My Review: The King`s Speech (9/10)

¨If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they think that when I speak, I speak for them.¨

Being a good public speaker is a necessity for the King of England, because he represents the voice of his nation. If that nation is going through a dark period in time (declaring War on Nazi Germany for example), then the need to be a strong public speaker is even greater. Unfortunately for King George VI that is not the case, since he is known as King George the stammer. Bertie (the nickname his family has given him) has suffered from a severe stammering problem for as long as he can remember. He has tried every means necessary to get over his problem, but they`ve all failed and there is nothing he can do about it. The King`s Speech is the favorite film to take home the Oscar for Best Picture with 12 nominations. Tom Hooper did an excellent job with the direction of this historical drama, which also manages to produce several laughs throughout the film thanks to a witty script written by David Seidler and great performances from Colin Firth (frontrunner to take home the Oscar for Best leading Actor), Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter. David Seidler actually suffered from stammering as a kid and clearly remembered the speech the King gave while declaring War against Germany during World War II. His experience with the problem and memory of the historical facts made him the ideal person to write the script for The King`s Speech, since he was mostly only known for writing movies made for television. This film will probably open many new doors for him as a writer because the script was beautifully written and the Oscar nomination was well deserved.

Colin Firth gives one of the best performances of the year in his role as King George VI. The film is based on true events beginning in 1925 when his character has to give a public speech in Wembley Stadium. George is only a Duke and has to give the speech as a request given to him by his father King George V (Michael Gambon, known for his role as Dumbledore in the Harry Potter franchise). His stammering problem gets even worse as every eye in the stadium is on him and the speech is a complete disaster. It’s a good thing Bertie won`t be King because that responsibility should fall on his older brother Edward (Guy Pearce). Years pass by and Bertie can`t find a way to get over his speaking problem. Every doctor that treats him fails, and his bad temper doesn`t help him any either. His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) doesn`t give up on him however and finds a speech therapist who claims to be able to fix her husband`s problem. Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) is a pretty unorthodox doctor, but he forms a strong bond with Bertie, and their unlikely friendship becomes one of the main attractions of the film. Their personalities clash several times, but their relationship grows through time. King George V falls ill and passes away, so Edward becomes King of the nation. Unfortunately for George, Edward is in love with a two time divorcé, Wallis Simpson (Eve Best), and is willing to resign the crown of England just to marry her. The King of England is the head of the Church and therefore it is impossible for him to marry a divorced woman. Edward resigns for love, and the responsibility of the nation falls entirely on King George VI. The timing couldn`t have been worse because England is declaring War on Germany and the nation is waiting for the King`s speech.

It is impossible to remain emotionally detached from the film due to the strong performances from the ensemble cast. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are just phenomenal in this movie, and the pairing of the two make this movie even stronger. When the movie reaches its climatic scene at the end and we are waiting to hear the King`s speech, it’s just impossible not to feel nervous for Bertie. We want him to succeed after everything that he has gone through. Firth and Rush really made us feel sympathy for their characters and that is what great actors do. As for the director Tom Hooper all I can say is that he was totally in control of his craft and made a strong film. However I still don`t consider this his best film. Last year he directed The Damned United, and in my opinion that is a far superior movie which starred Michael Sheen and Timothy Spall as two football coaches. With these two great films in two years, I will keep Tom Hooper under my radar for his upcoming movies. He has proven twice now that he can make powerful pictures. The relationship between Bertie and Lionel isn`t the only strong point of the film; Bertie`s relationship with his brother Edward is also a key point of the film. Edward is willing to resign the crown for love, but at the same time he is running away from the responsibility of governing a nation in need and leaving that enormous task on George, who happens to be handicapped himself. Well I guess it isn`t Edward`s fault that they don`t let him marry the person he loves, and for that I understand him, and in a way I think George does too. The movie has several things going for it and I highly recommend it. If The King`s Speech ends up winning Best Picture, it will be the second time in consecutive years that Guy Pearce is in a movie that takes home the top prize (he was in The Hurt Locker as well). 

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Winter`s Bone (6/10)

¨Never ask for what oughta be offered.¨

Winter`s Bone is director`s Debra Granik`s only film that I have had a chance to watch (she also directed Down to the Bone, so I guess she must have something for bones), and I was really expecting much more from this picture considering it won the Grand Jury Award at Sundance and it has recently been nominated for four Oscar awards (Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress for Jennifer Lawrence, and Best Supporting Actor for John Hawkes) with which I only agree with the two acting nods. Without a doubt the highlight of this movie is Lawrence`s breakthrough performance as Ree Dolly. She is great in this film, especially with all the non-verbal communication she conveys with her silence and facial expressions. She is one tough girl who hasn`t been corrupted by the world in which she was raised and manages to take care of her mother and siblings and she`s only 17. The other highlight of the film is John Hawkes performance as Ree`s father`s brother, Teardrop. He is excellent as a supporting character, but Lawrence is the true star of the film. The screenplay was adapted by Granik herself along with Anne Rossellini from Daniel Wodrell`s 2006 novel of the same name and I have to say the pace of the film is rather slow. There is a real authenticity and reality to the film, and poverty is depicted in a very natural manner, but at the same time the movie moves along at a very sluggish pace.

The story takes place in the Ozark Mountains, a very poor Southern rural area where all the locals seem to be involved with illegal drugs (cooking and consuming crystal meth to be more precise). Ree Dolly (Lawrence) is a 17 year old girl who has had to mature beyond her years and raise her two younger siblings on her own because her dad is constantly away from home due to troubles with the Law and her mom is mentally ill. Somehow Ree has managed to grow up strong and apart from this drug environment and manages to support her family. One day the town Sheriff (played by Garret Dillahunt) shows up bringing some more bad news for Ree. Her father has put their home as a guarantee to pay his bail and if he doesn`t show up in court in two weeks they will lose their home. The problem is that her father hasn`t showed up for a long time and no one seems to know his whereabouts or at least don`t want to talk about it with Ree. She tells the Sheriff she will find him and sets this as her primary mission. She begins asking questions to several people from the area that were involved in the same crystal meth business her father was, but no one seems to help her. The name Thump Milton (Ronnie Hall) shows up, but she gets into trouble for trying to speak to him. Finally her father`s brother, Teardrop (John Hawkes) decides to help her out after refusing to help at first. The problem is that there seems to be a code of silence between the people in the Ozarks and no one is willing to break it.

Winter`s Bone is not actually a mystery film, the main focus of the movie isn`t really trying to find out where Ree`s father is or what happened to him, the issue Granik is really trying to get at is portraying a real and authentic environment involving poverty and responsibilities a teenager shouldn`t have to carry at such an early age. Ree`s character is the center piece of the film and it is a wonder she turned out so strong in the midst of such a bad environment. She doesn`t seem to belong with the rest of the people from the Ozarks and yet she is still willing to find enough courage to stand up against them and their code of ethics. Lawrence delivers a very strong performance and Hawkes is also a great supporting character as he has to confront himself with the fact of helping out his niece or keeping up with the code of silence he has always sworn too. None of the characters of the film are one dimensional, they are all real characters and Granik manages to stay away from stereotypes. Ree`s neighbors offer help at some points and at others they turn their backs on her. Winter`s Bone is well balanced, it is also beautifully filmed, but somehow I didn`t think it was such a great film as many critics have pointed it out to be. For me the pace was too slow and the 100 minutes seemed an eternity. The movie still is a pleasant experience, it is good, but I just don`t think it`s great or Oscar worthy material for Best Picture. I would have preferred Affleck´s The Town to have been nominated in this category, a much stronger film in my opinion.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Shawshank Redemption (10/10)

¨Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things and no good thing ever dies. ¨

An uplifting and inspiring movie that reminds us that hope is what keeps us going during difficult situations. The movie ranks at number one in the top IMDB list and it comes as no surprise because many people rank this movie among their all-time favorite. Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins give an excellent performance in this film directed by Frank Darabont and which is based on Stephen King´s short story ¨Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.¨ It received 7 Oscar nominations in 1995 including Best Picture, but lost to Forrest Gump. Freeman is probably the best actor when it comes to narrating a story and this is one of his greatest roles as he introduces us to Robbins`s character, Andy Dufresne. Andy is a banker who has been accused of murdering his wife and her lover and is sentenced to prison for life. In Shawshank prison Andy befriends Red (Morgan Freeman) who serves as the provider in jail because he can get just about anything you ask, yes even Rita Hayworth. The prison is run by Warden Norton (Bob Gunton) with a stern hand, and the prison guards treat the prisoners very violently. Despite how unjust life has been towards Andy he never losses hope because as he puts it ¨You either get busy living or you get busy dying.¨ There is a very positive message we can learn from this movie and if you are among the few that haven`t seen it yet then I absolutely recommend this as a must see film! You won`t regret it.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Oliver! (10/10)

¨I'm reviewing the situation. Can a fellow be a villain all his life? ¨

¨Oliver! ¨ is my favorite Musical of all time, but it could very well be called ¨Fagin! ¨ because Ron Moody`s performance as Fagin is truly the highlight of the film. He shines in every scene he`s in and his musical pieces ¨You`ve Got to Pick a Pocket or Two¨ and ¨Reviewing the Situation¨ are the best ones in the movie. Even Oliver`s buddy, the Artful Dodger played by Jack Wild, steals each scene he shares with Mark Lester, who plays the main character Oliver. The film which is based on Lionel Bart`s musical adaptation of Charles Dickens`s novel, Oliver Twist, had been produced for the stage in London before they decided to turn it into a film. The screenplay adaptation for the movie was written by Vernon Harris. The characters are just as I would have imagined them from reading Dickens`s novel and I don`t have a problem with Fagin and The Artful Dodger stealing the show from the protagonist because that is what happens most of the time with Dickens`s main characters in his novels. He is so good at creating remarkable characters and I remember these two were the most memorable in the novel as well. Oliver Twist serves more as a symbol of innocence and purity among an evil world that has turned its back on him, and his goodness proves to be incorruptible even among these villains he lives with. I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens and I really believe this film lived up to it although it was very loosely based on the novel because you just can`t fit everything into the movie and some of the characters had to be left out (Monks, Mrs. Maylie, Henry and Rose for example), or they didn`t have much screen time as is the case with Mr. Bumble.

The movie begins in a workhouse several miles from London where several young orphans are forced to work and live under harsh conditions. One of the orphans, Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) is chosen by the rest of the kids to ask for more food because it is hardly enough. Oliver is a shy good looking kid, but when he asks Mr. Bumble (Harry Secombe) for more food he is instantly put in discipline for misconduct. He decides to sell the boy because he has become an inconvenience. Oliver eventually escapes and is able to arrive at London where he meets another young boy about his age who introduces himself as The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). The Dodger offers Oliver a place to sleep and introduces him to Fagin (Ron Moody) and the rest of the boys. Fagin happens to be a thief who trains the children how to pick a pocket and steal valuable goods like wallets and handkerchiefs from distracted men in the streets. Oliver is innocent and doesn’t really understand what is going on until the day he goes on his very first mission with the Dodger and he is mistakenly accused of stealing a man`s wallet. Oliver is finally declared innocent after an eyewitness claims it was another boy who was trying to steal the wallet and Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O`Conner) apologizes to him and adopts him at his home. In the meantime Fagin is worried the boy will give up his hideout along with his partner in crime, Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). Bill forces his girlfriend Nancy (Shani Wallis) to kidnap Oliver and bring him back and the plot develops from that point on.

Oliver! won six Oscars in 1968, including best picture, and was the last musical to win an Oscar until Chicago won it in 2005. Carol Reed also won for best direction and he really raised the bar for musicals ever since. It was probably the last of the great musicals. Perhaps the hardest character to portray in this film from the novel was Nancy because she is torn between her love for Bill and doing the right thing for Oliver. Shani Wallis does a good job of portraying this inner struggle which eventually leads her to her fate. Oliver Reed had to portray the darkest and most evil character of the novel, Bill Sikes, and he does a good job as well. Some of the other musical numbers I enjoyed were ¨Who Will Buy? ¨ and ¨Oom-Pah-Pah.¨ The art directions and scenery were also really well done for the time period. I don`t know if I would of enjoyed the movie as much as I did if it weren`t for Moody`s performance. He was great and I think he should have won the Oscar for Best Secondary Actor. Robin Williams`s performance in August Rush was probably influenced by Moody`s character in this film. He was just a pleasure to watch on screen and is the main reason why I like this Musical so much. I am not a big fan of musicals, but this is definitely my favorite one and I recommend it.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Godfather Part II (10/10)

¨Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.¨

Coppola´s (or should I say Puzo`s) The Godfather Part II is considered by many as the best sequel of all time, and some even consider it to be better than the original. In my opinion it is not as good as the first part, but there is no denying this is a great film nonetheless. Coppola did a great job with the direction once again, and has created a timeless film that movie fans go back to time after time. There are several things he did well with this film. First of all he took a completely different approach towards romanticizing the Corleone`s. In the first film we were attracted to Vito for his strong family beliefs and loyalty to his friends, in this film we see how Michael completely begins to lose control of his family and friends. Michael, who I admired in the first film, has become so blind in his lust for power that he losses the strong values his father had taught him. He has grown cold, distant, and even goes as far as to hitting his wife (something Vito would never have dreamed of doing). The parallel story of young Vito and how he became a Don also works really well as it is told in flashbacks during Michael`s present reign as Don. This story serves as a reminder of how distant Michael has become from what his father wanted of him. Part II is more of a nostalgic movie as we see the decline in the once strong and united Corleone family, and Nino Rota`s score is a perfect example of that. The final scenes of the film only confirm this sentiment. The performance from the cast is as equally as brilliant as it was from the first, and Gordon Willis`s cinematography is also equally impressive with its dark scenes that help set the mood of the film.

The Godfather Part II continues where the first one left off with Michael (Al Pacino) as head of the Corleone family and Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) as his personal adviser and lawyer. They are living in Nevada now and running the gambling business in that state during the late 50`s. While we follow the present storyline, Coppola introduces a series of flashbacks beginning all the way back in 1901 following the early life of Vito (Oreste Baldini) in Sicily. Vito´s father, brother, and mother (in that specific order) have been killed by Don Ciccio (Giuseppe Sillato), but Vito is able to escape to New York. The film later jumps forward to 1917 where Vito (Robert De Niro) is making a living working as a clerk for a small store in New York. The movie jumps back and forth between both stories. On the one hand you have Michael trying to expand his empire travelling to Miami and Cuba, meeting with Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg), a successful Jewish businessman, who Michael isn`t sure he can trust. On the meantime he has problems back home with his wife Kay (Diane Keaton), problems with Nevada Senator Pat Geary (G. D. Spradlin), and problems in New York with Frankie Pentangeli (Michael V. Gazzo), Clemenza`s replacement and friend of the family. After an attack on his life Michael isn`t sure who is after him (or maybe he is and we don`t know it). On the other hand, the other story continues to follow young Vito as he meets Clemenza (Bruno Kirby) and Tessio (John Aprea) and begins his imminent rise to becoming the Don.

Marlon Brando was a huge part of the success of the first film, but Coppola, along with Puzo, did a great job introducing new characters to the story that contributed to the success of the sequel. Michael V. Gazzo as Frankie and Lee Strasberg as Roth were great in this film and gave it a fresh new look. Another contributing factor was the addition of the flashbacks because Robert de Niro was the right man to play young Vito. His Oscar winning performance was outstanding and he just stood out in every scene he was in. Al Pacino continued with his transformation in the first film, and now he portrayed a much darker and colder Michael. He didn`t have to say anything and we already knew what he was feeling. There are several memorable scenes in which he speaks louder with his facial expressions than he does with his words. The opening scene in Nevada where the family is reunited celebrating Michael`s son`s First Communion is reminiscent of Connie`s wedding scene in the first Godfather, and the same thing can be said of several other scenes as the final one. The sequel serves as a nostalgic memory of what the Corleone`s once were (or at least what Coppola wanted us to think of them in the first romantic movie), it is much darker, but it still works and compliments the first part really well. The Godfather Part II is not better than the original, but it is still a masterpiece.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (10/10)

¨You see in this world there`s two kinds of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.¨

I wonder what would`ve been of Clint Eastwood`s career if it weren`t for the ¨Dollars¨ trilogy. Before working with Italian filmmaker, Sergio Leone, he had a career as a television actor in Rawhide, a western based TV series, but he couldn`t get a decent job in Hollywood so he began to look for work abroad. He reached international success thanks to Leone`s reinvented spaghetti westerns: A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966), known as the ¨Dollars¨ trilogy. He proved producers wrong because they thought that people wouldn`t pay to see movies of actors they could see for free on television, but audiences were  more than willing to see him in the big screen. His pairing with Leone couldn`t have worked out better for him since the director`s trademark was combining long wide shots with extreme close-ups. These wide shots couldn´t have been enjoyed as much on the small television sets at home. Eastwood`s rough features and manly charisma also contributed to Leone`s success, and both seemed destined to work with each other. There is no need to see the previous ¨Dollars¨ movies as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly stands out on its own and is actually a prequel since the movie takes place during the Civil War in the early 1860`s before the other plots take place and they are all separate stories that only have Clint Eastwood`s character in common. When I see Eastwood`s latest films as a director I can`t help but think how much he was influenced by the great Sergio Leone. He must have learned a great deal working with the Italian director in this masterpiece. It is just shot beautifully and to perfection by Leone, the cinematography and scenery are amazing and feel real, and the score is perfect. Eastwood may be a different director than Leone was, but he pays close detail to his craft and also knows how to shoot beautifully.

The plot is pretty simple for a movie that is about three hours long, but Leone`s use of the camera and extended shots makes the film longer. He also adds several side stories that work really well in the narrative. The film begins by introducing each character (although in the opposite order: The Ugly, The Bad, and The Good). The film begins with an extreme close up on a bounty hunter (Al Mulock) and then when we see the wide shot there are three of them who are quietly entering a bar. Once the men enter we hear three shots and out comes Tuco, also known as The Ugly (Eli Wallach), who escapes. In the next scene we are introduced to The Bad, Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), who is tracking down a peasant farmer. The scene is truly a classic as no words are spoken for about ten minutes, but the tension can be felt. Angel Eyes is actually looking for information on the location of a treasure of coins lost during the Civil War and he is told a soldier named Bill Carson has it. Finally, we are introduced to Blondie, The Good (Clint Eastwood), who saves Tuco from a group of men who want to turn him in because there is a reward on his head. Blondie saves him only to collect the reward himself, but once Tuco is about to be hanged he shoots the rope and sets him free as part of a scam in which they divide the money. They later turn against each other only to discover the location of the treasure that has been buried and the race begins to see who can get to the treasure first as the three men have different information regarding its whereabouts.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is my all-time favorite Western. Any other film in the genre will always be measured by its standards. The opening scene in which we are introduced to Angel Eyes (The Bad) is just so beautifully shot that no dialogue was needed and we were already hooked (Ennio Morricone´s amazing score can also take some credit for that). The first ten minutes have no dialogue whatsoever but it sets up the general tone of the movie: several wide shots where we can see the great landscape and deserts combining them with extreme close ups of the characters facial expressions, the tension and suspense is built with long and slow scenes and suddenly the violence happens so quickly that we are caught off guard. The film doesn`t celebrate violence, it portrays it truthfully. The main character is the quiet Blondie (The Good), but without a doubt Tuco (The Ugly) is the one who has the most lines and brings some unbalance and goofiness to an otherwise serious picture. One of the funniest scenes is when he is in the tub and one of the bounty hunter shows up to kill him but before shooting he begins the classic speech villains tend to give and Tuco pulls out his gun and fires at him saying, ¨When you have to shoot, shoot, don`t talk.¨ Tuco plays a key role and his character is kind of the gray in an otherwise black (Angel Eyes) and white (Blondie), good guy and bad guy western movie. He breaks the conventionality in the genre. The final Mexican standoff scene is also truly memorable and one of the best shot sequences. This is a truly unique film that has stood the test of time; it catapulted Eastwood into a movie star, and has influenced him on his way to becoming a great director. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of my all time favorite movies and is a must see film.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/