The subject of white male platonic bonding is as far from today’s film trends as you can possibly get. Even with its shortcomings, then, the heart of the matter in Michael Grandage’s star-studded Genius goes refreshingly against the grain. Add to that the look in the life of American author Thomas Wolfe (whom many, I suspect, readily forget in lieu of the William Faulkner’s and Ernest Hemingway’s of his time), and a shiny spotlight on the behind-closed-doors role of the editor, and there’s plenty to bite into here. Of course, with a cast featuring Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Laura Linney, and Guy Pearce, you walk in confident that if all else fails, at least the performances will keep you glued. And they do, but even beyond the curious choice of a dreary gray monochrome as the film’s primary palette, there’re a number of things that bog Genius down. The source is, as ever, the screenplay; in this case, John Logan’s adaption of A. Scott Berg’s biography Max Perkins: Editor of Genius. That said, Grandage takes the lion’s share of the blame for leaving the autopilot on his director’s chair and not trying something a little more enticing in way of presentation.

As it bizarrely shifts from black-and-white into colour, Genius opens with the famous editor of Charles Scribner’s Sons, Maxwell Perkins (Firth), receiving the bulbous first draft of what will eventually become “Look Homeward, Angel.” “Is it any good?” he asks, to which the deliveryman responds, “Good? No. But it’s unique.” That hooks him in. Of course, it turns out to be more than just good or unique, as we follow Max’ endearing routine of reading the manuscript until he reaches the end and gets that look—the title of Genius appearing to make sure there’s no confusion on our part either. During this routine, we get a passing glance at Max’s household, his wife Louise (Linney) and five daughters. Being surrounded by women all his life ends up playing a big part in the strong connection he develops with the erratic, enigmatic, and entirely insufferable Thomas Wolfe (Law).

Genius packs most of its meat into scenes featuring Wolfe and Perkins, as they bulldoze through Wolfe’s protracted manuscripts, first ‘Angel,’ and then—in a period of over 2 years!—Of Time and The River. Debating over how to cut down the chapter where his character falls in love with a blue-eyed girl is the film’s pinnacle; infinitely charming and richly insightful in the dynamic between ambitious author and economic editor. Threatening to steal the show from the two men, though, is Nicole Kidman, who pulls off a fiery and embittered turn as Aline Bernstein—a woman who left her husband and two children to be Wolfe’s full-time lover. Her whole life, it seems, revolves around this man who is too busy wrestling with his mountainous ego to return the love, and if the role weren’t so utterly thankless, Kidman surely would have soared even higher.

The two men’s flippant attitudes towards their respective other halves is never fully addressed (and, ironically enough, Max seems to care more about how much Mrs. Bernstein is suffering while completely ignoring his patronizing attitude toward his own wife). Among other issues that arise out of Logan’s screenplay are the peppered stings of obviousness throughout. The most articulate example comes when F. Scott Fitzgerald (Pearce) talks of “genius friendship,” and the double meaning of the title is neatly spoon-fed. There’s also Law’s exuberant performance as Wolfe. Showy, and something that must have been a lot of fun for the actor, but with just a bit too much pep in his step. This ultimately works against the film’s final moments.

It’s the prickly characterization of Thomas Wolfe that undoes Genius in the end. Whether by weighing the importance of the female characters (especially Kidman’s Aline, as Linney’s Louise is, sadly, much too minor to even mention) a bit more significantly, keeping Law’s performance in firmer check, or fine-tuning the screenplay so that the author’s moments of clarity have bigger impact; I feel Logan and Grandage could have handled it better. The fact that he’s not the main star leaves the film all the better for it. Firth’s mighty sensitive performance as the heart of the film keeps the strength of friendship resonating throughout, and is more than enough reason for a solid recommendation.

Best known as one of the pioneers of the indie mumblecore movement, Andrew Bujalski (Funny Ha Ha, Computer Chess) attempts to cross over to the commercial world with Results, a romantic comedy featuring professional actors with a budget that appears larger than all of his previous work combined. In true Bujalski fashion, the writer-director offers socially awkward characters the freedom to roam in a loosely defined script. But the shapeless structure loses steam half-way through, and never fully picks back up by the end.

Recent divorcé Danny (Kevin Corrigan) relocates to Austin, Texas with a ton of inheritance money but no one to spend it with. Danny is so lonely in his vacant mansion that he’s willing to pay $200 for a stranger off Craigslist to hook-up his TV set, his only interaction with a human that day. He decides to visit a local gym, mostly because he’s bored out of his mind and just wants company. His lack of motivation is clear from the beginning, “I’m hoping to get in shape a little bit,” he says to gym owner Trevor (Guy Pearce). Lucky for him, the trainer assigned to him is the strong-willed and gorgeous Kat (Cobie Smulders). As with most romantic comedies, it’s not hard to see where the story is heading.

A few workout sessions into his new regimen and Danny develops an attraction towards Kat, and although she can do a million times better than this overweight depressed guy, she seems into him. But Danny doesn’t have a beat of romantic rhythm in his bones, and is about as smooth as sandpaper. On a night scheduled for a workout, he surprises Kat with an intimate candlelit dinner and live music. For Kat, it feels more like an ambush, and she makes a beeline for the exit.

Bujalski reveals Kat’s habit of crossing the line in professional relationships from the beginning. If a client skips out on payment or threatens to drop her as their trainer, she stands her ground and refuses to accept no for an answer. At other times, her cute looks and welcoming spirit leads her into dicey situations; it’s not surprising to discover she once had a fling with her boss Trevor, a revelation which makes for awkwardness when the three start hanging out.

While Results doesn’t follow standard genre tropes by forming a love triangle and pitting the three characters against each other, the film’s alternative isn’t necessarily better. An unlikely circle of friendship develops too conveniently, and no one is held accountable for their actions. It’s far-fetched enough that Kat would make a move on Danny in the first place, but it’s worse when she’s quick to forgive him for every mistake. Even more implausible is the dynamic between Trevor and Danny. Their polarizing personalities and shared love interest in Kat make them perfect rivals, and yet they become best friends despite any convincing logic.

The characters found in Results are well-developed, each with their own complicated backstories and unique personalities. Danny’s attempts to fix any situation with money is performed with just the right amount of comic delivery from Corrigan. Smulders is excellent as Kat, the disciplined but self-sabotaging romantic who trusts people a little too much. And Pearce is surprisingly the least impressive of the bunch, he’s so grounded compared to the others he ends up flattening them all out.

Unfortunately, Bujalski has difficultly using the combined skills of his cast to form a meaningful story. He goes through all the trouble of detailing these characters, but then doesn’t take them anywhere. And without sparks of chemistry or cohesion, the talented individual performances feel wasted. Whatever it’s attempting, Results fails to utilize its awkward scenarios and abundant talent to add pep to a stagnant romantic comedy scenario.

Guy Pearce is awesome. When he shows up, we show up, ticket in hand. Even in the smallest roles he has a way of breathing a little something special into the picture, whether it be falling apart around him or a good film he’s just made great (must-sees include: Animal Kingdom and The Rover). Cobie Smulders, on another hand, is something of an unknown factor. How I Met Your Mother was never too good, and never truly terrible, but the role didn’t give her much to work with. And neither has her work in the Marvel universe. Both of these factors are just two of the reasons to take a look at the new trailer for the Sundance 2015 hit, Results.

The log line for Results is rather simple: the film follows  Kat (Smulders) and Trevor (Pearce), two personal trainers who get caught up in the messy life of new-client Danny (Kevin Corrigan). Ideally, humor, maturing, and something heartfelt follow.

Written and directed by Andrew Bujalski (the “godfather of mumblecore”: Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciation), Results is his first foray into the territory of professional actors–a trick that’s brought endless returns for other mumblecore vets. Joining the three principals are Brooklyn Decker, Giovanni Ribisi, and Anthony Michael Hall.

The word out of Sundance was quiet, but positive, so count us in. Results arrives May 29th.

Results trailer

Well that didn’t take long. Magnolia Pictures already bought the world rights to the highly anticipated film Results, ahead of its 2015 Sundance Film Festival premiere next week. Written and directed by exciting young filmmaker Andrew Bujalski (Computer Chess, Funny Ha Ha), Results is an indie comedy set in the fitness world of Austin, TX, where a recently divorced man heads to the gym for self-improvement. At the gym, he meets a self-styled guru/owner and an irresistibly acerbic trainer and eventually forms relationships with both. The film contains plenty of star power that includes Guy Pearce, Cobie Smulders, Kevin Corrigan, Giovani Ribisi, Anthony Michael Hall, Brooklyn Decker and Constance Zimmer.

Magnolia plans to release the film theatrically in the summer of 2015.

2013 was the year for Saturday Night Live alums to break out of their comedic roles to star in smaller indie dramas. First there was Will Forte who set aside his MacGruber impersonations for a more serious father and son road trip film in Alexander Payne’s Nebraska. In Hateship Loveship it’s Kristen Wiig who boldly steps outside of her wheelhouse of wise-cracking joker (Bridesmaids, Knocked Up) for a role in which she barely cracks a smile. Unfortunately, her transition is not quite as smooth or effortless as Forte’s, though the uninspiring material doesn’t do her any favors.

The story begins as a painfully shy personal caregiver named Johanna (Kristen Wiig) must find a new client after the elderly woman she was looking after passes away. She is referred to the McCauley household to look after a teenage girl named Sabitha (Hailee Steinfeld) who has lived with her grandfather (Nick Nolte) ever since her mother passed away. As expected from a rebellious teenager, Sabitha is standoffish towards Johanna from the beginning and eventually exploits the caregiver’s gullible and delicate personality.

From the moment Sabitha’s estranged father Ken (Guy Pearce) arrives on-screen the film attempts to subtly reveal his backstory of addiction problems, but the moments are so deliberately presented that they feel forced. In Johanna’s first interaction with Ken, she finds him stealing prescription pills for which he awkwardly asks her to look the other way. In the very next scene Johanna learns that Ken’s wife passed away and that Sabitha’s best friend is not allowed to get a ride from him. Immediately following that scene, Johanna overhears an argument where Ken is shouting, “It was an accident!” As if it wasn’t obvious enough that he killed his wife while driving under the influence, a gossiping bank teller informs Johanna that he spent time in prison for “what happened”. Each time Hateship Loveship tip-toes around the obvious, it becomes more and more cringe worthy.

It’s frustrating that so much exposition is given to characters other than its main star. It’s easy to see Wiig is a sexually repressed woman, in the film’s best scene she passionately makes out with herself in a mirror, but it’s never revealed why she acts the way she does. She comes off as a flat two-dimensional character incapable of expressing any emotions, despite enduring some colossal ups and downs. Even Pearce, who is normally excellent, has trouble making his out-of-control junkie character seem convincing.

Unfortunately, it’s pretty easy to tell that Hateship Loveship is adapted from a short story. There’s simply not enough material to call for a full-length feature, even the best moments were only mildly interesting and very short-lived. Not only does the film derive from a stifling script full of predictable outcomes, but it also dedicates too much time toward its minor subplots (like Nolte’s relationship with the bank teller), while skimming over important details like marriage and pregnancy. Perhaps Hateship Loveship would have been better suited as a short film, or maybe it should have just remained a short story.

Hateship Loveship trailer

The first trailer for David Michod’s The Rover arrived shortly after the announcement yesterday that the film will be playing at the Cannes Film Festival as part of its Midnight Screenings program. The Rover, Michold’s follow-up to his critically acclaimed debut Animal Kingdom, follows a man (Guy Pearce) who attempts to track down the gang that stole his car with the man (Robert Pattinson) they left behind during the robbery.

The Rover will premiere in May at Cannes then run theatrically in NY/LA on June 13th and in Minneapolis (wide release) on June 20th.

Watch The Rover trailer

Breathe In, Drake Doremus’s second indie romance since Like Crazy (2011), follows the story of disaffected high school music teacher and part-time concert cellist Keith Reynolds (Guy Pearce) and his family. Keith finds himself increasingly attracted to the talented foreign exchange student, Sophie (Felicity Jones), who will be spending a semester with his family. This reserved, soft-spoken narrative delves into love, fidelity and family dynamics, striving for the difficult-to-achieve balancing act that is “understated drama.” Unfortunately, it falls short of the mark.

To its credit, the film has a lot of things going for it–-a great score, beautiful shots, good performances from our two stars (particularly Mr. Pearce), and a wonderful sense of pacing and rhythm. Using its quietness in a fluent manner, the film keeps the narrative moving, never falling into the lethargy that can threaten such a restrained film. Mr. Doremus had allowed his actors in Like Crazy to improvise their own lines, following only a loosely outlined plot–-at places Breathe In uses the same technique, and its dialogue feels honest and straight-forward.

Thus the film’s great failing isn’t the performances or the execution, but the story itself. Without giving away too much, Breathe In follows the straightforward trope of a middle-aged man seduced by a younger woman, attracted to the open possibilities and “freedom” presented by such a relationship. Keith Reynolds is a man dissatisfied with his suburban life, resenting both his family and the world surrounding him when he thinks of the artistic life he gave up to settle down (apparently just as his musical career was beginning to pick up). You have quite a bit of sympathy for this man, dealing with an unsupportive wife, a lackluster daughter, and the desire for a much more creatively fulfilling life.

The attraction Keith feels towards Sophie, with her youth, positivity, and obvious talent, is a bit of a no-brainer. We watch the gradual buildup between the characters, setting the stage for what could have been an interesting and dynamic climax–the conflict between social/familial obligation and the escapist urge for “something more.”  But despite this phenomenal setup, the film putters through its crux with a half-hearted yelp. Rather than addressing the deep emotional underpinnings developed throughout, the film seems to blow through its final scenes with such brevity that we’re left scratching our heads, trying to figure out what happened.

It’s a shame that such solid acting and production value couldn’t save the film from its poor and stifled conclusion. Perhaps Doremus became so enamored with his own understated aesthetic, he couldn’t let the film run its course, and never allowed his well-developed characters more room for expression? Whatever the cause, Breathe In leaves us in suspense without ever releasing its pent-up energy–we’re still stuck holding our breath, long after the credits roll.

Breathe In trailer

John Hillcoat’s Lawless, which feels more like it belongs on HBO instead of theatre screens, is a mediocre attempt at a crime drama. Assembling a strong team of people in front of and behind the camera, Hillcoat has the materials to make a good period piece but, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Set in 1931 during Prohibition, Lawless takes place in Franklin County, Virginia. Thanks to some awkward exposition-filled narration at the beginning, we learn that Franklin County is referred to as the “wettest county in the world” due to its massive production of moonshine. The Bondurant brothers are one of the most popular bootleggers in the entire county. Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) make and sell some of the best liquor in the area, and a brutal fight early on establishes Jack as the weaker brother in comparison to Forrest and Howard’s brute force.

Trouble comes from the law when Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), a corrupt representative for the District Attorney, tries to intimidate the brothers into paying him off with some of their profits. Forrest refuses, and in no time people start getting killed. Meanwhile Jack manages to score a distribution deal with a mobster (Gary Oldman) which leads to more money and, for Jack, an inflated ego. Love stories also come into the mix as Forrest falls for a city girl (Jessica Chastain) who works at his bar, and Jack constantly tries to court a preacher’s daughter (Mia Wasikowska).

It’s obvious that Hillcoat and screenwriter Nick Cave are going for classical storytelling with its formulaic approach, but nothing is brought to the film that elevates it beyond its generic foundation. When Chastain’s character is introduced, her coupling with Forrest is inevitable. As an audience we see point A and can immediately figure out point B, but Lawless makes the journey between those two points a dull one. Once we get to point B, none of it feels earned or believable. The only reason why all of Lawless’ point A’s get to their respective point B is because it’s what’s expected of them and nothing more.

The cast, while impressive, does little with what they have. Tom Hardy spends his time grunting loudly, and Clarke screams more than he speaks while Chastain and Wasikowska simply play their parts. Guy Pearce’s transformation into Nicolas Cage levels of insanity appears complete with his hilarious, campy performance as Agent Rakes. Gary Oldman, taking the same route as Pearce, hams it up in his small role.

The only exception in the cast is LaBeouf, who has yet to build up a resume as impressive as his co-stars. His performance comes across as someone desperately trying to prove themselves as a serious actor. It might have worked in a more somber film, but with Pearce flailing about and Oldman smacking people with shovels LaBeouf looks like he’s unable to have any fun.

Lawless’ late-August theatrical release came as a surprise to some. Despite its presence in Cannes’ main competition, the film was getting released in what’s usually referred to as a dead zone. Most late August releases are reserved for mediocre fare, the kinds of films that are burned off from studios instead of being hyped up like their summer releases. Although the talent involved suggested a different outcome, Lawless turned out to be a perfect fit for the late-August release window.

Lockout is full of every action movie cliché in the book. The film involves a lot of gunplay and even more scene chewing word play from lead character Snow, played gloriously by veteran Australian actor Guy Pearce. Practically every line that is spewed out of Snow’s mouth is action movie clichéd dialogue. But Pearce is more than up for the challenge.

As far as the film is concerned, you might as well have called Lockout: Escape from Space. The film is essentially an Escape from New York/L.A. rip off. A convict is given a reprieve if he can rescue the president’s daughter from a massive floating prison that orbits the Earth after being overrun by its own prisoners. Other than the location, that is literally the plot of John Carpenter’s early cult classic. As I previously stated the film borrows HEAVILY from tons of other action films, but the actors and filmmakers take none of this seriously and just go for it. The result is a very entertaining action film.

The film begins on Earth with Snow involved in a deadly shootout in an apartment. He escapes only to be pursued viciously by government agents in a chase scene that can only be described as utterly ridiculous. The FX in this scene are extremely poor. What’s really odd is that in later scenes the FX are outstanding. All this leads the viewer to believe that they were done poorly on purpose, maybe to suggest that the filmmakers know how ridiculous their film is. No one knows for sure.

Snow is captured and interrogated about what happened in the apartment. Literally, every single answer Snow gives is a wisecrack smart ass answer, each of them hilarious. Each of them earns him a right hook to the jaw. When I initially saw the preview for Lockout I had a lot of reservations about Pearce playing this kind of role. I’ve been a big supporter of his ever since he burst onto the scene in Christopher Nolan’s mind bending neo classic Memento. But as the film continued my worries began to ease. A friend suggested to me that Pearce would be perfect as Nathan Drake for the upcoming Uncharted movie and he is right. There is probably no other actor more perfectly suited for the role than Pearce.

Everyone remembers Maggie Grace right? No? Really? She’s the cute blonde girl from Lost and was Liam Neeson’s daughter in Taken. Here she plays the unfortunate role of the President of the United States’ daughter, Emilie Warnock. She arrives at the outer space slammer to investigate any wrong doing by the prison warden and his crew. There are rumors of the warden using prisoners as lab rats for some kind of drug. Well wouldn’t you know, a prisoner escapes and lets all of his friends out to play. They kill a few people and take the rest hostage and demand to be released before they kill more. The U.S. government offers Snow a deal. Fly up there and rescue Warnock. Get her to safety and he can considered himself a free man. Easier said than done right?

What follows is an hour and a half of action cliché after action cliché. The film knows all the right notes to hit and the actors are more than ready to play along with them. Lockout isn’t a great film by any means. Hell, you’ve probably seen this film at least 30 times before. You probably already know how it ends and what the final words of the film will be. I wouldn’t dream of telling you to drop everything and run out to see Lockout. But if you find yourself with nothing to watch and you’re looking for a great escape (no pun intended), Lockout is more than up for the challenge of entertaining you for 90 minutes. And when something is done right, isn’t that something worth appreciating?

Prometheus is an ambitious, entertaining film from Ridley Scott that ultimately falls flat due to an overextended plot that becomes convoluted in the second half of the film. The film is set in the same universe as Alien (1979), which Scott also directed, and contains many similarities (female lead, untrustworthy androids) but is more of a stand-alone film than a direct prequel. With expectations sky-high due to an intense trailer and Ridley Scott’s track record with science-fiction, Prometheus aimed to reach those expectations with a philosophical story that has potential, but is marred by an incomplete story, and uneven pacing.

Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are archeologists that have recently concluded that a variety of different cave drawing portraying humans worshipping God-like figures pointing to the stars is a map to the home planet of some sort of alien race. Enter the dubious corporation of Weyland Enterprises to fund the voyage to the mysterious planet under questionable premises.

Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) is the corporate stooge who questions the point of the mission. It’s hard to describe too much more of the plot without giving anything away, but there are several plot twists (some interesting, some not) and, believe it or not, there are in fact aliens on this planet.

The main problem with Prometheus is that it tried to do too much on too many levels. It tries to tow the line of an entertaining thriller while still being taken seriously as an exploration of the deeper questions of life. Many pivotal scenes feel rushed and several plot points are unresolved in order to bring the film running time in at a marketable two hours.

Characters drift in and out, and there is no real connection. Michael Fassbender gives an excellent, interesting portrayal of David the android, but most of the other actors didn’t really get a chance to flesh out their characters. The existential parts of the plot, while interesting, seem forced and unsatisfying, it just never reaches that point where the film really drives home an interesting, original concept.

Prometheus is a good film, and definitely worth a watch if you are any sort of a science fiction fan. It does not meet the lofty expectations but still brings enough of the table to leave the viewer thinking about the film afterwards. I am really hoping there is an extended Directors Cut that possibly develops out the plot and characters a little more completely, but until that happens, this film gets a mediocre review.

Disclaimer: I am a huge Ridley Scott fan, and my expectations were through the roof for this film.

Tom Hooper’s The King Speech is a feel good film with an interesting but true story to go along with it. Not filled with many surprises but it will not leave you feeling disappointed. This is due to two outstanding performances by both Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. The film has gained a lot of media attention with receiving the most Golden Globe and Oscar nominations. Is this film worth all of the praise?

The King’s Speech is about Bertie, Duke of York (Colin Firth) who is the younger son of the elderly King George V. One of duties that comes along with being a King or leader of an empire is the ability to speak in public. This is especially important during this time period as Britain was entering into war with Germany. Unfortunately for Bertie this would not be easy as he has a stammer, the stuttering of words.

The opening scene of the film we see Bertie attempting to present a speech in front a large crowd but his stammer got the best of him and failed to give a worthwhile speech. Instead we are left with an embarrassed leader who basically has no voice. He does everything he can to get out of speaking more than a few sentences, even with his kids when they request that he reads them a story, he is reluctant.

He has seemingly seen all of the speech therapists out there but still he has not overcome his speech problem. That is where Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) comes in. Without Bertie’s knowing, his wife meets with him. Lionel likes to play by his own rules and insists Bertie comes to him. Lionel seems both confident and stubborn but most importantly, willing to help.

When the two first meet they both fight for territory, dictating how they want to be addressed and how the meeting should be ran. Both are stubborn in their own ways and perhaps because of that, Bertie does not think his unorthodox methods will help him with his stammer. He storms out of Lionel’s office.

It is only a short while later though, he realizes that Lionel’s ways may not be so absurd and he agrees to work with him. Lionel over and over tries to find little rewards to Bertie for completing certain tasks, much like Pavlov would have done. Bertie is always so reluctant to follow the instructions which is a bit frustrating but eventually comes around and does what he is told.

In one heart-felt scene Bertie does what he said he would not do in the very beginning and that is talk about his personal matters. He spills what is likely the cause of his stammer, that this father was very hard on him as a child. Also mentions that he was ridiculed and often corrected which are common causes of picking up a stammer.

It becomes clear to Lionel (and the viewer) that Bertie may not only be coming to him for his speech problem. Lionel realizes that Bertie could be someone great if he was not so timid and shy. He could be a leader if he was not so afraid of leading and a great speaker if we only could speak clearly.

After his father, King George V, passes away, it is his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) would be taking his place as the King. Bertie is quite alright with this as he does not want to take on the role, mostly because of his speech problem. However, he learns his brother is wants a divorce of his current wife in order to marry the woman he truly loves.

This terrifies Bertie and he tries to encourage his brother to reconsider, mainly because he is afraid of assuming the role. As no good news to him, his brother Edward renounces the throne because of his interest of another woman. This means without choice that Bertie will now take over as the King whether he is ready to be or not.

There is some good use of symbolism when Lionel tells Bertie his does not need to carry around his father in his pocket just because his face is on the coins he carries. Because he needs to get over the causes of which he acquired the stammer from in order to improve his condition.

Colin Firth is without a doubt deserving the nominations he has received for his role. In fact, I expect he will rightfully win Best Actor at this year’s Oscars. However, I do not see how Helena Bonham Carter was nominated for Best Supporting Female; she was not very important in the film nor was she even in it all that much. On the other hand, Geoffrey Rush did such a brilliant job playing the stubborn but clever speech therapist. He completed the film and I feel without him The King’s Speech would not have been as pleasant.

So do I think The King’s Speech is worthy of all the praise it has gained? For the most part, yes. As I mentioned before the acting was suburb and as a whole the film was well done. The story about the King with no voice is interesting but fairly straight-forward and does not have much depth. It is not hard to guess what is going to happen and it does not try hard to change that. Which is why I think it will win some of the Acting awards but nothing more. It is an inspiring film, even more so if you have speech difficulties, that is well worth a watch.

It is hard to point out exactly what makes Traitor only a mediocre film, it is hard to specifically say what went it did wrong. But it’s even harder to say what it did right. One could assume from looking at the cast, that this would showcase some pretty good performances as it includes; Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Jeff Daniels and Neal McDonough. The sad truth is, not one of them really put on their best outing here.

Traitor is about an American citizen named Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) who is a former soldier living in Middle East. He is a believer in the Holy Quran and sells bomb detonators to Islamic radicals. Horn escapes from a Yemeni prison with a new found friend and they lay low for a while in France. They both get sent back to the United States where they plan to bomb in multiple Greyhound buses. With the U.S. authorities on their trail, they try to carry out the bombing before getting caught.

I am normally positively biased towards Don Cheadle in most of his films but this just seemed to lack emotion. Something that is out of the norm for him. It was as if he was trying too hard not to try hard. Guy Pearce’s character wasn’t memorable either. He didn’t quite sell the change of heart part his character went through.

While it lacks in acting performances, it does provide some interesting looks into religion and terrorism, which the latter is completely relevant to current events. It dips into the subject of sacrifice very well by having the main character playing chess with the loss of pawns equating to the death of human beings for a greater benefit of all. “You know that the Qu’ran says that if you kill an innocent person it’s as if you’ve killed all mankind?” says the main character, “It also says that if you save a life it’s like you’ve saved all mankind.”

Some may really enjoy this spy thriller movie about the motivations behind terrorism, it just didn’t keep me on the edge of my seat. I could only recommend it as a watch only once movie, if you have nothing else to watch.