Frost/Nixon (2008)

3 STARS

Directed by Ron Howard
Produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard
Written by Peter Morgan (based on his play, which was based on historical events)

Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon

Runtime 2 hours, 2 min.
Worldwide Gross $27,426,335
Genres Drama, Historical

Over two years following the infamous Watergate scandal, American president Richard Nixon has finally resigned his office. Following this event, it takes constant struggle and over $2 million for British journalist David Frost to interview Nixon for a special televised event, which is Nixon's first journalistic interview since his resignation. Its these struggles to get Nixon on the airwaves that takes up the two hours of film known as Frost/Nixon.

In most instances, I don't know what I should be feeling when watching it. Is this film about the interviews? Or the presidency? Though some might say that this doesn't matter at all, I feel that it does. It feels like the script is constantly battling with itself about the film's plot. Just when you start to think that the film is about the Watergate scandal and the interviews between Frost and Nixon, pictures are shown of the violent impact of the Vietnam War. Vietnam hasn't been a major plot element until this moment. Why does Vietnam matter? In a film about Nixon's presidency, it would. But this film isn't about that...or is it? I have no idea. This is one of the film's big problems.

To tell the honest truth, I do like this film. Outside of Langella's strong acting, Frost/Nixon is intelligent and knowledgeable. I feel like I learned some things watching it. However, I'm reluctant to accept this film as pure fact. Many historians note constant inaccuracies. The largest criticism I've read is that the film presents an opinion that the Frost/Nixon interviews were a bigger event than they really were. Others have said that many of the crucial dialogue is completely fake and that some events never even happened. Even if this is expected in a dramatic film, it would have been nice if history was respected more in Peter Morgan's screenplay.

Though I've previously noted my problems with the film's script, it succeeds in some ways as well. The relationship between Frost and Nixon is developed nicely and is very intriguing to watch. It's what hooked me into the story. Some of the film's dialogue is great as well. Another thing worth noting is the film's opening. It does very well in attracting attention.

To me, Frost/Nixon's biggest problem is that there is nothing in the film that hasn't been seen before. Where other 2008 films like Slumdog Millionaire and WALL-E flourish in creativity, there is nothing here that is incredibly memorable. Though Frank Langella's performance is well done, his approach to the character is nowhere near fresh. It's been done before and probably better. This can be said about all aspects of the production. Where's the replay value? What would make you want to see this film again?

Though nothing in Frost/Nixon is incredibly terrible, don't expect too much from it. It's not shocking, appalling, incredible, heartbreaking or anything else that could possibly make it a great film. It just is. I'm not saying that a film has to be any of these things to be great, but in a political drama, some intrigue would be nice. Go ahead and give Frost/Nixon a watch. You just probably wont want to watch it again.

Frost/Nixon is rated R for some language.

The Queen (2006)

4 STARS

Directed by Stephen Frears
Produced by Andy Harries, Christine Langan, Tracey Seaward
Written by Peter Morgan (based on real life events)

Starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell

Runtime 1 hour, 37 mins.
Worldwide Gross $123,384,128
Genres Drama, Historical, Biography

As the ruler of one of the world's most prosperous countries for 57 years, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain has earned the respect of her nation and the revere of other world leaders. However, as an important figurehead of modern ideals, her private life is often kept under lock and key. This is what The Queen bases itself on.

Following the death of Princess Diana of Wales, Elizabeth (Mirren) shrouds herself and her family from the press and refuses to make a statement, with the belief that the death of Diana is a "private affair". For five days, against the warnings of newly elected Prime Minster Tony Blair (Sheen), Elizabeth decides to keep her family in the comfort of their private estate in Scotland. In doing this, the press begins to write nasty things about her and she begins to lose the respect of her people.

Throughout the film, screenwriter Peter Morgan subtly examines many things. How much privacy is too much? Why did Elizabeth stay in Balmoral? Did the throne's rocky relationship with Diana affect Elizabeth's decisions? Is it always crucial to keep traditions if they harm the feelings of others? Is it always right to succumb to the wishes of the people? Though many questions are pondered during the film's hour and a half running time, the script never seems too confusing. This is because Morgan makes the right decision to explore only one idea at a time.

However, where the script succeeds it in a way also fails. Though the film's slow pace adds to its quality, it also gives the story a lagging feeling. If you want an exciting film, this isn't it. But I recognize this as a simple fact, not a negative quality. The truth is, if you want a fair, accurate portrayal of the Queen of England, you couldn't get any more spot on.

This is no doubt in part because of the stupendous acting by Helen Mirren. She plays the role with an ease so fluid, you could think she were the queen herself. Remarkably, she performs just the perfect amount of drama without being over the top, something some actors these days have problems with. Her portrayal makes you interested in the film and attached to her character. She also gives off just the perfect amount emotions to make you not only question the character's motives, but to sympathize with her as well.

One thing I don't quite like is the performance by Michael Sheen. His main problem is that his mannerisms seem over the top. It's almost as though he's trying too hard. However, I can very much understand how hard it would be to portray a living person. But while Mirren strives to achieve excellency, Sheen's performance as Tony Blair could've been so much better. His performance wasn't altogether terrible, but it no doubt has much room for growth. This role is one that if played right could do great things for you. Sadly, this just wasn't the case for Sheen.

Another thing I don't quite like is that we don't seem to get a lot of background information on the film's many characters. As I'm not a resident of Great Britain, many of the characters introduced I was unfamiliar with. Morgan sometimes throws in some background about the queen, revealing in conversations that she was young during the abdication of the throne and that she was a mechanic in World War II. When this information was given, I felt like I could appreciate the character more. So why didn't Morgan do this more often? This is after all a historical drama.

If you love history, if you love drama or if you love effective, intimate Hollywood biographies, The Queen is your film. There's great things to be seen here. Helen Mirren's acting is a must see, Peter Morgan's screenplay is, with reservations, well-written and Stephen Frears' directing is smooth and effective. Though it might be altogether forgotten five years down the line, The Queen is a sparkling diamond in the rough.

The Queen is rated PG-13 for brief strong language.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

4.5 STARS

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Produced by Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Lupi, Joanne Sellar
Written by Paul Thomas Anderson (based on Oil! by Upton Sinclair)

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier

Runtime 2 hours, 38 min.
Worldwide Gross $76,181,545
Genres Drama, Historical

1898. A lonely, barren desert. A man (Day-Lewis) is alone and trying to mine for oil when a scaffold falls down and presumably breaks his leg. In order to get help and further his business, he slowly crawls to the nearest town. It is from the start of There Will Be Blood that we see firsthand just how determined Daniel Plainview is to get what he wants.

The story progressively jumps to 1902, 1911 and 1927, in each period Daniel's greed and lust for wealth being embedded deeper in his soul. Just one of the great things about Blood is its story. Daniel Plainview is a nasty character. Yet the screenplay is so well written, I never wanted to stop watching. At first, I didn't see any bad in Daniel. He was determined, kind and even loving. But there's many secrets that Daniel keeps from us. Only towards the end of the film are his true intentions revealed.

Most of the film centers on the 1911 time period, which starts off when Daniel is confronted by a simple man named Paul Sunday (Dano). Paul talks about a stretch of land in the small town of Little Boston, California, supposedly filled to the brim with oil. This of course interests budding oil aficionado Daniel. When they go to the town, a series of events occur that slowly bring Daniel up from aficionado to oil-guzzling millionaire. In this period of transition, his morals are questioned by the local preacher (also played by Dano) and are tested with his son (Freasier). It is this theme of morality that is a central aspect in Blood.

The screenplay is perfect. The struggle for morality between Daniel and Eli the preacher is enough to keep you hooked. Daniel and Eli each have their own ideas about morality. Which one is right? You could right an entire thesis about that alone.

Another great thing about Blood is Robert Elswit's Academy Award-winning cinematography. Many of his shots are simply breathtaking. Each movement of the camera is essential. Each lighting choice is crucial. A great example of his work is in the oil bursting scene, when the camera tracks Daniel in a way that breathlessly captures the entire surrounding environment.

Another thing I love about this movie is its score, composed by Jonny Greenwood. It's extremely fitting. The ambience of it moves almost effortlessly throughout the film's scenes. In general, the film's technical elements are what make it what it is. Academy-Award nominations went to its art direction, editing and sound.

One thing that most people think of when seeing this film is its acting. Daniel Day-Lewis does indeed give an enthralling performance. His skills as an actor drive the film forward. He's marvelous in every scene.

The only problem I have with this film is the casting of Paul Dano. I liked his work in Little Miss Sunshine, but he just doesn't seem to fit here. Some of his scenes are quite good. The "baptism" scene with Day-Lewis is particularly strong because of his acting. But some of his scenes are a bit uneven. For example, the "arthritis/casting out the ghost" scene in the chapel is over-dramatic for my taste. His overplayed shrieking gets annoying as well.

However, the vast majority of There Will Be Blood is spot on. I have very little complaints. There Will Be Blood is artistic, beautiful, meaningful and incredibly well done. It's a testament of how riches and greed can corrupt a man and how dark and disturbing an industry can be. Blood is an American epic in the best sense of the word; destined to one day become a classic.

There Will Be Blood is rated R for some violence.