Film Review: A GOOD YEAR (2006)

Director: Ridley Scott
Running time: 118 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Romantic Comedy
UK release date 27th October 2006

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 5th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a fan of the work of Ridley Scott. So, in the interests of completeness, and although I’m not particularly a fan of romantic comedies, I decided to give this one a try. I was pleasantly surprised; a gentle comedy with a lot of charm and a very appropriate soundtrack is what I found, oh, and quite a few laughs too! But enough of my ramblings, more of that later. Here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please help Duflot clean the outdoor pool while I write the next paragraph).

Max Skinner is a tough, uncompromising investment banker in London. In his youth he had spent a lot of time with his uncle, Henry, who owned a vineyard in Provence (France). He had not been in touch with him for the last ten years when he hears of his death. It seems that, as his only surviving relative, Max is to inherit the vineyard. Intending to sell it, he heads out there only to find a lot of memories in his surroundings. The people who work on the estate, Francis Duflot and his wife, Ludivine are fearful that they will no longer be working with the vines. Max agrees that they will be kept on when the sale goes through. In the village, he meets Fanny Chenal, a mysterious, and beautiful young woman who he falls for. And then, out of the blue, a girl, Christie Roberts, claiming to be Uncle Henry’s daughter turns up. This adds a bit of spice and has Max afraid that she may have a better claim on the vineyard. Will the wine and the girl soften Max’s heart? Well I guess I’ll just have to leave you wondering.

A beautifully made film with that great visual style we have come to expect from Ridley Scott. As I said at the beginning, a very appropriate soundtrack, it fits the mood perfectly and enhances the visuals no end. I wasn’t sure about Russell Crowe in a romantic comedy, but he pulled it off pretty well. I just wish he could do an English accent. Albert Finney was perfect as Uncle Henry and Marion Cotillard was excellent (as ever) as Fanny Chenal. Honourable mentions go to; Freddie Highmore as Young Max, Abbie Cornish as Christie Roberts, Didier Bourdon as Francis Duflot and Isabelle Candelier as Ludivine Duflot.

A really good script by Marc Klein, based on the novel by Peter Mayle, contains an awful lot of humour and some great one-liners. If I have one gripe, it’s that not enough was made of the romance between Max and Fanny. Unlike most rom-coms, their relationship is not the main feature of the plot. It’s more about Max finding himself again, which, to a great extent, is achieved using flashbacks to his youth and his time with Uncle Henry. Over all, a very engaging gentle romantic comedy with some great comic moments… Recommended.

My score: 7.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0401445/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi2046427929/

Film Review: NINJA ASSASSIN (2009)

Director: James McTeigue
Running time: 99 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Action/Adventure/Martial Arts
UK release date 22nd January 2010

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 31st January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I do like a good martial arts film; I remember the Bruce Lee classics with great affection. Of the more recent crop, I’m not sure I like any of them, but I live in hope, and so I came to Ninja Assassin. It’s certainly not in the class of the Bruce Lee films and there is far too much CGI gore for my liking, but I’ll tell you more of my thoughts later. Here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please conceal yourselves in the shadows while I write the next paragraph).

We are told the story of Raizo, who, from a young boy, was brought up to be a Ninja. In his youth he formed a friendship that could not last and, thanks to his Ninja clan it ended tragically. Having grown into a lethal assassin, Raizo escapes the clan but they are always just one step behind him. Meanwhile, researcher, Mika Coretti is working on a series of mysterious deaths that she puts down to the work of a Ninja clan. Her boss, Ryan Maslow is sceptical but allows her to continue. As she digs deeper her life becomes threatened and a member of the clan is sent to kill her. Saved by Raizo, who has been watching her, the pair is now on the run… I won’t say any more as I don’t want to give too much away.

The plot, on the face of it, isn’t too bad; unfortunately the way it has been filmed has made it all a bit on the bloodbath side of gory. Gratuitous use of CGI has taken so much of the skill of the artists and stunt guys that it all looks a bit too fake for my liking. Performance wise; Rain as Raizo, Naomie Harris as Mika Coretti and Ben Miles as Ryan Maslow are all adequate without being stretched.

I guess if you like a lot of violence and blood and don’t mind that it’s mostly achieved by the use of CGI then this is the film for you. For me, because the plot does hold a little water and, bloodbath scenes excluded, it did have a little entertainment value, I’ll let it squeak over the 5/10 barrier. Over all, not recommended unless you’re into extreme violence and lots and lots of blood.

My score: 5.6/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1186367/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1198524-ninja_assassin/
Official Site: http://ninja-assassin-movie.warnerbros.com/dvd/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi2358117401/

Film Review: WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (2009)

Director: Spike Jonze
Running time: 101 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): PG

Genre: Drama/Book Adaptation
UK release date 11th December 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 30th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

First of all, I had better say for the record that I have never read Maurice Sendak’s much loved book of the same title published in 1963. It’s just one of those that never crossed my path. The film, well, it didn’t really strike a chord with me (which I’ll probably get a lot of stick for) but hey, you can’t like everything. But more of that later, here’s a very brief summary first (summary haters please have a snowball fight while I write the next paragraph).

Max in a high spirited lad with a very active imagination who has a habit of throwing a tantrum when things don’t go his way. After an argument with his mother, Connie, he storms out of the house and runs away. The thing is, he also runs away in his head to a place across an ocean (yes, you guessed it) to Where the Wild Things Are. They take the form of giant furry monsters, for want of a better description, and Max befriends them. One of them, Carol, is just like Max, strong willed and prone to the odd tantrum or two. Max persuades them to let him be their king, but he soon finds that being a king is a bit harder than he first thought.

Now, technically I can’t fault this film, it’s beautifully shot with some excellent special effects used for the ’Wild Things’. My problem begins and ends with the character of Max, if you can’t identify with Max then the rest of it just falls apart I’m afraid. Don’t get me wrong, I thought it was a fine performance from Max Records as Max; it’s just that the character didn’t resonate with me.

It’s a shame because I was really looking forward to watching this and I feel a bit let down by it. I grew up in the countryside, climbed trees, grazed my knees and did all the fun things children do, but at the end of the day I was always happy to go home. I guess that’s where I differ from Max; I never had a need for somewhere to escape to. But I digress; I cannot say if it is a good representation of the book, I’m sure there are others out there who can answer that. For me, a bit of a disappointment and so not recommended.

My score: 5.4/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0386117/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/where_the_wild_things_are/
Official Site: http://wherethewildthingsare.warnerbros.com/dvd/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi3225158169/

Film Review: PROOF (2005)

Director: John Madden
Running time: 100 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama
UK release date 24th February 2006

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 30th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is one of those films that I’ve seen before and remember the beginning, but can never remember the ending. Maybe it’s because I never got to the end before, but this time I did. This appealed to me because I studied mathematics (amongst other things) at university and thought it might strike a chord. It did, but not in the way I was expecting… But more of that later, here’s a brief summary before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please solve a couple of differential equations while I write the next paragraph).

Catherine’s father, Robert, has recently died, he was a great mathematician in his day but insanity had plagued his latter years. She had looked after him for the last five years of his life at their home in Chicago and is now coming to terms with his loss. A former student of his, Harold Dobbs (Hal), is looking through his notebooks hoping to find something of note. As the funeral approaches, Catherine’s sister, Claire, arrives from New York. She is a successful businesswoman and takes her slightly mentally unstable sister in hand. After the funeral a wake is held back at the house and Catherine gets together with Hal. The following day she gives him the key to her father’s desk where he finds just what he’s been looking for, a brilliant mathematical proof. The trouble is, Catherine claims she wrote it… there is a lot of doubt though. Has Catherine inherited her father’s genius, amongst other things, or did he write it in one of his more lucid periods? Well I guess I’d be giving too much away if I told you here.

First off, really great performances from both Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine and Hope Davis as Claire. Jake Gyllenhaal was adequate as Hal and Anthony Hopkins was as good as ever in the flashbacks of Robert. Now, to the film, it is based on a play by David Auburn, who also co-wrote the screenplay, and I find films based on plays sometimes suffer; they can become a little claustrophobic. This, unfortunately is a case in point. Although an effort is made to broaden the scope of the story by taking parts of it outside, it’s still very much a character driven piece which I’m afraid I found a little dry.

The plot I found a little weak, it all boiled down to a small thing that could so easily have been resolved (I’m sorry I don’t want to say what it is… spoilers). I feel that too much time was taken to set up the characters and the back story and this didn’t quite work on film. So, over all, some great performances in what is essentially a play transferred to the big screen. Although the plot is weak in places and it is pretty slow, I still recommend it (just).

My score: 6.7/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0377107/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/proof/
Trailer (not great quality I’m afraid): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsgyghe-6O8&feature=player_detailpage

Film Review: GREEN ZONE (2010)

Director: Paul Greengrass
Running time: 115 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Thriller/Action/Adventure/War
UK release date 12th March 2010

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 29th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This film has had a bit of a slating by certain critics and I know it didn’t go down too well with many in the USA. Given all this controversy I decided it might be worth a viewing and I can see how it might get certain sections of society a bit riled up. What I saw was an entertaining film, a work of fiction based on recent events in Iraq. But more of what I think later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please search that building for WMDs while I write the next paragraph).

Roy Miller is a soldier tasked with investigating sites identified as holding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) soon after the invasion of Iraq. After coming up empty each time he begins to question the validity of sources used to obtain this information. The top brass aren’t interested and just fob him off but a CIA operative, Martin Brown, is sympathetic to his dilemma. Whilst investigating a site (& coming up empty yet again) an Iraqi civilian approaches Miller’s unit and tells him that he has seen some ex-republican guard commanders meeting at a house nearby. This civilian ‘Freddy’ is brought along as an interpreter and they set off to intercept the meeting. Capturing one of the insurgents, they find out that a General Al Rawi was attending. Miller takes a notebook from the prisoner before a Special Forces unit, lead by Briggs, intercepts and takes the prisoner away. The notebook Miller has taken has the key to finding the General and others, with much darker, political, agenda’s would like to get hold of him for their own means. I’ll leave it there as I don’t want to give the whole plot away.

There have been several films made on the subject of this conflict, but this one stands out as one that questions the reasons for the war in the first place. The US government are portrayed as very uncaring and only out to cover up anything that might make them look bad in the eyes of the world. Yes, it’s all very political! Decent performances all round; Matt Damon did a decent job as Miller and Brendan Gleeson was pretty good as Martin Brown. Honourable mentions also go to; Greg Kinnear as Clark Poundstone, “Hello” to Jason Isaacs, with a tremendous moustache, as Briggs and Amy Ryan as journalist Lawrie Dayne. I also thought that Khalid Abdalla was excellent at the Iraqi civilian, Freddy.

Now, as I’ve already said this film is very political, but it is also a very good thriller with a lot of action thrown in for good measure. As a piece of entertainment I found it very adequate although I could see the plot being a bit over-complicated for some. At the end of the day I thought it was an entertaining thriller set against the aftermath of the Iraq war that asks some tough questions of those that brought the war about in the first place. Recommended.

My score: 7.1/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0947810/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1202804-green_zone/
Official Site: http://www.greenzonemovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi447415577/

Film Review: IRON MAIDEN: FLIGHT 666 (2009)

Directors: Sam Dunn & Scot McFadyen
Running time: 112 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

USA release date 21st April 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 29th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I was checking out what was on TV the other night and found this tucked away after midnight. As a bit of a fan of Iron Maiden, (I’ve seen them a couple of times over the years) I thought I’d give it a go. What I found really surprised me, a very professional bunch of guys that happen to play some great heavy metal music (IMO). But more of my thoughts later, here’s a very brief summary first (summary haters please load the plane while I write the next paragraph).

Iron Maiden hardly ever get their records played on mainstream radio and are seldom featured on mainstream Music TV. And yet their albums always sell well and they have a massive fan base all over the world. As part of their 2008 Somewhere Back in Time tour they provided their own transport in order to reach some of these fans in far-flung parts of the world. The transport took the form on a 757 jet, modified to accommodate the entire crew, the band and all of their equipment. Of course the plane was piloted (amongst others) by their lead singer and qualified pilot, Bruce Dickinson. We see the logistics of moving such a huge operation through India, Australia, Japan, Los Angeles, Mexico, Central and South America, before ending in Canada. Interviews with the band, the crew and many of the fans intersperse live performances of many of their classic songs. It gives a real insight into the lives of the band members and just what life is like on the road these days for this group of musicians who, let’s face it, aren’t too young any more. But that’s enough summary, here’s what I think of it.

As a fan of Iron Maiden, of course I like this documentary. As a fan of film, I think it’s very well edited and gives a coherent chronological account of the international leg of the tour. The balance between the live performances and the interviews and the narration is just about right for me. It may be a little long for those that aren’t fans of the band, but I guess if you’re not a fan then you wouldn’t choose to watch it. So, over all, a definite recommendation for fans of Iron Maiden, but maybe give it a miss if you’re not.

For those that are fans, what follows is a list of live tracks included in the film:

“Aces High”, “Transylvania”, “Wrathchild”, “Moonchild”, “2 Minutes to Midnight”, “Revelations”, “The Trooper”, “For the Greater Good of God”, “Number of the Beast", “Wasted Years”, “Can I Play with Madness”, “Powerslave”, “Run to the Hills”, “Heaven Can Wait”, “Fear of the Dark”, “Iron Maiden”, “Rime of the Ancient Mariener”, “Hallowed Be Thy Name”

My score: 8.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1361558/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron-maiden-flight-666/

Film Review: BLACK SWAN (2010)

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Running time: 108 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

UK Release date: 21st January 2011

Watched at the cinema Friday 28th November 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Having heard many good things about this film I thought it was about time I checked it out. At first I wasn’t too sure, but as the drama unfolded, I really got into the story and found myself transfixed by the end. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please wait in the wings while I write the next paragraph).

Young ballerina Nina Sayers has been chosen to play the lead in Swan Lake. The production’s director, Thomas Leroy, has chosen her because she can play the white Swan perfectly, but he wants her to show more passion when she dances the part of the Black Swan. As she strives to achieve this level of performance we witness quite a dramatic change in her that totally alters her personality. She also has to contend with a rival dancer, Lily, who Thomas has put as her alternate (I guess the equivalent of an understudy in a play). Add to this the decline of Beth Macintyre, an experienced dancer that Nina admired and the attentions of her overbearing mother, Erica, and you can see she has a lot to contend with. Not wishing to give too much away, I’ll leave my brief summary there.

There is much to admire in this film, Darren Aronofsky certainly knows how to get a performance out of his cast. He also knows how to tell a story, I couldn’t fault the filmmaking; it’s great to look at, all topped off with a great performance from Natalie Portman as Nina Sayers. Also worthy of note are; Mila Kunis as Lily, Vincent Cassel as Thomas Leroy, Barbara Hershey as Erica Sayers and Winona Ryder as Beth Macintyre.

I very much like the use of music through this film; the themes from Swan Lake are throughout and only add to the enjoyment of the piece. I love the way the line is blurred between reality and the dark place Nina is trying to find inside herself. All this is brilliantly done, but I have just one problem, I find it very hard to find any likable characters in this film. Although I found myself rooting for Nina at the end, I never really found her character particularly likable. Having said that, it’s still a brilliant film with some great performances and one I highly recommend.

My score: 8.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_swan_2010/
Official Site: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/blackswan/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi3985807385/

Film Review: SOLOMON KANE (2010)

Director: Michael J. Bassett
Running time: 100 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

UK release date 19th February 2010

Watched on Sky+ Monday 24th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I saw this film last year at the cinema and quite enjoyed it. It has now made it to TV and I thought it was worth a second viewing… Here’s what I thought second time around. ‘Solomon Kane’ is based on a character created by Robert E. Howard, the writer who also created the, ‘Conan the Barbarian’ in the 1930’s. So as you can guess, I was quite keen to see what the filmmakers have done with him. It is the 1600’s, and Solomon Kane, who left his home at a young age having argued with his father and having thrown his brother from a cliff, is the captain of as ship in North Africa seeking treasure. What he finds is not what he bargained for; he finds the devil’s reaper who tells him that because of his evil ways, his soul was forfeit. Not wanting to go to hell, Kane denounces violence and vows never to kill again before escaping. That’s the set-up and here’s a brief summary before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please pray for redemption while I write the next paragraph).

Back in England, Solomon is staying at a monastery when Father Michael asks him to leave. He has had a vision and it’s time for Solomon to move on. With great reluctance Solomon leaves and heads west, towards his home. He is attacked on the road but is rescued by William Crowthorn and his family, wife Katherine, oldest son, Edward, younger son, Samuel and daughter, Meredith. They travel on together and Solomon begins to form a bond with them, particularly with Meredith and the young Samuel. Meanwhile, a band of warriors lead by a mysterious masked man is stalking the land, taking everyone they see as slaves or turning them, by evil magic, into soldiers. The family come across a place where some people had tried to burn a witch; everyone was dead with their eyes burnt out. They find a girl, the only survivor. Taking her with them, they continue on their journey, not realising that she is, in fact, the witch. Solomon discovers the deceit but the witch escapes, but not before marking Meredith. The family are then caught by the band of warriors and Meredith kidnapped. Enraged, Solomon now breaks his vow and kills as many of them as he can. Fatally wounded, William tells Solomon that he can redeem himself if he saves Meredith. This is now Solomon’s mission, but does he have the strength of will to carry it out? That’s enough summary for now.

Although quite slowly paced, I found this film very entertaining, the action sequences were very well done, the dialogue well paced and the special effects were excellent. I thought the mix of action and fantasy was very well judged, the balance was about right for me. Very good performances from James Purefoy as Solomon Kane, the late Pete Postlethwaite as William Crowthorn, Rachel Hurd-Wood as Meredith Crowthorn, Patrick Hurd-Wood as Samuel Crowthorn, Jason Flemyng as Malachi and Max von Sydow as Josiah Kane.

I suppose you can’t help but compare this film with the Conan the Barbarian films. I found it stood up well, set in a time that people can relate to and with much more dialogue, it’s very different, but I can see in the hand of Robert E. Howard there. Over all, it’s a very well made, even paced film with some very good performances, some great fight scenes and a great hero. I really enjoyed it… Recommended.

My score: 7.2/10

LINKS:
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0970452/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/solomon_kane/
Official Site: http://www.solomonkane.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi3791717401/

Film Review: CLEANER (2007)

Director: Renny Harlin
Running time: 88 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

USA release date: 27th May 2008 (DVD Premiere)

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 23rd January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I watched this on the recommendation of a friend and, to be honest, he owes me 88 minutes of my life back. It’s a crime drama set against the backdrop of the world of forensic clean-up. The guys that clean up what’s left after the body has been removed. I’ll give you my thoughts after this brief summary (summary haters please stay behind the tape while I clean up the next paragraph).

Tom Cutler is a retired cop who is now making a career out of cleaning up crime scenes. His wife was killed some years ago and he lives with his teenage daughter, Rose. He turns up to the scene of a murder to find nobody at home but a key has been left for him. Having completed the job he returns home only to find he still has the key. Going back the next day he’s surprised to find the wife, Ann Norcut, at home holding a children’s birthday party. He asks if he can speak to her husband, but she says he is out. At this point he tries to cover his tracks, realising that it might be a set-up. He hides the evidence he collected but things are about to turn bad for the former cop. His ex-partner, Eddie Lorenzo, gets in touch and Tom takes the opportunity to ask him about the case. He denies all knowledge, but the investigating officer, another former colleague, Jim Vargas, is slightly more forthcoming. The press have, by now, got hold of the story that Ann Norcut’s husband is missing and Tom is between a rock and a hard place. Not everyone is telling the truth and this can only mean trouble.

A very complicated plot does not help this film. It strikes me the filmmakers are trying a little too hard to be clever and failing to hit the mark. The performances were OK, but nothing to write home about; Samuel L. Jackson wasn’t really stretched as Tom Cutler, Ed Harris had a stroll in the park as Eddie Lorenzo and Eva Mendes was nothing particularly special as Ann Norcut. Honourable mentions should go to Luis Guzmán as Det. Jim Vargas, Keke Palmer who I thought was actually pretty good as Rose Cutler and it was also nice to see Robert Forster as Arlo Grange.

It was almost like watching one of those old Philip Marlowe movies where Marlowe was a crime scene clean-up guy instead of a Private Eye. It certainly has that feel, but with nothing like the style it needed to carry it off. Over all I found this one pretty disappointing and I can see why it went straight to DVD… NOT recommended.

My score: 5.2/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0896798/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cleaner/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi3049128217/

Film Review: THE KING’S SPEECH (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper
Running time: 118 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

UK Release date: 7th January 2011

Watched at the cinema Saturday 22nd November 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I always like a film based on true events, it seems that real life has just as many amazing stories as pure fiction. This is a case in point. A man who stammers has to rise above his affliction, with the help and support of those around him, to speak for a nation. It’s quite a remarkable film. Here’s a short summary first before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please wait outside while I get through the next speech… sorry, paragraph).

King George VI, known as Bertie to his friends and family, was not born to be king. That honour went to his older brother David, or King Edward VIII, after their father George V passed away. Unfortunately, David finds he cannot carry out his duties due to events in his private life (quite a scandal actually) and so Bertie has to step in. A long time before this he had started seeing an unorthodox speech therapist named Lionel Logue. He had always stammered and found it particularly hard to speak in public. With the help and support of Logue, his wife, Elizabeth and his daughters another Elizabeth (later to become Queen Elizabeth II) and Margaret; this film depicts how he overcame his problems to give a very important speech live on the radio to the entire British Empire (as it was then) just after the outbreak of World War II. It also gives an insight into the reasons for Edward’s abdication and the effect it has on the nation. But I think that’s enough summary for now.

I found this a totally engaging film from start to finish. As a Brit, I was taught about the abdication of Edward VII in school, but I never knew about George VI’s stammer or the work of Lionel Logue. Of course, the film is most noted for the performance of Colin Firth as King George VI (Bertie to his friends), which is totally justified, he is outstanding! Also worthy of note are both Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue and Helena Bonham Carter as Queen Elizabeth. Honourable mentions go to Derek Jacobi as Archbishop Cosmo Lang, Michael Gambon as King George V, Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII, Claire Bloom as Queen Mary and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill.

Apart from the performances, I thought it was an excellent screenplay by David Seidler. Nicely directed by Tom Hooper, it depicts the period perfectly. This is a film with many laughs, more than a lot of modern ‘comedies’, IMO, which serve to lift the mood of what is, after all, rather serious events in world history. Over all, brilliant performances, a great story and a few laughs along the way… who could ask for more? Very highly recommended.

My score: 9.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_kings_speech/
Official Site: http://www.kingsspeech.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi806197529/