Ironclad

Ironclad

People who know me well understand that I have a weakness for 'sword' movies.  It doesn't matter if it is a fantasy or a swashbuckler or an epic; if it has a sword, I am there.  And Ironclad is right up my alley. A sort of adaptation of one of my favorite films, Seven Samurai, Ironclad is a medieval adventure that takes place during the Baron's War in England.  After being forced to sign the Magna Carta, King John decides to bring in an army of barbarian mercenaries and exact revenge on the rebellious barons who dared to defy his authority.  Seven rebels take the strategically vital Rochester Castle, which John needs.  And so you know what that means - time for some awesome siege warfare!

There is a lot of quality in the movie.  First off, I have to give director Jonathan English some credit.  He takes a tiny budget and gives the film more scope and excitement than I would have expected.  The film never looks cheap and that is an accomplishment.  I also generally like the cast, with some seasoned pros like Brian Cox (Troy) , Derek Jacobi (Gladiator), Jason Flemyng (Snatch), and Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) - all taking their turns munching on the scenery.  But the movie really rests on the shoulders of our two main opponents. James Purefoy (Rome) plays Marshal, a Templar Knight recently returned, shell shocked and bitter, from the Crusades.  Meanwhile, the villainous King John is played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), spewing righteous fury as he tries to retake his kingdom.  Both are truly excellent in their roles and elevate the movie.

All in all, this is all a recipe for a movie I should love. Unfortunately, I didn't.  Despite the movie's strong points, there is just too much I didn't like.  The biggest problem lies with the character of Isabel (Kate Mara from 127 Hours), the young wife of Rochester's master.  When our heroes first arrive, she takes an immediate interest in Marshal, his violent past, and especially his vow of chastity.  And she is just all over him.  This whole story thread is infuriating.  I understand what the filmmakers are trying to do.  They want Isabel to act as Marshal's conscience and show him that life is actually still worth living, if you live it the right way.  Well, this doesn't work.  Instead, she is a complete distraction and just comes across as a bored housewife who wants to bone the new knight in the neighborhood.  Marshal goes about his business, trying to save everyone's lives, and she just follows him around, yammering on about why vows of chastity are lame and killing people is wrong and blah blah blah.  Stop distracting him, you idiot!  The man is trying to fight an army of barbarians who want to kill all of you!  Maybe you should leave him alone and let him do his thing until, I don't know, maybe when the battle is over?!

Unfortunately, this isn't a subplot I can ignore.  It's too large a piece of the movie.  Now, just to be clear, I am not blaming Kate Mara.  She's a fine actress and she does the best she can, but the character is so frustrating that I doubt even Meryl Streep could have saved it.

The battles themselves are also a bit disappointing.  The fighting falls victim to the same over-editing that maligned Quantum of Solace and other recent action films.  This is a trend that filmmakers love to use today in an attempt to make the audience feel like they are part of the chaos.  Well, stop it!  It doesn't work.  No one I know likes it.  It just gives us a headache.  And if we can't see the awesome fighting, then we are aren't going to like it - no matter how awesome it might be.

So there you go.  Overall, Ironclad is diverting enough, I suppose.  It's definitely not as bad as the recent Conan the Barbarian reboot!  There is fun to be had here if you have an afternoon free and feel like some medieval battle fun.  But it should have been a lot better, so overall I can't help but be a bit disappointed overall.


MVP:
It was almost James Purefoy, an actor I have been a fan of ever since I saw him in A Knight's Tale.  I think his work in Rome remains the best Marc Antony ever put on screen.  He carries Ironclad extraordinarily well, despite being dragged down in the Isabel scenes.  Giamatti was also excellent as King John, but overall I thought Purefoy was making more of an impression throughout the first 2/3 of the movie.

But then we got King John's big speech.

Holy cow.  At the 2/3 mark, King John begins to rant and rave about the foolishness of rebellion and the divine right of kings.  It's a good monologue and Giamatti just knocks it out of the park, but then he goes even further, ramping up the delivery to 11.  His voice breaks and explodes, his performance loses complete control, and Giamatti just vanishes.  He's not there.  He is channeling King John himself, furiously venting out 800 years of pent up wrath and vengeance.  It is a monstrous moment, shocking and Oscar worthy.  I don't know what movie Giamatti thought he was acting in, but it certainly wasn't Ironclad.  And whatever movie Giamatti thought he was in...I want to watch that one!   For sending chills up my spine and for genuinely scaring me, I have to give Giamatti the MVP.  That is an easy decision!

BEST LINE:
Marshal: Have you ever killed a man?  It is not a noble thing.  Not even when it is from God.

TRIVIA:
Here's a funny bit of trivia for you.  I have no problem with movies changing history, but I do get concerned when you change history this much.  So this great ol' battle that the good guys win in the movie?  Yeah, well, they didn't win.  They put up a good fight, but they pretty much got their butts kicked.  In fact, King John's generalship at Rochester is actually considered a textbook example of how to effectively conduct a siege operation.  That's taking historical license a bit too far for me!!!

Dead Again

Dead Again

After directing and starring in one of the best recent Shakespearean adaptations, Henry V, Kenneth Branagh turned his attention to another master storyteller - Alfred Hitchcock. Dead Again, while not a remake of one of Hitchcock's works, is still full to the brim with all things Hitchcock. There have been a lot of imitators out there, but no one has come close to actually re-creating the Master of Macabre's style as closely as Branagh does here.

During the late 1940s, headlines are blazing about the murder of Margaret Strauss (Emma Thompson) and the conviction of her husband, Roman. In the present day, Grace (also played by Thompson) appears at an orphanage with no memory and no voice. A private detective Mike Church (Branagh) and an antique dealer/hypnotist Mr. Madson (Derek Jacobi) try to help her reclaim her memory and discover her connection to the half-century old murder.

The movie's strengths are many. First off, the acting is solid, with Thompson and Branagh doing good work in double roles, and carrying off their various accents successfully (and I was reminded when watching Dead Again how much chemistry these two performers had onscreen and it kind of depresses me about their divorce all over again). They also have great backup support from Jacobi, Andy Garcia, Wayne Knight, and Robin Williams as a former therapist who gives Mike Church strange advice from time to time.

Other pieces are just as good - the score by Patrick Doyle is propulsive and powerful. The script by Scott Frank is fun and old-fashioned in a good way - with little touches of humor throughout. But most importantly, this production crew does a great job with the mystery. This is a genuinely clever mystery, and Branagh and Frank genuinely keep you guessing until the end. Some clever folks will be able to guess the bad guy, but they certainly won't be able to make all the connections and there is one great twist that I bet no one will see coming. But the twists aren't cheats, and they aren't there just to screw with the audience. These plot points are earned and if you watch the movie a second time, you will see how well they are actually set up.

If the movie has a problem, it is the action. To this day, I have not seen Branagh as a director successfully pull off a straight action scene (Update on this point: Branagh actually pulls this off successfully on Thor). Dead Again doesn't have one, but two poorly done action scenes - I'm willing to give the first a pass. It may feature one of the silliest karate kicks I've ever seen (that doesn't even come close to hitting its target, who still flops on the ground in pain), but at least it follows one of the cooler reveals in the film. But the second action scene, the climax of the movie, no less, is just a mess - full of silly slow motion, weird editing, and an instance of someone getting shot in the leg but still running around like nothing happened. Ugh. More on that below.

But other than the silly ending, this is a fun movie, full of atmosphere and foreboding in the best Hitchcockian style. There will never be another Hitchcock; he was one of a kind. But I would love for Branagh to take another swing at the genre. 

SPOILER: I want to complain about the ending again! Aside from the whole getting shot, but still running around and fighting issue, we have some true bizarreness at the end. So the bad guy runs at Branagh with a pair of scissors. He runs towards the camera in scary slow motion - so slow in fact that Branagh has time to drag an extremely heavy sculpture with giant scissors pointing up in the path of the attacker and then has time to run back to the other side of the room and hug Emma Thompson while the attacker charges into the sculpture and impales himself. The only way that works is if the movie was not going in slow motion, but that the bad guy was literally running that slow. And if he were blind. Because at some point he would have noticed that he was not running at Branagh any more, but was running towards the business end of a giant scissor. So he would have to be blind. And also stupid. Yes, he would have to be stupid.

You get the point. The action scene just sucks. Anyway. SPOILER OVER.

MVP: Tough call here. Patrick Doyle's explosive score is certainly the movie's most consistent element. But I think I am still going to have to give it to Branagh. The exception of the above mentioned action scenes, Branagh does a terrific job directing, filling the film with bravura shots and long takes that support the film's strong performers. And as I mentioned above, Branagh has managed to create a love letter to Hitchcock (one of my favorite directors) that actually feels like Hitchcock. Too many imitators think it is the suspense and horror that made Hitchcock a master. But that's not it at all. His brilliance was in the details, and the power of his suspense often lay in his careful camera technique and odd sense of humor. It's these details that Branagh picks up on. And I think the old Master of Macabre would have pleased as punch.

TRIVIA: Robin Williams didn't want his name in the opening credits because he didn't want audiences to think the film was a comedy.

BEST LINE: Roman Strauss: What I believe, Mr. Baker, is that this is all faaarrr from over."

The King's Speech

The King's Speech

For months, I've been hearing about The King's Speech and how good Colin Firth is in it. This is usually a problem because either a) the movie ends up being just okay, or b) my expectations are so high that I end up thinking the movie is just okay even if it is pretty good.

Thankfully, The King's Speech is worth the hype. And so is Colin Firth. Based on a true story, The King's Speech is about the future King George VI (Colin Firth) of England, who has a stammering problem which is only made worse by a judgmental royal family and the pressure of having to speak publicly to his subjects. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bodham Carter) tries to find a doctor who can help him and is unsuccessful until she meets an unconventional Australian named Lionel Logue. Can Logue's wonky methods, which include treating the King as an equal and calling him by his nickname 'Bertie' work?

I will be honest, there is nothing in The King's Speech you haven't seen before. The film's narrative follows a well trod road. None of that matters because this is one of the most exquisite movies of the year. Every element comes together perfectly, including some killer acting, great direction, an excellent script.  All the technical pieces such as art direction, score, and sound design are extremely well done.

And how about Colin Firth? Though he is an actor I've always admired, I didn't know he had this in him. His Bertie isn't just the run-of-the-mill victim we have to root for. He is a three-dimensional character with some true flaws - he has a bit of a temper, he puts too much value on his 'duty,' and he gets stressed out pretty easily. But he is a kind man, a decent man, a man who could be a good leader if he could only find his own voice. And as World War 2 looms closer, it suddenly isn't about just his voice. He needs to be the voice of the nation. And with that weight on his shoulders, Firth absolutely shines, giving us every nuance, every shade of George. It's a remarkable performance.

Firth is ably supported by Carter and Rush (both of whom will deservedly score Oscar nods, I'm sure), as well as a terrific supporting cast that includes Michael Gambon (Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series), Derek Jacobi (Hamlet), Timothy Spall (Secrets and Lies), Guy Pierce (Memento), and Claire Bloom (The Spy Who Came in From the Cold).

The King's Speech is not my favorite film of the year; that honor still goes to Inception. And from an objective standpoint, The Social Network might be the best film of the year (it is certainly an Oscar frontrunner). But these movies better watch their backs; The King's Speech is almost as good and I wouldn't be surprised if it snuck up and stole their awards glory. 

UPDATE: King's Speech did indeed have one heck on an Oscar run, building momentum until becoming the frontrunner and winning the big prize!

OSCARS: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Actor (Colin Firth), Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler)

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Geoffrey Rush), Best Supporting Actress (Helena Bodham Carter), Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Mixing

SPOILER: I also want to discuss the climax of the film, where George actually delivers the speech of the title (to the tune of Beethoven's 7th Symphony). I admire that they film the entire speech, cross-cutting from George's perspective in the recording booth to the living rooms of the millions of subjects listening on the radio. It's a neat bit of filmmaking because we see how it seems so easy to those listening, and then we see the recording booth and how George is literally fighting to get through the speech. It's a bravura scene in a bravura performance. SPOILER OVER.

MVP: Clearly it is Colin Firth. The film sits firmly on his shoulders, and he delivers in spades.

This is one of those once in a lifetime roles, one of those moments when character and actor are perfectly suited to each other (think George C. Scott and Patton or Peter O'Toole and Lawrence of Arabia). He deserves all the accolades I've been hearing about the last several months. It's a helluva performance.

BEST LINE: Logue: "Tell me a joke." George: "T-t-timing isn't my strong suit."

TRIVIA: While prepping the film, the producers knew they wanted Geoffrey Rush for Lionel Logue, but couldn't get the script to him. Though against industry standards (and in a really desperate move), they slipped the script through his mail slot, with a cover note that apologized profusely for the intrusion and they really just wanted him to know the script existed. Surprisingly, Rush read the script and joined the production. He also ended up becoming one of the executive producers!