can't remember the last time that I was so moved, so many times during a trip to the flicks.

I can't recommend this film enough, everything about it is top class, acting, writing, direction, it's pitched absolutely perfectly. Then you consider that it is about one of the most amazing stories in the history of our country and it becomes utterly unmissable.

We have yet to see what the film and it's stars will be up against when it comes to Oscar night, but if something beats this film, Firth and Rush (what a battle that could/should be) to the gong, it will be a hell of a movie or performance.

The best film I have seen in a long, long while.

THE BOOK OF ELI (2010)

Everyone is seemingly obsessed with the end of the world at the moment. Emmerich is trying to make it into a theme park ride, John Hillcoat using it as a chance to ponder humanity, the Potter films have reached the point where the world is completely under threat and you can't swing a Mayan calendar now without coming across a zombie plague that will sweep the globe. And now even the Hughes Brothers have got good old Denzel Washington in the saddle for their own take on Armageddon.



They take the Cormac McCarthy approach and don't explain fully how we have arrived where we are, there is talk of a bright flash in the past and everyone wears sunglasses in this sandy, Mad Max-like world, so something 'Triffid' like is alluded to. Towns have the feel of those in a Western, looters and murderers line the roads, traps are set to snare you and steal your supplies. It's not as bleak as the situation in The Road, as there are more survivors, but you sense it's a lot more dangerous.

Denzel is the eponymous Eli, a lone introverted traveller who's only mission it seems is to 'Go West' (luckily to rescue the tone of the film The Hughes Brothers resist the temptation to have The Pet Shop Boys on the soundtrack). He is also carrying a book, and quite a significant book at that (there is one great visual nod to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code phenomenon), that seems to be at the root of his quest. Which brings us to the villain of the piece, Carnegie (Gary Oldman in true British bad buy fashion) who wants to get his hands on this book as he believes it holds great power and will aid his plan for ruling the people of his town and others that neighbour it.

The problem with the film for me is that is suffers an identity crisis, it doesn't know what it wants to be. One second its a very tense, well-executed thriller, with fine action sequences, splashes of gore, in fact, again, it's very Mad Max. But then there are ponderous moments where Denzel ramps up his acting and goes into whisper-mode and the film tries to explore religion and how it can be used to rule and the power of words and ideas, which are all very interesting themes, and to the film's credit, it does get you thinking, but it just doesn't sit right alongside all the fast paced action.

It's a shame because the film does a lot very well. The Hughes Brothers have created a great looking movie, the colour palette suits the sun drenched locations, they handle the action fantastically, notably a great gun fight featuring our hero and Michael Gambon (!) where the camera sweeps around the action putting you right into the thick of it. Denzel is, well Denzel. Always dependable, doing what he does best in these types of films. Gary Oldman hams it up as the baddie and clearly loves it, but then he can do that sort of thing with his eyes closed. As far as the cast goes, its only Mila Kunis as Eli's travel companion for the second half of the film, that fails to convince. Her performance felt a bit weak compared to all the heavy hitting going on around her. Oh and Malcolm McDowell turns up at the end which is always a treat.

So when it finished, I asked myself whether I enjoyed it, and the answer is I did. The trouble was the schizophrenia that the films suffers from. It's neither one thing nor the other. I thought that I should have been more upset and affected by the film's conclusion, which is I suspect down to this failing, the action detracting from the themes running through it. At the same time I wasn't as thrilled as I should have been by the action. I was gutted because I wanted to enjoy it, The Hughes Brothers make interesting films (Menace II Society, the great looking but flawed From Hell, but most of all the fantastic Dead Presidents) and they've done it again here (it is genuinely interesting) but it just doesn't quite hit the mark......