Showing posts with label colin firth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colin firth. Show all posts

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The King's Speech (2010, U.S.)

The trailer for this film was pretty badly done, if you ask me. I still went to see it because I knew that any film with Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter had to be a winner. On top of that, what could be better than a film about a relatively unknown part of British history?

What can I say? Obviously those three were fantastic, as were most of the supporting actors. The chemistry between Firth and Rush was especially wonderful, particularly in their therapy sessions. The film was enlightening. It was well written. The score meshed perfectly. The cinematography was beautiful. I felt like I'd stepped into the 1930s. Sure, it wasn't the most fast-paced movie. But it was engaging and moving and informative and even somewhat inspiring. I knew it was going to sweep Best Picture and the Best Actors at the Oscars.

This one was a very unsurprising surprise, if you will, and well worth watching.

Rating: 4.0

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

A Single Man (2009, U.S.)

Wow. This is a truly beautiful film, but in a quiet, understated way. Basically, it's about a man who was in a long term relationship, and his partner dies in a car accident. Because they're gay, the man isn't able to properly or publicly grieve.

It was directed by a fashion designer, which I thought was very clear in the overall look. Everything was brown, white, tan, and black, but then there are moments of bright color, like a little girl's dress—why that? When George remembers the deceased Jim, everything turns into this reddish gold, glowing tone, which is very effective in making his memories feel pleasant and warm, especially in contrast to the stark, painful present.

Colin Firth is absolutely phenomenal. His performance is so subtle and detailed and believable. He was George Falconer. The rest of the cast was good too, but they didn't shine as much as Firth. They also had a great script to work with. It used poetic writing without being saccharine. I thought the plot was more effective than if a woman was mourning her husband because a) he is a man and therefore less able, or allowed, to share his grief with anyone and b) because he is gay and therefore has to hide his love for Jim and therefore his grief.

A lot of the film revolves around the importance of human connection to pull George back from his suicidal grief. It's the "stranger" (student) who does more than George's close and intimate friend. The writer also uses a Huxley novel to talk about minorities and fear. In a college class he teaches, George compares the Nazi fear of Jews to the current fear of homosexuals, and he compares the fear of the unknown (from which most persecution of minorities stems) to the pervading fear of being alone. It was well done, much more smoothly than I can explain it.

The score was one of the best I've heard in awhile, especially as a companion to the film. It is understated for the most part, lovely but unremarkable until the end, when it is very heavy on the violins and much more prominent, as if an audio parallel to the clarity George is finally getting.

The 1960s sets and costumes were beautiful and realistic, which gave the movie a strangely dated feel when the subject matter seemed so current. It really underlines the fact that we have the same problem with gays that we've had for years, and that it's a really backwards mindset to have. Paired with the classroom discussion of Nazi antisemitism, it subtly says, "This is just as prejudiced and just as ridiculous." It was so subtle that I didn't even notice it until I started thinking about the film afterward. I do wonder why they chose a 1960s setting. I see why they didn't use present day and why they wanted to use a post-WWII setting. It's just interesting because the last movie I saw about a socially unaccepted sexual relationship was An Education, which was also set in the 1960s. I guess it's just a good decade to show a parallel with the current hypocritical decade, sexually repressed/judgemental and sexually open all at once. Interesting.

Rating: 4.5

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Mamma Mia! (2008, U.S.)

I didn't have very strong feelings about this film one way or the other, but there hasn't been much else to see in the theater this summer, and my ABBA-fan friend needed some serious cheering up, so I decided to take her to Mamma Mia!. I do not regret it at all.

I love musicals, of course. The '70s, on the other hand, I am not so fond of. Consequently, I've never listened to ABBA. Big mistake. All of the numbers in Mamma Mia! are catchy and fun—so fun that you might just want to run home and buy the soundtrack, like I did. The dance sequences are just absolutely ridiculous (and often hilarious), but they work really well. It's obvious that the script was written for the music rather than the music being written for the script, but it worked well that way.

Of course I have nothing but good things to say about the actors. Amanda Seyfried probably has a good career ahead of her, and she has a beautiful voice. Meryl Streep I like more and more as she gets older. Of course I love Colin Firth, and he was great. And I was so excited to see Stellan Skarsgård in a part where he wasn't a bad guy or some such (i.e. Bootstrap Bill)—actually, he was so adorable in this film I could just eat him up. Of the three "dads" in the movie, Pierce Brosnan was my least favorite. I've never been a big Brosnan fan, but he was still pretty good. I don't know about his singing though. Well, to be fair, his voice wasn't awful, but he sure does make funny faces when he sings. I think it's from trying to maintain an American accent.

So I don't know what else to say. Great music. Beautiful scenery. Fun dancing. Hilarious situational comedy. Stellar cast. Ends with a twist. Good, good stuff.

Rating: 4.0