311. Les Miserables

311. (15 Dec) Les Miserables (2012, Tom Hooper)* 28



Midway through act two, Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne quite literally are up to their necks in fecal matter. That Les Miserables willfully offers that metaphor makes it the ballsiest or most clueless film of the year. Considering how dreadful it is, I'm leaning toward the latter.

There's not an iota of scale in Les Miserables, with roughly four wide shots that so much as hint that this is a historical epic in its entire bloated runtime. Just like in The King's Speech, Tom Hooper's amateurish aesthetic undermines every moment. Here he's as reliant on dutch angles as he is on dopey framing, keeping heads in the corner of a shot while negative space dominates the background. It's one of the worst photographed major studio films I've seen. But there's simply not much to work with since the sets and costumes are decidedly unremarkable. When Les Miz is not irritating to look at, it's boring.

Tom Hooper's direction is astoundingly misguided. Without dialogue, he relies on the score to tell the story. Unfortunately, only five musical numbers are at all good. Most of the talk-singing is instantly forgettable (namely the added and useless tune "Suddenly"). The nasally Hugh Jackman and overly emotive Samantha Barks are shameful standouts in the cast. Russell Crowe channels Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfriend, without a hint of romantic chemistry, are wasted vocal talents. The much discussed Anne Hathaway is the only performer to give emotional impact to the film at all, overplaying her part, but at least not embarrassing herself in an intense close-up during "I Dreamed a Dream."

Hooper has suggested he attempted to emulate West Side Story, at least during "One More Day," which shows how ambitious and incompetent he is. His shoddily edited film not only is totally incoherent, unmoving, and uninteresting, it's laughable. Crowe's biggest dramatic moment is the most obvious joke, but it's impossible to enumerate the goofs in a film where next to nothing works. Empty heads and empty filmmaking.

212. Live from Baghdad

212. (18 Sep) Live from Baghdad (2002, Mick Jackson) 57



Live from Baghdad is an involving take on the personal toll it takes to be a war correspondent and the ethical complications that come with the job. Mick Jackson does well establishing Iraq as a powder keg ready to explode. When war breaks out, the danger of the situation is deeply felt. However, the lead-up is slow and character relationships are vague. Michael Keaton gives the most fully-formed performance here. Helena Bonham Carter is fine in an Emmy-nominated role, but has little to do.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Written by David Nicholls
Directed by Mike Newell
Starring Jeremy Irvine, Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes

Pip: How can there be beauty without a heart?

It isn’t a good sign when an adaptation of a literary classic makes me question whether or not the book itself deserves to be called a classic. I’ve not read Charles Dickens’s GREAT EXPECTATIONS, but after seeing Mike Newell’s interpretation of the material, I’m not clamoring to either. While it is often beautifully shot, it is also often so outlandish that it is difficult to take any of it very seriously. And given that this particular tale is one that explores such important themes such as class differentiation and abuse of power, I would have liked to have felt the weight that should go along with it.

It starts out very promising. Cinematographer, John Mathieson, frames the quaint England village where Pip lives brilliantly, with striking colour that grounds the picture in a very realistic tone. Pip, an orphan who is played by Jeremy Irvine (WAR HORSE) in his adult years, is a child put upon by all in his life, safe for his sister’s husband, Joe (Jason Flemyng). Under a bizarre arrangement made to have Pip visit a wealthy spinster (Helena Bonham Carter), Pip meets a girl, falls in love and comes to understand that, as the son of a blacksmith, he will never be able to be with her unless he becomes a proper gentlemen. Pip should have been far more weary of what he wished for. His dreams do come true but they come with a very heavy price, as fortune often does.

Larger than life performances by Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes (as a convict who threatens and scars Pip as a child) are certainly standout, but they end up eclipsing much of everything else that is happening. This includes the romance between Pip and Estella (Holiday Grainger) that the entire premise of the film revolves around. If there is no love to root for between Pip and Estella, then there is nothing left but a cold look at tortured, difficult times. GREAT EXPECTATIONS can boast a handful of successful elements that make it a passable effort, but it is a far ways off from being called a classic.

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.

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

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II

<body><!- google_ad_section_start ->
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, 2011
Directed by David Yates
Possible Oscar Nominations Include: Art Direction, Visual Effects, Makeup, Original Score, and Best Picture<!- google_ad_section_end ->

Synopsis: Leaving off part I with a just-barely escape from the Malfoy's house, Dobby dead, only 1 Horcrux down, and Voldemort acquiring the Elder Wand, we know there's a way to go. With their next location to search being Gringotts and Hogwarts, the movie escalates into a high-action and powerful film that doesn't stop until it ends. Will Harry find all the Horcruxes in time? Will he defeat He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? Who will die? Who will survive? And what secrets will he unfold next?

Surprisingly, thus far of reviewing movies, I haven't mentioned that I'm a huge Potter fan. And I mean huuuuge. So anticipation levels were high when this movie was released in theaters in July. Sadly, I wasn't able to see it at midnight like I did for Part I (I was working at camp and didn't have access to a car, or permission to stay out all night), so I saw the film the day after it's release in 2D. The second time, in 3D, though I'll comment on that later.

Being a massive fan, I know this review will appear slightly biased with my undying love for the series, but I'll try to do my best.

The film opens up on Harry at Shell Cottage. We see him at Dobby's grave, and then see him question the Goblin, Griphook, about potentially breaking into Gringotts, the Wizarding Bank, and to Mr Ollivander, the wand-maker  about the Elder Wand. While we know Voldemort just recently acquired the wand, we realize what Harry's choice is... He's going to break into Bellatrix LeStrange's vault at Gringotts to search for a Horcrux. This involves stolen wands, polyjuice potion, more disguises of the non-polyjuice variety, and invisibility cloaks. To say this heist goes successfully is only half true. But you can watch the movie.

Next we land at Hogwarts, where the finale truly begins, 35 minutes into the film. It's ending.

Several things I must comment on now. Firstly, the visual effects were stunning in this film. I mean, seriously. And combined with the use of the 3D the film was a masterpiece for the eyes. I'm not, by any means, a fan of 3D (unless it were animated movies only, and were cheaper), but it's not really my thing. But I had the change to see the movie a 2nd time, and they chose to see it 3D, and I got in for free with my Scene Card. But seriously, I was a big fan of the 3D for this film. No, there wasn't anything jumping out at you, etc, but I felt like this film had infinite layers to it. I felt like I could stare really far into the distance and see so many different things. It felt very real, and like you're actually looking out a window onto all these scenes, not looking at a screen watching a movie. And the use of things flying away from you, in 3D, is also very cool, and has a much better effect. But enough about 3D. Overall, visually, this film was fantastic, and my favourite beside Part I and Prisoner of Azkaban.

Add caption

Also, the music in this film was perfectly used. 4-time Oscar Nominee, and my favourite composer by far, Alexandre Desplat, combines new themes, themes from Part I, and themes from past films, predominantly using Hedwig's Theme and Harry's Wondrous World for particularly nostalgic scenes. But Desplat's original work is just as emotionally moving and fantastical as William's work. This film switches between 2 different themes. We have the 'Lily's Theme' Theme, which is shown in the emotional moments, or all things concerning Snape and Harry. And we have the 'Statutes' theme, which is the battle theme used throughout the film. Both of which are beautiful themes. And just let me say, the final Harry vs Voldemort battle tracks are just so triumphant and stunning. I could never choose a favourite track from this score. I would be surprised if this doesn't get Oscar nominated, as it's already been Grammy Nominated.

In the end, this film was well-balanced, having Part I been all talk, and Part II, most definitely, being all action. Some complained that the film was non-stop and the story got lost, but I disagree. As Harry put's it in an early scene, "we plan, we get there, all hell breaks loose" and that's precisely what happens. There's not a solid plot (hence the vague synopsis earlier), but that's okay. Battle and war isn't solid, it's crazy and unplanned and chaotic. So many different things happen to Harry this day (if you were really paying attention you'll notice pretty much the whole of Part II, minus a few scenes, takes course over 24 years. Yep) that it just can't be mapped out of planned. It's a very strong film, with a very strong story. Love is the guiding light, and something we cannot live without.

Overall, I loved this film (maybe not as much as Part I, but I adore Part I). It was visually beautiful, well-acted (specifically from Alan Rickman, duh, and Helena Bonham Carter.. her imitation of Hermione is brilliant and spot-on), and was overall a fantastic film. I foresee many nominations for this film, and if we're lucky (fingers-crossed) a Best Picture Nomination could be on the way. Though we'll see about that one, it's for sure, and would be nothing less than robbery, should HP still not achieve winning the Little Gold Man, in any category.
<!- google_ad_section_start ->
Will Harry Potter finally receive a Best Picture Nod at this years Academy Awards? It could go either way, honestly. With the new voting system the academy instituted for this years nominations, this could either be a good thing for Harry, or a bad thing. Had it been last year, and 10 nominees were for certain, it would've definitely been nominated. This year, we'll have to see, and cross our fingers.<!- google_ad_section_end ->

Rating: 9/10
</body>
</html>

479. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

479. (26 Nov) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011, David Yates) 55



Considering how lame the final installment of J.K. Rowling's book series was, it was inevitable the film would be troubled. By splitting it in two parts, it amplifies how unremarkable the plotting is. For the sake of the runtime, the story is rushed on the scale that derailed Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Consider the opening bank heist and the recovery of the Ravenclaw diadem. They're relatively unexciting and bizarrely episodic events considering the film only takes place over the course of a few days. It's not particularly thrilling when a conveniently placed dragon saves your ass or a minor character like Luna Lovegood solves a key mystery like the Ravenclaw horcrux.

Once the battle at Hogwart's begins, the film is crushingly brainless. The challenges that were overcome in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire were because of the cleverness and intellect of the characters. Now they're not even smart enough to think up a spell to stop the fire in the room of requirement or they lamely chase after a snake trying to stab it with a dragon tooth. At some point, the film is simply neither fun nor involving. It simply feels like work watching David Yates resolve a decade-long film series that had towering moments years ago.

The visual effects are still quite good, though the aging in the epilogue is a decided failure. I imagine they'll be the franchise's final Oscar nomination. An Art Direction nod would be inexplicable since there are practically no new sets throughout. Touting it for Best Picture or asking for a Rickman nomination is outlandish.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1997

1997

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Julie Christie in Afterglow

I'm not one of the fans of Julie Christie in Afterglow. She has some nice moments and she nails to emotional scenes to a certain extent but it's not enough to win me over. I really missed the wildness or the subtlety of her other great performances. But the fact that she wasn't great is mostly due to the horrid movie. Still, she's not great.

4. Kate Winslet in Titanic

This is great work by Kate Winslet. I don't want to take away anything from it as it's great work but she pales a little bit in comparision with the epic movie that she's in. Kate perfectly portrayed all the negative emotions and fears of the character and therefore she was really haunting in the beginning.

3. Helen Hunt in As Good as it Gets

Helen Hunt almost crossed the line of fantastic with her performance as Carol Connelly in As Good as it Gets. Hunt added wonderful, loveable realism to this character and she made the audience really care about her. Those, who keep saying that she's one of the worst winners, really need to shut up. Helen Hunt is just excellent as this loveable character.

2. Judi Dench in Mrs Brown

This is a wonderful performance by one of the greatest actresses ever on this planet. Although it may not be the best achievement of the brilliant Dame Judi Dench, she perfectly inhabited this very complex character and nailed the emotional scenes. This is excellent work that is a real joy to watch. It's not fantastic or mindblowing, it's "just" absolutely wonderful.

1. Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove

As Kate Croy, Helena Bonham Carter managed to create fascinating, multi-layered and mysterious character that is surely very interesting. I was totally blown away by Helena who gave astonishing work and I am not surprised at all at the amount of love that Helena gets for this great achievement. Haunting, disturbing, beautiful.

So I can proudly announce

that my winner is...

Helena Bonham Carter

in

The Wings of the Dove

Just loved Helena

Final thoughts: Why do I have mixed feelings? This was an enjoyable year with very good performances and mostly not-so-great movies. Afterglow was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E but Christie made it a bit less intolerable, Mrs Brown was quite boring with Judi Dench who gave a wonderful but definitely not her greatest performance (interesting enough, that was the movie because of which I wanted to do this year), As Good as it Gets was very entertaining and Hunt really elevated the material (I'd say she was the best thing about it). Helena was just thrilling and her movie was very interesting. I'd say Titanic was the best movie in the bunch, a real epic and Kate was really good in it though not brilliant. I would say that this year was worth reviewing because of the fantastic, gutwrenching performance of Helena Bonham Carter and the great Dame Judi. I could live without the rest, though.

The ranking of the reviewed years:

1. 1944
2. 1969
3. 1974
4. 1989
5. 1959
6. 1964
7. 1939
8. 1977
9. 2010
10. 1997
11. 2009
12. 1980
13. 1941
14. 1963
15. 1966
16. 1973
17. 1990
18. 1978
19. 1954
20. 1948
21. 2002
22. 1957
23. 1940
24. 1998

About the next year: I AM SO DAMN SORRY! I've just realised that The Whisperers was removed from Youtube! I'm so f-ing nervous right now. I'm feeling very sorry but I'm going to do another great year instead. I'm so sorry again. Really, really sorry. Basically, the poll was useless and I didn't get the other movies of the years in the poll. So I had to think quick. And I have my year, which is (I promise) a great one. It's an incredibly similar one to 1997 and not only in the types of roles (single mom, royal) but also some people. :)

What do you think?

Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove

Helena Bonham Carter received her first Best Actress nomination for playing Kate Croy, an impoversihed woman in the movie, The Wings of the Dove. Although nowadays Judi Dench and Helen Hunt are said to have been favored to win the Oscar, Helena received the most of the critics' awards. She was pretty much a dark horse to win and I think she had her share of fans in the Academy, too. Still, she was the fourth in the voting. She got more votes than Julie Christie, I think but she couldn't really overcome the strength of the other three nominees.

The Wings of the Dove is such a great, stylish movie that has mindblowingly beautiful cinematography and fabulous costumes. Titanic was wonderful but I would have given the technical awards to this movie. OK, I admit being extremely fond of period pieces and this one is not an exception, either. The actors give very proper performances, the directing is quite good and the screenplay is excellently written. All in all, the movie is a real joy to watch and I would gladly see it once again.

I also admit being very fond of Helena Bonham Carter. Some may be tired of her usual "Tim Burton's leading lady" self but I simply love her in every possible way. She's so fun and unusual and I always love the touch subtle humor she adds to her characters. That's why I really liked her The King's Speech and I wouldn't have minded had she won this year. All things considered, I expected something very dark and unusual in this performance.

However, this is not the Helena Bonham Carter, I've known and loved so far. This performance is truly unusual and unorthodox and yet it's very different from her usually unusual movies. this is early Helena Bonham Carter we know from A Room with a View and Howard's End mixed with her newest works. And what an astonishing, breathtaking, gutwrenching combination it is. To put it shortly, this performance is Helena is amazing. Amazing and pitch-perfect in every possible way.

Kate Croy is such a terrific, complex character that's incredibly hard to play for the actress who has to inhabit her. On the one hand, she's very loving and has a certain kindness in herself. On the other hand, she can be extremely manipulative and jealous. Just think about the dancing scene at the Venice carnival when her boyfriend dances with the dying American girl. Helena has a visible disappointment on her face but also she has a kind of "I hope you die soon, bitch." face. Kate's emotions are very hard to interpret and they can be so easily misunderstood by both the performer and the audience.

The thing I admire most about this thrilling, confusing performance is the effective subtlety and the distance that she adds to this character. The fact that Helena made Kate such a mysterious person, made her ten times more interesting. Whenever she's on the screen, there's a kind of electric, sizzling feeling in it. Although she's quite often off-screen, her effect is so so strong that I was haunted by her even when she wasn't there. I wasn't waiting for her to come because I wanted more of her but because she was so great that I couldn't have enough of it.

Furthermore, it's not only about her overall effect but also the fabulous scenes that totally blew me away. One is the previously mentioned one in Venice and the one after that when she revealed the truth to her lover. She seems to be so manipulative and yet I couldn't help feeling really sorry for her character. Helena reveals the darker side of this character so thrillingly and fascinatingly and I was simlpy mesmerized by her.

Also, I must mention the monologue that was her Oscar clip. Boy, they couldn't have chosen a better one if they had tried even harder. Helena delivered the line "I love you more" so heartbreakingly that I was feeling sorry about her. And her very last scene with her lover is simply stunning. She starts crying while she's having sex and her desperation was so close and believable there. It was probably the most miserable moment of this character. I never felt that Kate was a real ice queen, she was just really desperate and I think her last scene confirms my point.

So, to sum up, this is a fantastic, subtle performance by a very unusual actress who's at the top of her game here. As Kate Croy, Helena Bonham Carter managed to create fascinating, multi-layered and mysterious character that is surely very interesting. I was totally blown away by Helena who gave astonishing work and I am not surprised at all at the amount of love that Helena gets for this great achievement. Haunting, disturbing, beautiful.

I so want to be stingy with my 5s but I cannot resist. She's so brilliant.

What do you think?

The Next Year

1997

So the nominees were:

• Helena Bonham Carter in The Wings of the Dove
• Julie Christie in Afterglow
• Judi Dench in Mrs Brown
• Helen Hunt in As Good as It Gets
• Kate Winslet in Titanic

I almost did not do this year but it looked unusually great for the 90s and I haven't covered a year from the 90s for a while, so I decided to take a look at this exciting year.

What do you think? Who's your pick? What are your predictions for the contest?

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.