It’s a great relief that Suffragette isn’t a showy, glamorized, romantic period piece meant to wow us with its pretty locales and intricate costume design. The British suffragettes of the early 20th century deserve a more honest, grounded depiction than that, and that’s what director Sarah Gavron and writer Abi Morgan deliver. Their version of the suffragette movement is violent, thrilling and dirty. These women put everything on the line in the name of justice and equality, shattering windows and blowing up mailboxes at the risk of losing their jobs and families. Women may have won the right to vote here and in Britain a long time ago, but the tragedy is that many of the injustices the suffragettes rallied against in the past still stand strong today.

We see the movement through the eyes of Maud (Carey Mulligan), a working woman with a husband, Sonny (Ben Wishaw), and a son, George (Adam Michael Dodd). Maud’s not taken from the history books—she’s a composite of Morgan and Gavron’s research on suffragettes of the time, particularly those in the middle class. At the story’s outset she exists outside the suffragette circle, accepting of her lot working at a musty laundry where she’s sexually abused by her boss. Her inner activist is ignited when she sees suffragettes carrying out minor acts of vandalism all around East London in their fight for equal voting rights.

Almost by accident, Maud is recruited by her co-worker Violet (Anne-Marie Duff) and is further inspired by Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), a suffragist leader who holds secret meetings in the pharmacy she runs. Leading the larger suffragist charge as figurehead is Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep), who gives Maud a jumpstart of empowerment and inspiration (we see her only briefly, but Streep knows how to make her minutes count). The women may not have a voice in parliament, but they’ve got bravery and conviction to spare.

As she gets caught up in suffragist activities, Maud begins to realize the true scale of her sacrifice for the movement. She’s thrown in jail (where she’s force-fed—a gruesome scene) and villainized by most of her community, and Sonny hasn’t the patience or understanding to tolerate her new life’s mission. He kicks her out of their tiny flat and forbids her from seeing George, leaving her fellow female foot soldiers as her only allies.

Mulligan has a gift that allows her to embody strength and delicateness at the same time, and few roles would be better served by her talents than that of Maud. Heartrending are the scenes in which Maud sneaks George away from school to spend a few precious hours of quality time; you can see joy and anguish in equal parts on Mulligan’s face as Maud savors her time with her son. Also great are Mulligan’s scenes with Brendan Gleeson, who plays a detectie heading up a suffragette surveillance operation. He’s the only almost-sympathetic figure on the oppressor’s side of the story (he empathizes with the suffragettes but ultimately does nothing to help them), though the film never ham-fistedly villainizes the men in the story. Other filmmakers might have made the story about some sort of ethical awakening on the men’s side, but Gavron and Morgan are more tasteful than that; their story is about the women’s fight for justice, period.

There’s no effort to show off the film’s elaborate production design in a Hollywood-y way by Gavron, and that’s one of the film’s strengths. Every bit of East London we see looks detailed and painstakingly designed, but the characters are always the focus, which results in a more immersive period experience. This is the first movie ever to be allowed to film at the UK’s Houses of Parliament, and the filmmakers don’t squandor the opportunity by giving the location center stage. It’s the sign of a film made with dignity and care.

The thing working against Suffragette is that it’s not quite as rousing as you’d think it would be. It’s admirable in the way it respects the dark days these heroes endured to pave the way for future generations, but there’s something about the tone and pace of the movie that lacks an overarching sense of force and activist aggression, something a movie so unenamored with style could have done better with. On the other hand, I’ll take a melancholic but respectful historical drama over a glitzy, Oscar-bait-y one any day.

The 38th annual Mill Valley Film Festival was a memorable 10-day celebration indeed. A few excellent films emerged as sure-fire Oscar contenders, like Tom McCarthy’s newsroom slow-burner Spotlight, Cary Joji Fukunaga‘s Netflix powerhouse Beasts of No Nation, László Nemes’ heartstopping Son of Saul, and Kent Jones’ incisive documentary Hitchcock/Truffaut.

Actors further cemented their cases for awards consideration as well: Michael Keaton again went toe-to-toe with last year’s Best Actor Oscar-winner, Eddie Redmayne, as their two films, Spotlight and The Danish Girl, took center stage on opening night; Brie Larson gives the best performance of her career in Lenny Abrahamson’s Room; and Sir Ian McKellen charmed festival-goers for two days, reminding us of his heartfelt, unforgettable turn as the aging Mr. Holmes.

Some under-the-radar films made lasting impressions as well, like Mitchell Lichtenstein’s gothic ghost story Angelica and Gunnar Vikene’s Nordic dark comedy Here Is Harold (my personal favorite of the festival).

My MVFF experience ended off as strong as it started, with two very different but equally spellbinding foreign features and yet another film that may be picking up a few golden statues come February.

Fight (And Burn Stuff) For the Right

With feminism becoming less and less of a dirty word as women and feminist allies become more and more galvanized around the fight for gender equality, Sarah Gavron‘s Suffragette looks back to the early feminists who sacrificed home and health to demand their right to vote in early 20th-century England. Carey Mulligan stars as Maud, a working-class wife and mother who gets swept up by the British suffragette movement, participating in explosive acts of protest alongside her fellow footsoldiers (played by the likes of Helena Bonham Carter, Anne-Marie Duff, and Meryl Streep). The cost of Maud’s actions are steep, however; her husband (Ben Wishaw) refuses to abide her newfound passion for activism, kicking Maud out of their home, away from their son. Screenwriter Abi Morgan’s story is as rousing as you’d expect for such inherently inspirational subject matter, but the film’s real strength is in its humility and dignity; it’s a period piece brimming with stunning locations (it was the first production allowed to be shot in the British Houses of Parliament since the ’50s) and elaborate costumes, but never lets the production design take precedence over the characters’ plight unlike other, showier period pieces. Mulligan is typically wonderful though she doesn’t reach the emotional depth of some of her greater performances. Still, it’s a fine film all involved are surely proud to have been a part of.

Amazon Enlightenment

The most sublime, heart-achingly beautiful thing I saw at MVFF was an Amazonian upriver tale called Embrace of the Serpent, by Colombian director Ciro Guerra. It’s a magical, almost religious experience when a film breaks free completely from modern cinema norms and puts you in a state of mind you’ve never known, and that’s what Guerra does here. Shot on Super 35 black and white, the film follows two white scientists (Jan Bijvoet and Brionne Davis) as they scour the Amazon for a rare healing plant, their journeys separated by decades (one’s set in the early 1900s, the other 40 years later). The foreigners share a common guide, Amazonian shaman Karamakate (Nilbio Torres and Antonio Bolivar). The story is a dirge-like lament on the soul-sucking effect colonization has had on the once pure Amazonian culture. Otherworldly and yet bound to the earth and all her natural glory, Embrace of the Serpent is as can’t-miss as they come.

Sin and Splendor

Inside a cozy little house lives a family fractured by sexual awakening, paranoia, and depravity in Tali Shalom-Ezer‘s bone-chilling Princess. A most unsettling topic—child molestation—is explored delicately and artfully by the Israeli writer-director, whose story gently unfolds in a series of quietly intoxicating, increasingly unsettling glimpses of domestic implosion. The protagonist is Adar (Shira Haas), a bright 12-year-old who lives with her mom, Alma (Keren Mor), and her mom’s boyfriend, Michael (Ori Pfeffer). Adar and Michael have fun horsing around at home while mom goes off to work, but Michael’s playing grows inappropriate before long (he starts calling her “little prince”). Adar’s new friend, a boy named Alan (Adar Zohar-Hanetz), bears a staggering resemblance to her, and when he’s invited to stay with the family for a while, he becomes the new object of Michael’s affections. Sumptuously-lit and fluidly edited, the film’s presentation is lovely, which is a nice counter-balance to the difficult subject matter. Like Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, Princess creates a beautiful sense of dreamlike disorientation and mirror-image poetry that arthouse lovers will treasure.

Following The Imitation Game last year and Captain Phillips in 2013, Sarah Gavron’s Suffragette has set its European premiere date for opening night of the 59th BFI London Film Festival. A story of women fighting for women’s rights at the end of the 19th century, the feminist drama will debut on Wednesday, October 7th at the Odeon Leicester Square with simultaneous screenings taking place throughout the UK. With Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter as well as Meryl Streep in main roles, Suffragette is among the most highly anticipated films slated to come out in 2015.

Along with the news of its BFI London Film Fest premiere date, Suffragette has revealed two new look slightly different looks into surprisingly explosive upcoming film. Mulligan plays Maud, a working wife and mother who gets swept up by the foot soldiers of a growing feminist movement. Bonham Carter and Streep play fellow members of the movement, while villainous authority figure Brendan Gleeson seeks to dismantle their organization. Fancy period costumes are abound. The two newly released trailers have overlap, though the UK trailer is less ham-fisted in its unveiling of information.

Suffragette is scheduled to be released in New York and Los Angeles on October 23rd, expanding to more cities in the following weeks. While its BFI London Film Fest premiere is scheduled for October 7th, it’s worth noting that the gala has been advertised as Suffragette‘s “European Premiere,” leaving the door open for an appearance at a North American-set fall film festival.

Watch the first trailer here

Check out the Suffragette UK trailer below:

Fairytales are meant to be passed down. With each new generation comes a new opportunity to share the fantastical stories that served to shape the moral make-up of so many before. Disney has made a new, live-action Cinderella movie, and I feel compelled to make this clear: I don’t believe new renderings of classic tales need to be the best version of all to justify their existence. Sometimes revisiting a familiar tale told by new storytellers, with their own, unique artistic philosophy, is good enough, especially for new batches of eager youngsters.

That being said, modern retellings like the 2015 Cinderella (directed by Kenneth Branagh, whose last Disney project, Thor, I liked very much) are still subject to the grand question: Is the damn movie any good or not? The short answer is, yes, it’s very good. It’s an enchanting, well-acted, snark-less rendition of the classic European folk tale with a radiant actress filling the glass slippers (Lily James) and ridiculously ravishing costumes that’ll make girls across the world lose their little minds. Is this the very best version of Cinderella? Unfortunately not: some odd design choices, unbalanced characterizations, and overall dearth of innovation stop it a few notches short of greatness. But those girls losing their little minds? They won’t care about that stuff one bit once they see James descend the stairs at the royal ball in that sparkling, ethereal, bluer-than-blue (seriously, how did they get it so blue?) dress.

But it’s not just Ella’s dress; there are tons of dresses! Cate Blanchett gets to wear a stunning emerald number as the brooding, evil stepmother; Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger (what a name, huh?) get draped in some of the most hilariously gaudy material you’ve ever seen this side of a Cosby sweater as the dreadful step-sisters; and Helena Bonham Carter, as the Fairy Godmother, is a vision in astral white. Costume designer Sandy Powell really outdid herself with the incredible costume design, which is so detailed and whimsical and magical you may lose your mind even if you aren’t a young girl (guilty). This is a Disney princess movie, after all, and boy did Powell bring the goods.

Children’s movies these days are typically either too cloying or too mean-spirited for my taste. Cinderella, however, strikes a nice balance. The script, by Chris Weitz (About a Boy), isn’t done in by sugariness; when Ella’s stomped on and ripped apart by her wretched step-mother and step-siblings, it’s rightly dismal and infuriating (Blanchett is ruthless; James is resilient). But even more impressively, the film doesn’t resort to sarcasm, irony, or cheap zingers to make it more palatable to millennial pessimists who scoff at the mere sight of bright colors and even brighter smiles on the big screen. Tonally, everything is calibrated just right, making for a smooth, steady ride.

The biggest disappointment is that Branagh’s vision of Cinderella is in narrative lockstep with Disney’s original take, the only non-aesthetic updates being some minor character expansions. Richard Madden (Game of Thrones) plays the strapping prince, whose aging father (Derek Jacobi) may be in his final days. Madden’s prince has a more significant, rounded presence than the cartoon version (who was essentially a walking plot device), readying himself for the burden of the throne as he scours the land for the girl of his dreams. (In a nice twist, Ella doesn’t realize he’s royalty when they first meet in the woods on horseback.) Jacobi maximizes his short time on-screen, making a lasting impression as the kind, sagacious, good-humored king in just a handful of scenes. Blanchett’s step-mother is given a little more emotional depth this time around, flirting with sympathy in a key scene in which she all-but chokes up when Ella tearfully asks why she torments her so. Both Jacobi and Blanchett could have been utilized better, particularly the former, who damn near steals the show.

It’s always astonishing to me, in a cultural landscape so caustic it’s scary, when an actor can embody pure virtue and positivity and make it feel sincere, or even attractive. There’s nothing much to fault about James’ performance; she’s a classic heroine, exuding compassion, strength, and patience in her darkest hours. Some may mistake Ella’s optimism for saccharine, outdated sentimentality, but let’s remember: this is a 19th century English period piece. If you expect all your princesses to be funny and witty and talk like Tina Fey, go watch Frozen instead. Anna and Elsa are great, but Ella’s old-school.

Branagh’s always brought out the best in his actors, and Cinderella is no misstep in that facet of his legacy. The writing isn’t always all that great: As Ella’s mother (Hayley Atwell) says goodbye for the last time on her death bed, she coos, “Where there is kindness, there is goodness. And where there is goodness, there is magic.” It’s a bit of a clunky line, of which there are a handful in the film, but Branagh makes sure his actors sound as genuine as possible.

A live-action Disney movie without flashy CGI bravura shots littered throughout would be a dream come true, but sadly, Cinderella doesn’t break the trend. Bonham Carter’s sole scene in the film (she also narrates), the obligatory pumpkin transformation scene, looks exactly as sterile and weightless as you’d expect from a big-budget Mouse-House production. The worst part, though, is the transformation of a lizard into one of Ella’s coachman. Once fully morphed, the lizard-man is one of the most hideous-looking things I’ve seen in recent memory. He’s a man, but with sickly, grey-green skin, lines of little razor-sharp teeth, and nightmarish reptilian eyes. Good god is he terrifying, and in no way does this abomination belong in a children’s movie. Thankfully, this is an isolated incident. Ella’s best friends, her pack of tiny computer-animated mice, are the most convincing effect in the movie, and are actually pretty cute.

Branagh’s never been a slugger when it comes to visual stylings, and he pretty much plays it safe here as per usual. There are a few exceptions: a thrilling 3-second see-saw-tilted shot of Ella sprinting through a beautifully baroque room in the royal castle; a motif involving Ella and the prince always spinning around each other in a lovers’ spiral, the same visual poetry used so masterfully by Max Ophüls in The Earrings of Madame de…. But otherwise, the camera movement and placement is unimaginative, though far from inadequate.

You’ll find few surprises in Branagh’s rendition of the diamond-in-the-rough classic. But there are dozens of fairytale deconstructions out there, leaving plenty of room for faithful retellings, especially when they’re as polished and openhearted as Cinderella. Adult viewers’ enjoyment of the film depends on the expectations they bring to the table, but young ones will find true joy falling in love with the sooty princess-in-training for the first time.

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.