The King's Speech (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper
Story: David Seidler
Cast: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter
Music: Alexandre Desplat
Time: 118 minutes
Bottom-line: Stunning performances from Rush and Firth

2010 happens to be a year in which many of my favourite films were released: Inception, The Social Network, Shutter Island etc. While my pick for the Oscars was The Social Network (and it remains one of my all time favourites), I was surprised when this film popped out of nowhere to win the Best Picture and Director award. So I sat down to watch Tom Hooper’s historical drama, The King’s Speech, which seemed to impress the critics so much. The film is, in many ways, similar to the 1964 classic, My Fair Lady, and both films are equally enjoyable.

Firth as Prince Albert

Prince Albert (Firth), the second son of King George V, stammers during his speech at the closing of the British Empire Exhibition. This is broadcasted world-wide. Albert gives up on a cure, but his wife, Elizabeth (Carter) persuades him to see an Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Rush). He agrees to take on Albert as a patient. From their first session, Logue keeps occasionally pressing into Albert’s family matters, hoping to get to the psychological cause of his stammer. Though Albert does not like this, he realises that Logue’s methods seem to be working – he is slowly losing his stammer. Whether or not Logue is successful in helping Albert deliver a perfect speech, and how the friendship between the two characters develops forms the rest of the film.

Rush as Lionel Logue 

The first aspect of the film that makes it a success is the cast – Firth, Rush and Carter in the lead, with Guy Pearce and many others in smaller supporting roles. Firth has done an outstanding job – his facial expressions, the way he portrays his struggle to speak are very authentic. It is no surprise that he won the Oscar and BAFTA award for Best Actor for his performance. Then comes Geoffrey Rush, whose character more or less resembles that of Professor Henry Higgins. Though I feel that Rex Harrison did a better job there, I think that Rush gave an almost equally exceptional performance in the film.

Bonham Carter as Elizabeth

The story is slow to begin with, and there is no particular sequence that is interesting. As I said so before, the film resembles the storyline of My Fair Lady, and if you have watched that film, you know what to expect. But there are surprises, and Hooper and Seidler have also merged some history into the main theme as well, to make it more authentic. There are few instances of subtle humour, and few of the dialogues are also memorable. The settings, costumes and Desplat’s score (which I particularly liked) are also top-notch.

The King’s Speech is a film that succeeds because of its powerful, ensemble cast, powered by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I think critics liked this film because it had a perfect mix of history, drama, class acting etc. But I felt the story to be a bit slow, and it didn’t meet my expectations (which were high, considering the fact that the film won 4 Oscars). Nevertheless: a good film, but not the best of 2010.

My Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 95%

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Story: Susannah Grant
Cast: Julia Roberts, Albert Finney, Aaron Eckhart 
Music: Thomas Newman
Time: 130 minutes
Bottom-line: A bravura performance by Julia Roberts

I wanted to see this film, mainly to get a taste of Steven Soderbergh, as many consider this to be one of his best films. But after seeing, the only thing that remains in my mind is the outstanding performance by Julia Roberts, who won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance in the film. The film is a biopic on the legal clerk, Erin Brockovich, who fought against the energy corporation PG&E. Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart co-star.

1993 – Erin Brockovich (Roberts) is a single mother of three, whose explosive behaviour in a courtroom loses her a case. Feeling bad for Erin, her lawyer, Ed Masry (Finney) decides to give her employment in his office. She is given files regarding a real-estate case, where the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has offered to buy a house in Hinkley, California. The owner’s family has suffered from a series of various diseases, and for some reason, PG&E has always paid for the medical expenses. When asked why, the own replies “because of the chromium”. As Erin researches further, she finds out that the waters of Hinkley are severely contaminated with hexavalent chromium, and none of the residents seems to be aware of it. How Erin manages to fight against the multi-billion dollar corporate to win the case forms the reminder of the film.

Julia Roberts as Erin

The story isn't the best aspect about the film... the pace is all right, but I felt it could have been told in a better manner. Soderbergh tries to focus equally on both the legal case and Erin’s personal problems, and at times, the track dealing with the latter aspect drags. I can’t comment on authenticity i.e. how accurately the film portrays the life of the real Erin Brockovich, as I had no idea of who she was until I saw the film. But the film gets really interesting only in the second half, when Erin puts in all her effort to somehow win the case.

Albert Finney as Ed Masry

The film would have almost been a useless one had anyone else other than Julia Roberts played the role of Erin. No one can beautifully portray so many emotions – the struggle of a single mother, the hard-work of a lawyer, the determination to win a case, and the hope and faith that she can defeat anyone, even a multi-billion dollar company. The scene where Erin recites all the details of one of the plaintiffs (indicating that she remembers all the details of all the plaintiffs by-heart!) is one of the best scenes in the film, for it shows how much of work Erin has done to win the case. This is truly one of the most powerful performances I have even seen, by an actress. Julia Roberts later won the Oscar, BAFTA and became the first actress to win the five major acting awards for a single performance. Albert Finney has also given a strong performance, and Aaron Eckhart does well.

Aaron Eckhart as George - Erin's boyfriend 

Steven Soderbergh’s Erin Brockovich is pretty much a one-woman show, but the director has done well to make the most of good acting and an okay-ish story into a good film. The acting is pretty much the only standout, but there’s nothing really bad about the film – a biopic about a person like Erin Brockovich can only be made this way. The film provides decent entertainment, but don’t expect too much.

My Rating: 3.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 84%

Unforgiven (1992)

Director: Clint Eastwood
Story: David Webb Peoples
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman
Music: Lennie Niehaus
Time: 136 minutes
Bottom-line: Superb work by Eastwood – in acting and direction

Clint Eastwood is arguably one of the most influential people in Hollywood history – in both acting and direction. This 1992 Western directed by him won him the Academy Award for Best Director and also Best Picture. Starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in the lead roles, the film was an attempt by Eastwood to revive the Western genre. He dedicated the film to directors Sergio Leone and Don Seigel. Unforgiven could well be Eastwood’s best directorial work so far.

Big Whiskey, Wyoming – two cowboys cut up and disfigure a girl, and a reward of $1000 is offered to whoever can kill them. The sheriff, Little Bill Daggett (Hackman) lets go of the two cowboys without any punishment. Meanwhile, a young man, the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) goes to the pig farm of William Munny (Eastwood), a repentant old man with two children, who used to be a notorious bandit and murderer years ago. The Kid asks Munny to help him in the mission of killing the two cowboys, telling him that the $500 reward can help him give a better life for his children. Munny reluctantly agrees, and also recruits his old friend, Ned Logan (Freeman) to assist him. Once they enter Big Whiskey, the trio get split up, and soon, each member undergoes life-changing experiences...

Eastwood as William Munny

The main reason Unforgiven succeeds as a Western is simply because, it is made like how a Western should be. Eastwood stuck to the traditional ideas of a Western, instead of modernising the genre. And though I generally like films which try to completely re-innovate a particular genre (which is what made me a fan of Christopher Nolan), I think that Unforgiven is most effective when filmed in this form. There is the wicked, cold-blooded villain, an old hero who used to be a skilled killer, and his friend, also extremely skilled when it comes to shooting. Of course, there is no surprise with the ending (like I said – no twists and turns, but a straightforward story...), but there are few scenes that caught my eye.

Hackman as Little Bill

The scene where Munny tries to revive his shooting skills by shooting a barrel, the scene where Daggett talks with his biographer, and the final clash between Munny and Daggett are few of the best scenes. Unlike what Tarantino did in Django Unchained (where the gunfight erupts from nowhere), Eastwood first builds the suspense, before the big gunfight. The fault with the storyline, I felt, was that there were unnecessary characters – the one of English Bob was useless (except for that one scene where Bill Daggett challenges him) and that of the biographer as well.

Freeman as Ned Logan

Clint Eastwood’s acting is excellent – I like the way he displays the transition of character: from an old man wanting to repent for his sins, to a man trying to regain his skills, and then back to the cold-blooded murderer he was. Just like how in almost every film, Rajinikanth tells some ‘punch dialogue’, here too, Eastwood has some catchy lines: when he faces Bill in the saloon, Munny says, “I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill” (which pretty much summarises his character). And of course, Gene Hackman is outstanding as the villain, Little Bill Daggett. He portrays Daggett in the same way I imagined any classy villain in the Western genre. Morgan Freeman has only a small role, but he too delivers. The strong performances by the trio enhance the film to a great extent.

If you haven’t seen any film of this genre, Unforgiven is one of the best films to start with. Splendid acting, a good storyline (albeit it contained many extra characters), and importantly, sticking to the ‘traditional’ method of filming westerns rather than trying to modernise it are what make the film a success. The film could have been improved, by making it shorter and perhaps crisper, but the outcome is still stylish. Eastwood fan or not, watch the film if you are in the mood to try a different film, or rather, any good film for a change!

My Rating: 4/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Sherlock - TV Series (Season 1)

Creators: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Written by: Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Stephen Thompson (based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) 
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman
Music: David Arnold, Michael Price
Time: 88 minutes (per episode)
Bottom-line: Spellbinding... as good as can get 

Though the title of my blog says ‘revisiting films’, I was so impressed by the TV Series Sherlock that I had to write my opinion about it. In fact, the main reason I am posting this review is because my blog turns 250 days old today. And the unexpected coincidence is that yesterday (July 7th) happened to be the birthday of the detective Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock is the contemporary adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, who is portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. His friend Dr. John Watson is portrayed by Martin Freeman. Only eleven episodes, spanning three seasons, have come out so far, but the first season kicks off the series in sensational style!

The idea is the same: Sherlock Holmes is a ‘consulting detective’ (as he calls himself), who lives in 221B Baker Street. He is assisted in solving cases by his flatmate and friend, Dr. John Watson, who has returned home from Afghanistan. The cases use storylines of many of Conan Doyle’s short stories, and the episodes are also named accordingly. Holmes’ landlady, Mrs. Hudson, and brother, Mycroft Holmes (played by Mark Gatiss) are recurring characters. And of course, there is Holmes’ arch-nemesis, Jim Moriarty.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes

The first episode, A Study in Pink tells about how Watson and Holmes meet, and how Holmes solves a case regarding a serial killer. I liked this episode very much – especially the way Holmes and Watson were introduced. The story was solid, with many instances of comedy as well. The second episode, The Blind Banker is about Holmes solving a case related to serial killings, where each time, the killer leaves behind a cryptic message. This episode was a bit of a disappointment; the whole case seemed too complex, and somehow didn’t impress me as much as the other two episodes. The third and final episode of series one, The Great Game is the story in which Holmes is given a deadline for solving murder cases. The character of Jim Moriarty is revealed for the first time, and as the audience would expect, the series ends with a clash between arch rivals Holmes and Moriarty.

Martin Freeman as John Watson

Each episode has a high level of suspense, and the cases are well constructed. I really like the way the writers have brought the same atmosphere as the novels, even though the timelines are a century apart. Other things have also changed –Holmes now uses nicotine patches, and instead of telegrams, he sends text messages! But other than the writing, another person who has given a big boost to the series is Benedict Cumberbatch. His portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is absolutely amazing. And then there is Martin Freeman, who also has done really well as John Watson. This dynamic duo makes the series all the more entertaining.

So, though the series has only three episodes, each one comes with guaranteed quality in all aspects – story, acting and dialogues. The first episode was good, the third was superb (and the last ten minutes in it are electrifying), and the second episode was a slight disappointment. But overall, the series in an excellent achievement by the actors, writers, and the whole crew. Go for it, whether or not you know anything about Sherlock Holmes, and even if you are a purist... the result will be rewarding!

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 100%