154. The Life and Death of Peter Sellers

154. (15 Aug) The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2005, Stephen Hopkins) 53



Odd directorial choices abound in The Life and Death of Peter Sellers with some unnecessary breaking of the fourth wall and editing that rarely feels less than choppy. It's only a thoroughly absorbing performance from Geoffrey Rush that holds this together. He's continuously better than the too ambitious script. The film just can't delve into his personal life without coming across as disingenuous. For instance, scenes with his children all feel like this should be titled Daddie Dearest.

Best of the Best: The Kings Speech vs. The Artist

BEST OF THE BEST

I've decided to try something new here at the Oscars Project. It's something I've entitled "Best of the Best". I'm going to pit 2 Best Pictures against each other, and lay out who I think would win. I'll try to make it as random and unbiased as possible. Sometimes I'll pit similar films against each other, sometimes old vs recent, sometimes I'll randomly select 2 films.

To start it off, I thought I'd do something recent, and relevant. The King's Speech (2010) vs. The Artist (2011). To me these 2 films are, in a way, similar. Both are about a man struggling with finding his voice. While Bertie, in the King's Speech was thrust into the limelight or being a King, George, in the Artist, was highly regarded and was suddenly cast down. Both are about a man's journey as he finds where he's meant to be, and finds their voice. Both learn to "speak".

The King's Speech was met with critical acclaim. It was first shown at the Telluride Film Festival, but really got it's start just a little bit later in September at the Toronto International Film Festival where it got a standing ovation and won the People's Choice Award. From there it picked up steam. However, when it came to awards season, there was another movie that came along. The Social Network. Most of the awards were pretty split between TKS and TSN. However, many called The King's Speech an Oscar-bait film, being a period piece, a true story, and about British Royalty, with a dab of WWII. It was also deemed a "feel good" film, many people saying it is a good thing, and others, not so much. While it sits with a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, many also felt it was the "safe" choice that year, beating out edgier films like The Social Network and Black Swan.

Aside from that, the King's Speech gave some incredible performances. Colin Firth picked up his first Oscar for the performance, and rightly so. He played the stuttering future King Bertie to perfection, and made us feel empathetic. He was able to capture the humor, but also the sorrow of the situation delightfully. Geoffrey Rush was also nominated, and did a splendid performance as Bertie's speech coach, Lionel. He was quirky and spunky, but was brave and honest. Helena Bonham Carter was charming and a bit snooty, but very loving. Also nominated.

The Artist, on the other hand, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2011 and is a silent, black and white film. Jean Dujardin won the Best Actor Award, and the film was nominated for the Palme d'Or. The film was popular in many Film festivals, and when it came to Awards Season, the movie picked up tons of awards, with no real "second place" movie. It sits with a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. And while it was extremely popular, many called it "gimmicky", because of it being a silent films, shot in the aspect ratios of the 20s/30s, and being in black and white. They said the story was a mix of Singin' In the Rain, and A Star is Born, and that it wasn't very original, and was predictable. Another film that was deemed Oscar-bait, for being different and not being "very daring".  However, the music, the performances, the costumes, were all praised. Jean Dujardin spent most of the season in a tight race with  George Clooney for Best Actor, but won out on Oscar Night.

Being silent, the performances and the music were on a pretty high expectation. The music would have to carry the film in a way that sound movies don't. And the actors would have to express everything without talking. However, these worries were quickly set aside. Jean Dujardin, who plays the charming George Valentin, looks as though he really is from another era. He has the most expressive face, and has such a smile. And his little mustache! You'd think you were actually watching a movie from the 1930s. Berenice Bejo, additionally, was so phenomenal. She was perky and peppy (excuse the pun), and just a bubble of fun. You'd believe she really was a film star from the silent days.

But who wins? Both films had similar complaints laid against them. They were too feel good, they were too safe, and the performances were stronger than the story line. The films were even nominated for the same things. The Artist, having 10 nominations, and the King's Speech having 12, all 10 that The Artist was nominated for, The King's Speech was too (the only difference being screenplay and supporting actor).

What the King's Speech has going for it is the performances. Colin Firth is thrilling and perfect, and Geoffrey Rush is great. What the Artist has going for it is the performances, and the fact that it's a silent film, in black and white.

Verdict: I think the Artist is going to take this one. (Though I enjoy The King's Speech more than The Artist, though I love them both)

Not only was it more loved than The King's Speech, but it also had no other competition that year, like The King's Speech had The Social Network. The Artist is a lot more different than The King's Speech, and it did something unique. How can a cute, well-acted and directed film, that's silent and b&w lose? It's something that sticks out in your mind a bit more than a period piece about a British Monarch. However, I'd say that Colin Firth would beat out Jean Dujardin. Dujardin was great, but Firth truly, truly nailed it for me.

Sound off in the comments if you agree/disagree. Did I pick the right winner? For the right reasons? Or was I completely off? You let me know!
Or if you have suggestions for next time's Best of the Best, write them down there too.

Best Supporting Actor 1998: Results

5. Geoffrey Rush in Shakespeare in Love- Rush is not bad, but besides a few somewhat comedic moment there just is not much to his performance.

4. Ed Harris in The Truman Show- Harris gives a consistently stoic performance that actually is an interesting but not amazing depiction of a pretentious artist who has delusions of grandeur.

3.  James Coburn in Affliction- James Coburn gives an effective performance that brings to life the cruelty, as well as the weakness of his character extremely well.

2. Robert Duvall in A Civil Action- Robert Duvall is a strong performance as the legal adversary for this film. He creates an effective and unique opponent in just how calm he is throughout the film.

1. Billy Bob Thorton in A Simple Plan- Thorton easily wins this year for me in his heartbreaking portrait of a simple man who is always trying to do the right thing, but has a very hard to figuring out what the right thing ever is.

Deserving Performances:
John Goodman in The Big Lebowski
Giovanni Ribisi in Saving Private Ryan

Best Supporting Actor 1998: Geoffrey Rush in Shakespeare in Love

Geoffrey Rush received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Philip Henslowe in Shakespeare in Love.

Shakespeare in Love is about well Shakespeare falling in love while writing, and putting on Romeo and Juliet.

Geoffrey Rush portrays Philip Henslowe the owner of the Theater where Shakespeare writes for. Henslowe is deep in debt, and desperately wants Shakespeare to write him a successful comedy to payoff his debtors. I should say right off that Rush really has a very limited role as Philip Henslowe. Like Ed Harris in The Truman Show I suppose most of the performance is in his character creation. Rush makes Henslowe a usually whimpering confused fellow constantly begging for things to be going his way, and he is a rather meek fellow in Rush's portrayal.

I would say really the whole point of Henslowe is just to be comic relief in the film. After all after just a couple of early scenes where he talks to his debtors, and tries to convince Shakespeare to write him his play, Rush mostly just has small reactions that are always suppose to comedic. I would say he overplay's the part with his sloppy way of speaking, and almost always surprised look, but really that is the point of Henslowe. Henslowe is just suppose to be a wacky character just for a couple of laughs nothing more. There is not any sort of drive to his character, or purpose besides that.

I guess one could argue he does a little more when he calls on the tavern crowd to be his actors, but even then Rush portrays in very much the same way. I would say his performance is repetitive but really but really there is always enough of a space between his short reactions that it is not. Rush is actually entirely fine int he role, he is sort of humorous, but not all that funny. I don't have problem with his performance, its energetic, Rush certainly isn't boring, but there just is not anything special or notable in the role. Frankly if a supporting actor needed to be nominated here I think Tom Wilkinson probably would have been the better choice.

Best Supporting Actor 1998

And The Nominees Were:

Robert Duvall in A Civil Action

Billy Bob Thorton in A Simple Plan

James Coburn in Affliction

Geoffrey Rush in Shakespeare in Love

Ed Harris in The Truman Show

The King's Speech

The King's Speech, 2010
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 12 Oscars, Won 4.
Up Against: The Social Network, Black Swan, The Fighter, True Grit, Inception, Toy Story 3, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours

As I've said in a previous post, The King's Speech makes into my favourite movies arena. I seriously enjoyed it, and I'm putting that up front right now before I do a little analysis and say what I liked and didn't like about it.

For those of you who don't know, this movie is the story on King George VI, known as Bertie. Bertie is the Duke of York, and struggles with a speech impediment that makes it very difficult for him to speak (much less in front of an audience). His wife, Elizabeth is reffered to a quirky speech therapist named Lionel. While Bertie is hesitant at first, he finds himself needing help, and knows Lionel can help him. Soon, he is thrust on the throne  very unexpectedly. How can Bertie lead a country if he can hardly speak?

This is Tom Hooper's second feature film after having done great work doing several different mini-series. He and the crew knew that they had to get some sort of star attached to this project or it may never lift off the ground. Someone in the crew lived  near Geoffrey Rush and they got them to slip the script through Rush's mailbox, with a note attached to it apologizing that it was unsolicited but they desperately wanted him to do the film. Who knew the act of slipping an unsolicited script through a mailbox started the process in what ended up to be the next Best Picture winner.

The crew were able to find their star-studded cast, having Colin Firth, Helena Bonham-Carter, along with Geoffrey Rush, to play the three lead. Geoffrey Rush was such a treat in this film. He was quirky and zany, but he was also inspiring. Rush really nailed the part of quirky, Aussie Lionel (though the accent was only sort of there). Helena Bonham-Carter was lovely, which is in stark contrast with her character Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter, which she was filming at the same time as the King's Speech. She was supportive of her husband, but she was broken-hearted over this hurt her husband was going through. And she was a little bit uppity, but Helena is wonderful, and was able to play all of it convincingly, and with lots of grace and poise.

And then there's Colin Firth. Honestly, we was so phenomenal in this role. His stuttering was heartbreaking, especially the beginning speech in the movie, just those horrible echoing noises, and just not knowing how to get his words out. Colin Firth both broke my heart and made me laugh throughout this movie. He was able to strike the right balance between humor and sorrow, especially in the scene while talking about his childhood with Lionel. Colin Firth really embraced this role, and seemed to truly get into the heart of the character. His speech impediment, and his stuttering were perfect and were never too overboard, or too subtle. He struck the right amount, making it more severe in some situations, and less so in others.

The scenery and artwork and costumes were all great. Alexandre Desplat gives us a lovely score. Nothing too brilliant, though in some of the more emotional tracks (Queen Elizabeth, Memories of Childhood), he replays a single not over and over, almost as though it is stuttering and can't get farther. But that may be me reading into Desplats music (though I doubt it, he's played themes backwards and forward before).

One thing that bothered me is sometimes the cinematography tried to be too "artsy". There were a lot of awkward, character in the very corner of the shot, sometimes cutting the person beside them out. It's hard to explain without showing. Google didn't have many good examples. This was as close as I could get

Overall, the film told it's story well. It showed the problem right up front, and showed how Bertie dealt with it (or didn't), and how exactly it affected his life, and why.

Many will say this is one of the most competitive and disputed years. You'll hear such debates as Shakespeare in Love vs Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction, and I know that list has come to include The King's Speech vs The Social Network. Like the 2 debates mentioned above, both are incredibly different and very opposite movies. The King's Speech is a classy period piece, while The Social Network was very modern and dealt with something very current. Both have pros and cons about them, but for this one, I'm going to have to side with The King's Speech. It took me a few tries to warm up to the Social Network and appreciate what it is. While it had good acting, the acting in TKS is much stronger, though TSN excelled in the music (the music and movie had amazing chemistry) and cinematography.

Unpopular(ish) opinion, but I dearly love The King's Speech. It was an uplifting, yet sad, movie, and had some very wonderful performances.

8.75/10

The Boy From Les Miz

"Who am I? Wolverine or 24601?"

Some hit Broadway musicals are adapted to film right away, some wait a couple years, and if you're a Cameron Mackintosh show, you take over two decades to hit the silver screen.

In the aftermath of this years Oscars, where Tom Hooper was crowned best Director for his helming of The King's Speech, news came that he was the favorite to direct the (finally!) adaptation of one of the world's biggest musical: Les Misérables.

News came yesterday that song and dance man Hugh Jackman (who's never graced film with his talents) was in talks to play one of the musical's famous two leading roles: hero Jean Valjean and antagonistic (not villain, but I'll get to that another day) Inspector Javert.  When word broke that  Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World's Paul Bettany had read and sung for Javert, all eyes turned towards Jackman as the cursed tragic hero Valjean.  Initially, I was more on the side of Jackman as Javert...but it seems Hollywood won't allow their leading man to be a bad guy.  Yet, oddly, they want him in what is a brooding man role but also a very paternal one.  Jackman's done the paternal thing before, over a decade ago with X-Men, but his relationship with rogue was just weird if you ask me.

So there we have it.  Our two leading men.  Jackman as Valjean and Bettany as Javert.  I'm thrilled to see how the rest of the cast materializes.  I've always thought Geoffrey Rush would be brilliant as Thénardier, but with him having already played Javert in a film adaptation of Les Miz (not the musical), I doubt to see him back on the streets of Paris.  Who's in your dream cast?

.

REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (B-)

(dir. Rob Marshall, 2011)

Full disclosure: this franchise is something which, despite poor quality and confusing narratives, I cannot hate.  No matter whether or not a Pirates film is good, I manage it thoroughly enjoy it.  It's the hold the franchise has over me.  Color me a biased film critic, matey.  (Also, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl in all it's by-the-book and Disneyfied glory, is my favorite film of all time.  Right around The Silence of the Lambs, Pulp Fiction, White Christmas, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).

But this film, the fourth in an admittedly bloated series, was attempting to recapture the start-up magic of the original.  It was without the second and third films' penchant for elaborate, complicated plots and subplots.  But it never fully recaptured the feeling of the original.  What was so grand about the first three was their undeniable epic scope; you felt like you were watching something that was a true adventure flick.  But On Stranger Tides doesn't have that feeling.  It's deflated.

This time around, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp prancing around in the role that made him a star) is left yet again without a ship trying to locate the infamous Fountain of Youth.  Along his way he meets villain turned ally turned privateer Hector Barbossa (a perfectly hammy Geoffrey Rush), an erstwhile paramour (Penelope Cruz), and the mysterious Blackbeard (Ian McShane doing what he can to save the role from disaster).  Oh, and there's a replacement for Orlando Bloom's Will Turner in their somewhere and a mermaid.  But best not to bother ourselves with talking about them in depth, the filmmakers certainly didn't.



McShane, as I said, is doing what he can to save the part.  Blackbeard is easily the worst villain of the franchise, and simply because he's written so poorly.  A bad guy going out to seek the Fountain of Youth so he doesn't die?  Is that it?  Is that suppose to make him a bad guy?  He doesn't try to kill Jack, Barbossa, or anyone we like.  His majestically powers of battleship embottlement, zombification, and rope manipulation are never explained nor do we ever get a good glimpse of what make Blackbeard so vile.  At least with Davy Jones and Barbossa we understood their means to an end, even if their means were vicious.  The Pirates series never had a villain you could really hate; Barbossa just wanted to taste an apple and Jones was just a sad, heartbroken man.  But with Blackbeard, you're just told he's a bad man and you're left at that.

Reporting to duty, I was told I have to save this film?

I know the legion of stalwart Pirates fans voiced their criticism over the third installment (and even the second one), and how Disney didn't either hear or chose not to address those concerns is perplexing.  Perhaps their notion of going back to the original was eliminating overly excessive battle sequences and frothy plots, but I'd be hard to find anyone who doesn't cite the maelstrom scene from At World's End as that film's highlight.  Or the Kraken attacks from Dead Man's Chest, or that delicious final sword fight between Jack and Barbossa in The Curse of the Black Pearl.  In this film, there is not defining scene, no moment of pure excitement.  The climax seems merely little less than an afterthought and in many ways a foregone conclusion.

The true highlight of the film wasn't a battle, or a scene full of visual effects wonderment, but rather the brief scenes between Jack and Barbossa.  Johnny Depp and Rush have always such a marvelous chemistry, and I always felt their lack of togetherness in the second film stopped it from being great (granted, Barbossa was dead in that film...mostly).  It doesn't hurt that the writers gave Barbossa the only intriguing motive to do anything in the whole film, what with trying to enact revenge on the man who cost him his leg (and when Rush tells his tale vengeance, it's a scene of splendid acting).  When they're together, how they play off one another is just a type of magic you can't create with CGI.  If the fifth film wants to do better with everyone (audiences and critics), I think re-pairing that dynamic duo would be a wise decision.

A poor man's Will and Elizabeth

But this fourth installment just doesn't have the charm of the first three.  There no fun banter between straight man Will Turner and crazy man Sparrow.  No Pintel and Ragetti.  No Governor Swan or Norrington.  No fun villain that you secretly root for.  It feels too small, and there's not one standout performance.  Bother Depp and Rush are great, but a far cry from their work on the earlier films and not for lack of trying or prowess, but rather because the parts and the direction gave them little to work with.  It seems director Rob Marshall's career has been in a bit of a nosedive since he nearly won an Oscar in 2002,  as he's followed the best Picture-winning Chicago with Memoirs of a Geisha, Nine, and now this.  From the man that gave us "Cell Block Tango," I was expecting more grandeur, and instead I got a stifled, under-realized film.  The series needs Gore Verbinksi back and pronto.

But still, just being able to see Rush and Depp on screen again in these parts was a large portion of my enjoyment.  And I cannot argue with the genuine joy I get from seeing Capt. Jack.  That enough is enough to see the film.  I just wish there were more reasons.  GRADE: B-








.

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

Written by Ted Eliott and Terry Rossio

Directed by Rob Marshall

Starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush and Ian McShane

Barbosa: You haven't changed.

Jack Sparrow: Implying the need.

It’s fitting really that the fourth installment in Disney’s PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN series, ON STRANGER TIDES, finds everyone’s favourite captain, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) searching frantically for the fountain of youth. The franchise itself has not exuded any true vigor since the first time it sent sail and, now serving under the new direction of Rob Marshall (CHICAGO), it simply drifts aimlessly at sea while trying to recapture its former glory. Drastic changes were made to the format, most notably a major cast overhaul, to rejuvenate it and allow it to stand alone as a one-off story in hopes of keeping Disney’s treasure chest plentiful. The only strange thing about these tides though is that anyone is still watching and waiting for them to come in.

Some of the aforementioned drastic changes include the shedding of previous series regulars, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly, to make room for fresh blood, Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane. Also gone are the overly complicated plot lines incorporated into the second and third installments to justify their existence. All they managed to do was infuriate audiences and suck all the fun out of the franchise anyway so that’s no loss. Instead, this adventure is meant to exist unto itself and it most certainly does this. It just doesn’t bother having any fun in the process. Depp returns as the character he has brought nothing new to for years now and he joins a bunch of other pirates, including Cruz, whom he had some sort of sordid affair with way back when, as they search for the location of the fountain of youth. Aside from an encounter with some of the most vicious mermaids I’ve ever seen, this amounts to little more than a lot of walking and talking in the jungle.

The truth is there is nothing strange about these tides really and this is why the film doesn’t work. A new director and a new approach were supposed to thrust some fresh gusts of wind into the aging franchise’s sails but all it truly manages is to raise this sunken ship to the surface again and leave it there to rock monotonously back and forth, in unnecessary 3D no less. (This by no means applies to McShane, who is the only point of interest past those scary mermaids.) Considering previous pirate complaints centered around how confusing it all got, I am surprised that Marshall leaves us with more confusion this time around too – more specifically, why is this series still going? Oh right, treasure.

THE KING'S SPEECH

Written by David Seidler

Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter

King George VI: Waiting for me to commence a conversation, one can wait a rather long wait.

When a king speaks, he must command attention. Though the British monarchy may be more iconography than anything else at this point in history, people will still look to their royal leader for guidance and reassurance in times of woe and doubt. That’s a lot of pressure for someone who may never have wanted to assume the responsibility to begin with. Unfortunately for King George VI, his birthright meant he did not have any choice in the matter. It’s not that he didn’t think he could do it; it’s just that he wasn’t confidant enough to think anyone would care to have him.

Forget the king; when director Tom Hooper speaks, he has my full attention. After his impressive first feature last year, THE DAMNED UNITED, Hooper continues his journey in regal fashion with THE KING’S SPEECH and delivers the goods right from the start. Colin Firth, who could easily garner another Oscar nod with his heartbreaking work here, is the Duke of York. It is 1925 and he is about to address the nation. The tension builds and by the time he gets to the podium, every ear in the land appears to be waiting to hear what he has to say. At first, there is nothing. What follows that awkwardness is a disjointed, passionless address that he stammers all the way through. It may not be as epic a global failure as modern day technology allows but enough people were listening to make it seem like a public collapse that he might never recover from.

He almost didn’t. King George VI went through many speech therapists before landing on Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Logue helps George break down the years of subtle abuse one suffers as the son of a king to see that his speech impediment is the result of isolation and lack of confidence, not something particularly physical. Their banter is at times hilarious and at others quite intense. Their immense combined talent, along with supporting turns from Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce, give THE KING’S SPEECH even more depth and flourish than Hooper already has. Together, they created a film that will certainly resonate long after it’s said what it has to say.