"The King's Speech" - in theaters

This movie is receiving accolades out of the wazoo, and, in my opinion, deservedly so. Each of the principal actors have been nominated for Academy Awards, not to mention picking up noms for best director, original screenplay, and best picture of the year.

The story is set in England in the 1930's, and focuses on Colin Firth's character, the soon to be King George VI. But the movie begins before he assumes the throne, and we get to see a little of the history behind his ascending to the crown. When his father dies, George's older brother becomes King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce). But Edward has a taste for "scandalous" women, and when he takes up with an American divorcee, the entire British government loses their shit. So Edward abdicated, leaving George to become King.

But the thing is, George has a stammer that has hampered him his entire life. You can really see how it brings him such shame, because he cannot, in his own view, be a great leader and speaker with the stammer. So his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), takes it upon herself to find him someone who can help eliminate the stammer. The methods that some of the doctors use are absolutely outrageous (like the one guy who suggested that George should smoke because it relaxes the throat muscles), and George gets very frustrated by it all.

And then, Elizabeth finds Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Logue is an Australian-born speech therapist with a passion for acting. His methods are unorthodox, and it takes the king quite a while to get used to them and become comfortable practicing them even when in Logue's office.

Now, while that's all well and good, this movie isn't really about the stammer. It's about a friendship that forms between two men. It's about George finally realizing with a little help from Lionel, that he can be a great king in the fact of the horrors of Hitler and war.

The actors are all nominated for Oscars, so that really speaks for itself. I find it resplendent when Helena Bonham Carter plays someone not totally insane, and here she is so mild-mannered and a truly loving wife and mother. It's fantastic. And the way that Colin Firth transformed himself into this character is astonishing. I was obsessed with watching how he made his throat struggle whenever he spoke. Not to mention Geoffrey Rush, who is just a working class man trying to help another man overcome a disability. And he makes you laugh while he does it.

On the CWeave scale, I rate this movie a 10. Seriously. Go see it. It is funny, touching, and heartbreaking all at the same time. All jokes aside, this movie is the real deal.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1" - in theaters

First of all, let me say this. I am a HUGE Harry Potter fan.

HUGE.

So needless to say, I was at the midnight showing, and have seen it again since that time.

The Harry Potter films have become increasingly more dark since the first one was released, and this is as it should be. By the first film installment of the seventh book, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson), are preparing to set off on their search for the Horcruxes (artifacts that contain a piece of Voldemort's soul which must be destroyed before he can be killed). The filmmakers did a great job at sticking to the book's story. Of course, it lacked the detail that the books do, but it would be impossible to fit everything that you needed to fit in within the confines of a two and a half hour movie. (Although, if they made an 8 hour installment, I would totally go and see it. Twice.)

I had dubbed the first half of the seventh book, "Harry, Ron, and Hermione Go Camping", and the movie really sticks with that theme. They spend an awful lot of time in that tent of theirs, and it makes both them and the audience desperate for some form of action. But I think that's the point. They're at their wits end, and so are you and it makes you feel a connection with them. It's good stuff.

There is only one added scene that was not in the book, and it was when Harry is trying to cheer up Hermione by having her dance with him. The first time I saw it, my friend whispered in my ear, "Oh my God! They're gonna make out!" And I have to admit, I agreed with her. There was sort of an odd sexual tension between the two of them. But then I saw it a second time, and the sexual tension disappeared, and all that was left were two friends trying to make it without the presence of a third.

There were a few times when I questioned the director's decisions. For one, Harry never uses his Invisibility Cloak, which is not only totally idiotic, but also very annoying. I doubt that Harry would be dumb enough to walk through the Ministry of Magic without a disguise, and yet he does so in the film. Not to mention that the Invisibility Cloak's origins are a key part of the entire plot, so you'd think it would get a little more screen time.

And don't even get me started on the use of Polyjuice Potion, or should I say lack of use, during the Godric's Hollow scene. WHATever.

Like the other films, the performances in this part have improved. I was happy to see that the Weasley twins had a bit more to do in this part, even if it was confined to the beginning of the film. Ginny definitely got the shaft, but then again, she's only in the first and last portions of the book. But you know who got the worst of it? Dean Thomas. Once again, the poor bastard gets cut out of pivotal scenes, probably because the filmmakers didn't want to have to explain why he was there. I was disappointed, because I have a soft spot for Mr. Thomas, and the fact that he got overlooked yet again (because in the other films, he has had, at most, 2 lines) is upsetting.

But I digress.

The baddies really take the cake in this movie. They aren't featured often, but when they are, your skin crawls. Helena Bonham Carter makes an excellent Bellatrix because she has that psycho-adoring stare down pat. And Ralph Fiennes made his appearances count. And even though you don't see him often, you feel his presence throughout the film, and it gives every scene a menacing quality.

So on the CWeave scale, I rate this movie an 8.5. Not my favorite Potter movie (number 3 holds that title), but it does take the prize of best adaptation so far. It also leaves me hungry for the next film, which should be a bona fide action movie from start to finish. How many days until July??

"Alice in Wonderland" - in theaters

I think I'm going to add Tim Burton to the list of directors whom I don't trust directing movies based upon books that I love. So far that list only has Christopher Columbus on it, but it's a growing list, dammit.

I knew going into "Alice in Wonderland" that it wasn't going to be like the book at all. I had read enough articles about it in my Entertainment Weekly to know that. But I feel as if Tim Burton just took the characters from both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass", not to mention Lewis Carroll's poem, "The Jaberwocky", threw out the story-lines, and just came up with a plot that involved all of them.

The first major change is the fact that Alice is in her late teens/early twenties when she "returns" to "Underland" (which she mistakenly calls "Wonderland" in her first adventure there). After she falls down the rabbit hole, she finds that she must drink the potion to make her smaller, and then eat the cake to make herself bigger again. But this time, her clothes don't grow with her, and I'm pretty sure Tim Burton just wanted that poor actress to be naked and/or wearing ill-fitting costumes for the entire movie (although magically her shoes remained on her feet...). Once she finally leaves the entryway, she runs smack dab into a whole mess of characters who debate about whether or not she's the "real Alice". The rest of the plot centers around this very debate as Alice must first convince herself that she's the "real Alice".

Overall, I found the performances a bit ridiculous. Johnny Depp couldn't decide if he was English or Scottish, and didn't really come off as mad; simply weird. Helena Bonham Carter was shrill as the Red Queen, and I must agree with Entertainment Weekly when they described Anne Hathaway (who plays the White Queen) as looking like "an Italian porn star".

I also think that the title should have been different. "Alice in Wonderland" automatically makes me think of the animated Disney feature from years ago, and doesn't accurately describe the film that I just saw in theaters. It should have been titled "Alice's Return to Wonderland", as that's really what the film is about.

I saw it in regular 3D and I'm pretty glad that I didn't pay the extra for IMAX, because I would've been disappointed that I spent that much money. Even though the performances left something to be desired, if you are at all a fan of Tim Burton, then I would still go and see this film. The special effects are pretty awesome, especially in 3D.

So on the CWeave scale of 1 to 10, I rate this movie a 6.5. I probably won't own it, but I'm glad I saw it in theaters. But then again, I like Tim Burton's movies for the most part. If you're not a Burton fan, you may rate the movie lower.