Results tagged “helena bonham carter”

the kings speech one sheetImagine you're second in line for the throne of England, right behind your selfish, womanizing brother, your father the King is in ill health, and you have a terrible stutter that you just can't control. Your father despises you for the impediment, your siblings tease you about it, your country is poised to enter World War II and that older brother desires to marry an American divorcee. Except the King of England can't marry a divorced woman, meaning you're next in line for the throne.

The King's Speech is a powerful and beautifully produced film about the challenge that the Duke of York faced when he was pushed into the public eye, with the role acted perfectly by Colin Firth. The film opens with the Duke addressing the public, painfully stumbling through his written speech, one stutter and pause after another, a scene that's surprisingly affecting, with us feeling the overwhelming anxiety of the moment and frustration of the call of duty to the nation and the honor of family.

Fortunately for history, his faithful wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) finds the unorthodox Australian Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and convinces her husband to work with him to try and cure the stutter. Masquerading as "Mr. Johnson" for his visits to Logue's run-down Harley Street office, Firth perfectly portrays the conflict between the desire to get better, the anger and frustration at having the affliction and the embarrassment of having a disability.

Truly great films manage to instantly transport us to a world where there's complete suspension of disbelief, where we wonder if we're seeing actual historical footage rather than actors on sets with lighting, caterers and extras just off-camera. The King's Speech is a splendid film that is well deserving of the awards and accolades it's received, even as the speech therapy itself is rather blithely addressed. It's one of my favorite films of 2010.
| 4 Comments | No TrackBacks
harry potter deathly hallows pt1It all started with a juvenile fiction novel about a teen boy with hidden magical powers and a grand wizarding destiny that he finds by leaving his non-magical "muggle" family and attending an English boarding school with a magical twist, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. That book was published in 1997 with the title Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and a film version followed in November, 2001. Since then the seven Harry Potter books that document his years of study at Hogwarts and ultimate showdown with arch-enemy Voldemort have become a world-wide phenomenon, and the seven films to date have created a series unlike any other in the history of Hollywood, a cinematic storyline that spans a decade and has created millions of fanatical fans.

Which is why the first installment of the two-parter Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows proves to be such a disappointment. The book is the weakest in the series, even as it resolves the final conflict between the Dark Lord and the boy wizard who is The Chosen One.

Prior to Deathly Hallows pt 1, one of the best things about the Harry Potter films was that they worked as standalone movies, entertaining, exciting and with stories that let Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) overcome challenges and mature as a courageous young man with a destiny. If you'd seen the previous films in the series, the story worked even better as you could share the adolescent journey of Potter and his pals Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) as the epic tale of good vs. evil progressed.

If you're a Potter fan, you've already seen the film and probably found it a delightful opportunity to catch up with not just Harry, Ron and Hermione, but the Weasley family, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson) and hiss at evildoers Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), the over-the-top Bellatrix (Helena Bonham Carter) and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). If you're just looking for an entertaining film, I suggest you skip Deathly Hallows, part 1. Maybe when part 2 is released in Summer, 2011, the two will add up to one good (albeit ridiculously long) last entry in the Potter series, but as it is, this is the most forgettable, most disappointing film of the series.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
alice in wonderland one sheetLewis Carroll's immortal story Alice in Wonderland has been brought to the big screen many times, notably 1951's animated Disney classic that memorialized the different characters in the story for many adults. With 61 title matches in the Internet Movie Database, it's safe to say it's a popular starting point for movie makers.

That's an intimidating challenge, especially for a director like Tim Burton who generally tackles stories that haven't been shown in film before and can be crafted in his own unique style. Think of A Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish and Mars Attacks!  Prior to this, the most popular story he'd tackled was Willy Wonka, which he twisted unpleasantly with his muse Johnny Depp proving too creepy in the title role.

And so it's with a palpable sense of relief that I can report Alice in Wonderland is terrific. It's the kind of story where Burton's dark vision works perfectly, where the strange, moody and oft-sinister fantasy world Carroll described in the book (and its sequel Through The Looking Glass) can finally be brought to the big screen in glorious 3D.

There are nods to other films -- the opening is very reminiscent of the 3D fly-through of London that opens A Christmas Carol, some scenes look like they're from The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and Underland (you read that right, "Wonderland" was a mis-pronunciation by Alice, according to the film) at moments looks an awful lot like the planet Pandora from the blockbuster Avatar -- and the ending is typical clunky Burton, but it's still a fresh and delightful take on the story.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
harry potter half blood prince onesheetSix films into the Harry Potter series, it seems like Harry, Ron and Hermione are old friends and family members. Between the books and the films, it seems that they've been part of contemporary culture for decades, certainly in my household.

Turning the books into films has been a tricky task, however, and each film has had its own distinctive personality. It's no coincidence that a number of different directors have been involved too, from Chris Columbus (HP1 and HP2) to Alfonso CuarĂ³n (HP3), Mike Newell (HP4) and David Yates (HP5 and HP6).

The overall story has flowed beautifully from discovery to recognition of danger to the desire - and growing ability - to fight the growing darkness in author J.K. Rowling's fictional world. The ultimate struggle is about good versus evil, good as embodied in Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) and his two pals Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). Evil is personified by the undead dark wizard Voldemort and his followers, known collectively as the Death Eaters.

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry finds himself in Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent)'s potions class at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and auspiciously finding an old potions textbook with extensive corrections and additional scribbled notes that help him become a star pupil.  The book is inscribed "Property of the Half-Blood Prince" and the question that the film explores is the identity of this prince.

I really enjoyed The Half-Blood Prince and found that the look and style of the film was true to the previous entries in the series: lush, complex, at times astonishing, and overall a world that had as much fun and whimsy as terrifying dark magic. While there's lots of magic, most of the story focuses on the magic of the adolescent heart, however, and much of what unfolds seems to be about boy longs for girl, girl likes other boy, boy doesn't notice girl, etc etc. You know, adolescence.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
1