The King’s Speech – Movie Review

 

Last night in my movie class, we saw the British drama, “The King’s Speech”, starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter.

Synopsis

 

When the Duke Of York is forced to make an increasing number of speeches on behalf of his ailing father The King, he hires a therapist to help him overcome his stutter – but after he’s unexpectedly thrust further into the spotlight as King himself with World War II looming, will he be able to effectively reign despite this adversity? 

Story

 

In 1920’s England, an aging King George V seeks to make fewer public appearances and wants to send his son Edward – rightful heir to the throne – in his stead.  But with Edward shirking his royal responsibilities, Edward’s brother Albert (Firth) is then forced to take his place.  The dutiful son winds up being pushed to make a speech before a huge crowd at Wembley Stadium, which is also being broadcast on the radio – but when his nerves get the better of him, his dreaded personal secret is finally revealed to the entire country:  The Duke Of York is a stutterer. 

As a result, his loving wife Elizabeth (Carter) urges him to seek help and Albert begins seeing a physician who makes him endure awkward and embarrassing exercises that eventually cause him to fire the doctor and resign himself to the fact that he will have to live with this affliction for the rest of his life.  Upon the recommendation of an authority, Elizabeth seeks out a speech therapist by the name of Lionel Logue (Rush), an Australian who is highly regarded for his success in this field, despite the fact that he uses some rather unorthodox approaches to treating his patients. 

Between Logue’s peculiar professional techniques and his penchant for calling The Duke “Bertie” (his family’s nickname for him), Albert is turned off to the treatment sessions – but once he and Elizabeth are astounded to find that Logue’s unusual methods are actually resulting in Albert making progress, he becomes encouraged and continues with his visits to Logue.  After Albert’s father dies, his brother Edward becomes King, but his reign only lasts about a year because he abdicates to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.  Once this occurs, Albert unwillingly becomes King.  However, during the events leading up to his coronation, Albert’s advisors inform him that Logue is a fraud because he lacks professional training of any kind.  With this revelation, will Albert fire Logue and be able to successfully lead his nation as King George VI during World War II? 

Review

 

With a combination of strong acting, intelligent screenwriting and clever direction, “The King’s Speech” is one of those rare movies that comes along once in a great while in which you are hard-pressed to find any flaws.  The major characters – especially Albert – are all very sympathetic both as written and in their portrayal and the choices of shots especially well done at times, allowing the audience to view stressful moments from Albert’s perspective during his struggles. Will this movie win an Academy Award?  Will it be critically acclaimed?  Will it be a success at the box office?  Well, my crystal ball seems to be on the fritz today, so I can’t make a prediction – but I certainly do hope that all three of those things will become true. 

Using the current argot, I would characterize this story as something of a “bromance” – although set in a historical context (particularly with a World War II backdrop in the third act of the film), the movie is essentially about the friendship, mutual respect and trust that develops over time between these two men and winds up being sustained over a period of many years.  One thing that can often alter a movie from merely good to great is when it takes you into another world and you are able to learn more about it than you previously did; such is the case with “The King’s Speech” as the story serves to educate us not only about stutterers, but also, the little “tricks” they use to overcome their condition. 

Surprisingly, this movie gets a rather undeserved ‘R’ Rating; although lacking in both sex and violence, the supposed justification for this rating is due to the fact that there is a good deal of cursing in the film – in particular, there are quite a few F-Bombs dropped by His Majesty Himself.  This is rather unfortunate because it can cause some people to be inclined to not want to bring their children to see this flick, which would be incredibly wrong.  If you want to experience a heartwarming and uplifting story about loyalty, friendship, duty and discipline populated with charming and admirable characters that tells an utterly fascinating and entertaining history lesson, then you absolutely must make it a point to see “The King’s Speech” – and when you go, if you do have kids, definitely remember to bring them along!

Casino Jack – Movie Review

 

 

 

Tuesday night, my movie class had a bonus screening of the comedy-drama “Casino Jack”, starring Kevin Spacey and Barry Pepper.

 

Synopsis

A successful Washington lobbyist and his partner set their sites even higher to gain more wealth and power with government legislators – but when their corrupt schemes are uncovered, can they evade legal action that might imprison them?

Story

Jack Abramoff (Spacey) is, without a doubt, one charming, personable, charismatic guy – in addition to having a great sense of humor and the ability to quote lines from many famous movies, he’s a loyal family man, devoutly religious and staunch in his political beliefs.  Normally, these would be admirable qualities in anyone … and yet Jack is one of most unscrupulous, greedy, corrupt individuals in town – and considering the fact that Jack is a Washington, D.C. lobbyist, that’s certainly saying quite a good deal!  Together with his partner Michael Scanlon (Pepper), Abramoff soon becomes what Time Magazine refers to as a “Super-lobbyist” because of his fame, power and wealth.  

 

Unfortunately for Jack and Michael, success goes to their head as their greed and desire for even greater power in the federal government causes them to make some very bad decisions that will eventually haunt them.  First off, they deceive a tribe of Native Americans into paying them around $20 million which they believe will give them a competitive edge over a neighboring tribe in developing and running a casino in their home state.  This is followed up by a shady business deal with a dishonest casino owner who allows them to have a partial interest in his business in exchange for his freedom from having to hands-on manage the day-to-day management of running the operation. 

 

Before long, Jack and Michael find themselves in a great deal of trouble when everything falls apart.  First, the Native American tribe discovers that they have been taken for a large sum of money with nothing to show for their contribution, eventually deciding to seek restitution from Jack and Michael.  Then, the bumbling businessman assigned to run the casino winds up having a gangster acquaintance whack the casino owner after a disagreement, causing them all to be implicated in a murder.  As the Washington Post picks up on some of these shenanigans and the pair’s enemies decide that now is the perfect time to rat on them to the authorities, Jack and Michael are faced with possible prison time – but can these two expert connivers somehow manage to squirm their way out of this predicament?

Review

 

As with some of Kevin Spacey’s movies, even if you can’t find too much to like about the movie itself, Spacey’s performance alone will make it worthwhile to see the film.  While “Casino Jack” is by no means a bad movie, it is certainly not for everyone – although told in a somewhat comedic fashion for much of the time, it’s also something of an intellectual, thinking-person’s film.  Additionally, since it has been inspired by relatively recent true events, some people might have a hard time with “Casino Jack” because it can be seen as yet another swipe at Republicans/Conservatives by the Liberal/Democratic Hollywood film industry.  While an argument certainly could be made for this, I personally found that who the party was that the Abramoff character engaged in hijinks was rather irrelevant – once you get caught up in the story, you realize it’s more about power, greed, corruption and betrayal.  Then again, if the recollection of the real-life news stories around this event remain vivid in your mind, then maintaining this level of objectivity about it may very well be difficult indeed.

 

Going back to Spacey’s performance for a moment, it really does rise above any of the film’s flaws or inconsistencies (which are rare and minor).  The movie opens with a monolog by Spacey’s Abramoff and that alone almost makes “Casino Jack” worth seeing by itself.  It’s easy to see why Spacey chose to perform in this role because it permits him to give a real tour de force display of his acting talents – Spacey’s Abramoff character not only recites famous lines from classic movies, but also, does spot-on imitations of stars such as Stallone (from “Rocky”), Pacino (“And Justice For All”) and Walter Matthau in addition to politicians like Reagan and Bill Clinton. 

 

After the screening, our instructor interviewed the film’s star, Kevin Spacey.  The interview opened on a real downer as a rather solemn Spacey announced to the audience that the film’s 47 year old director, George Hickenlooper, had recently passed away while taking “Casino Jack” around the country to show at special screenings in order to promote its upcoming release; he said that while obviously tragic, it also impacted him deeply because they became good friends as a result of working on the project together.  In sharing the story behind making the movie, Spacey said that he wound up getting cast through Facebook – particularly ironic given the fact that he was also Executive Producer of the film, “The Social Network”.  Basically, what happened was that Hickenlooper announced on his page that he wanted to make the movie and wrote on his Wall that he thought Spacey would be perfect in the role of Abramoff; a friend of Spacey’s saw this and told him about it – Spacey also liked the idea and asked his friend to “Poke” Hickenlooper.  They wound up getting together after that and the two collaborated on making the film as Spacey’s production company also produced it as well. 

 

 

Part 2 Of How Much New Yorkers Drink

 

As a bit of a follow – up to my post from yesterday, "How Much Do New Yorkers Drink?", there is now an article that contradicts (or “refutiates” as ex-Gov. Palin might say) those findings.  Please click the link below for the full article …

 

New Yorkers more boozy than ever

 

Here’s sobering news: New Yorkers are imbibing booze in increasingly deadlier doses.

About 1,500 residents die annually as a result of alcohol-related deaths — from car crashes to poisoning to chronic liver disease — according to the city Health Department, which yesterday released its first comprehensive study on drinking.

“Alcohol misuse can also disrupt one’s well-being by jeopardizing work, finances and relationships,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the city’s health commissioner. “Cutting down or quitting is possible.”

Alcohol also contributes to 1 in 10 hospital cases with emergency room visits, vaulting to almost 74,000 in 2009 from 22,000 in 2003 among New Yorkers aged 21 to 64.

…

***

By the numbers

1,537: City adults who suffered alcohol-related deaths in 2008.

100,000: Hospitalizations linked to alcohol in the city each year.

4,000: Alcohol-related emergency department visits by underage New Yorkers in 2009.

47: Percent of adult New Yorkers who say they don't drink.

Source: city health department

 

Now this information I DO tend to believe!

Argentina’s DWTS

 

Apparently, Argentina has their own version of the TV show “Dancing With The Stars”, which is a big hit here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

 

Recently, they had a pretty interesting performance by one of their contestants …

 

Chia POTUS

From The Village Voice (follow the link below for the full story):

President Obama Finally Immortalized as a Chia Pet

What's the ultimate form of terrible, tawdry, pop culture tribute? If you're President Obama, until today, you probably thought it was a vibrator made in your physical likeness. But oh, how wrong you were.

As sighted by the Voice's own Steven Thrasher, file this one under "Perfect Gift for Sociopathic Person Who Has Plants Instead of Cats in Your Life." It's disturbing:

How Much Do New Yorkers Drink?

I refuse to believe this. Click the link below for more details.

New Yorkers Actually Drink Less Than the Nationwide Average

There's a new New York City drinking survey out, and chances are, you're a drinker, because more than half of New Yorkers of legal drinking age are (congrats!). We were surprised and vindicated to find, however, that New Yorkers on average (53%) actually drank less than the nationwide average (56%) -- so we're not quite the alcoholic sluts you think we are (commenter, we're talking to you). 

The report categorizes some important "types" of drinking, just in case you haven't ever seen an episode of Oprah: "Any drinking" is drinking anything alcoholic in the last month. "Heavy drinking" is drinking more than two drinks per day if you're a guy and more than one per day if you're a woman. And our old friend "binge drinking" is drinking five or more drinks in a single occasion in the past 30 days, also known as, "being a certain age and living in New York" and/or "going out."

 

How Geeky Are You?

To find out, take this quiz:

The 2010 InfoWorld Geek IQ Test

All Good Things – Movie Review

This morning in my movie class, we had a bonus screening where we saw the love story/murder mystery “All Good Things”, starring Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst and Frank Langella.

Synopsis

 

When the heir to a real estate fortune marries a young woman of modest means, they start out living an idyllic existence – but once the marriage eventually turns sour, she disappears and he is suspected of her murder.

 

Story

 

David (Gosling) is being a dutiful son, paying his dues by working his way up in his father’s real estate empire – but after a chance meeting, he is immediately smitten with Katie (Dunst), whom he marries against the best wishes of his aloof, manipulative father, Sanford (Langella).  The young couple make their way to Vermont to live something of a hippy lifestyle in the early 1970’s by opening a small shop selling natural foods – unfortunately for both of them, their business is being subsidized by the wealthy Sanford, who forces them to give up the store and return to New York City so David can resume his career in Sanford’s employ. 

Although David is now able to provide Katie with a considerably better life, they become less happy than they were back in Vermont.  The marriage begins to turn when David denies her request to start a family and things go desperately downhill from there.  Gradually, Katie picks up on some increasingly troubling behavior by David and learns from one of his long time friends about a horrifying childhood trauma he experienced.  The two wind up living somewhat separate lives while she studies to earn acceptance to medical school; all the while, his personal difficulties start to impact his work and he winds up losing his stature at his father’s company, allowing his younger brother to surpass him in Sanford’s choice to run the real estate empire upon his retirement. 

Soon, things become even uglier when David starts to physically abuse Katie.  At this point, she is at something of a crossroads – should she stay married to him and continue being David’s punching bag just so he can pay her way through medical school?  Or should she divorce him, but risk no alimony because the trust funds Sanford set up for David would be unavailable to her by law?  While Katie tries to find a way to force David into paying her off for a divorce, his personality turns darker and stranger.  Not long thereafter, David reports to the police that Katie is missing, but he becomes a suspect in her sudden disappearance.  Did David murder his wife?  And if so, can the police bring him to justice?

 

Review

 

“All Good Things” was inspired by true events that occurred here in New York City almost 30 years ago; the case remains unsolved as this woman is still missing.  Many of us living in the city during this period have memories of the media reports of this case, but one question yet to be answered is whether the rest of the country will find it as fascinating as we did.  Given the fact that at its core, this was an intriguing, disturbing tale of a love story gone bad, I would like to think that it will have universal appeal – but we’ll certainly see once the movie opens. 

While I liked this movie on balance, there were some choices or flaws that bothered me somewhat.  To start with, I’ll now mention something that was intentionally omitted from my above story description.  The movie ostensibly starts to be about a recently-divorced New York City detective who may have just been given a break in a cold case which he wishes to re-open.  Roughly two-thirds of the way through the movie, the character is dropped completely and his story is never resolved.  This left me both confused and unsatisfied.  Was this done intentionally by the screenwriter or was this a choice made by the director in editing?  We may never know. 

Another thing that I felt worked against the movie is the fact that the story is not told in chronological order.  Instead, there are many flashbacks and flash forwards throughout.  In the beginning of the movie, I found it to take me out of the story (more than once, I think); eventually, however, once I picked up on the film’s rhythm, I was ultimately able to settle in and follow the story without too much else in the way of distractions.  If this sort of playing fast and loose with time is something that you might find rather jarring, then “All Good Things” may not be the right movie for you. 

Brooklyn, You’ve Just Been Googled

 

My very own neighborhood in The BK – literally, just a few blocks from where I live – has been infamously documented by Google Street View.

 

Google Street View helps capture drug-ring suspects

 

 

 

Earth to drug dealers -- Google is watching!

Three brazen heroin dealers were captured in Google Street View images working their favorite Brooklyn drug corner, where they peddled their product to hipsters and other dope fiends, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.

Multiple images captured along Jackson Street and Kingsland Avenue by the search engine's ubiquitous camera car show the trio milling about in front of the Neighborhood Grocery -- one of two East Williamsburg bodegas where they set up shop.

"A lot of people sell drugs in front of here. They have to clean up the streets. Children learn what they see," José Ruiz, 33, an employee of the Neighborhood Grocery, told The Post.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/druggies_snared_in_google_web_QZgVELDZvnvfGy6BMZlu9K#ixzz15BoLnkWR

Cool It – Movie Review

Last night in my movie class, we saw “Cool It”, a documentary about alternative ways to deal with the global warming issue impacting the earth’s environment; it was inspired by a book of the same name, which was written by Bjorn Lomborg, who is prominently featured in the film.

Synopsis

After Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, the earth’s global warming crisis was given a higher profile in the consciousness of the public – but what are the possible solutions?  Are the solutions that have already been set forth viable?  And is global warming even a crisis in the first place?

Review

It would be both simplistic and wrong to say that Bjorn Lomborg is Al Gore’s nemesis – they are both in total agreement about the essential fact that global warming does exist as a problem to be solved.  Despite this, the two remain at odds with each other.  The reason for their differences are both many and varied, but suffice it to say that Lomborg has attempted to set out a detailed, articulate, well-thought-out analysis of the problem as he sees it – in doing so, however, he points out what he observes are flaws in the information that Gore has presented in his own documentary. 

Lomborg is an author and environmentalist who started out his professional life working for Greenpeace, then began to question his own beliefs, causing him to diverge somewhat from the mainstream environmentalist community.  Seen as both an iconoclast and a bit of a gadfly, he is a thorn in the side of environmentalists who buy into the perceptions conveyed by what seems to be a highly vocal and visible majority, causing him to collect a great many enemies as staunch in their beliefs as Lomborg is with his own.  In the documentary, Lomborg takes apart many of Gore’s arguments piece by piece, providing reasoned, thoughtful replies to both the statement of the original problem and proof of why some of the posited solutions aren’t viable -- in some cases, he even does so by showing an extensive cost-benefit analysis, proving that we can get a bigger bang for the buck elsewhere.  One of the best parts of the movie is how the so-called “Cap & Trade” solution works and why it would fail based on the greed inherent to free market capitalism.

The documentary does more than attempt to lionize Lomborg, it seems to want to deify him as well.  For one thing, he is shown as a loving son making monthly visits to his institutionalized mother diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.  Also, he is shown in an auditorium lecturing to an audience about his thoughts on environmental concerns and in doing so, the composition of the shot is such that he is in the same frame as what look like religious-type stained glass windows – thus giving the appearance that he could be a cleric preaching to his disciples. 

I must admit that I found this movie hard to follow – I’m not an environmentalist, a scientist or an engineer and the filmmakers try to cram quite a bit of elaborate scientific information into an hour and a half documentary; perhaps more than the average person might be reasonably expected to digest.  Also,  unless you’re fairly knowledgeable about the geopolitical discussion of the entire global warming issue (and again, I’m not that guy, either), then it’s fairly easy to get lost in this movie rather early on; I found my eyes glazing over more than once – not because it wasn’t interesting, but because I had a tough time keeping up with everything.

The post-screening interview was with both Lomborg himself and the documentary’s Producer/Director Ondi Timoner.  When asked about the financials, Timoner refused to answer; she said that the investors in the movie wished to remain anonymous and she didn’t want to share exactly how much the movie cost to produce.  Lomborg wanted to make it clear that he was in fact grateful to Al Gore for bringing the issue to the forefront because without him, there wouldn’t even be a discussion.