‘The King’s Speech’, Tom Hooper, 2011

STARRING: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham-Carter, Guy Pearce

TOTAL RUNNING TIME: 1 hour, 58 mins

I START WATCHING FROM: 59 mins

Things ‘begin’ with an argument. A seriously posh argument. Colin Firth and Guy Pearce – both doing cut-glass ‘ears’ instead of ‘yes’ upper-class accents – seem to disagree about Hitler. Guy mentions that ‘Hitler will sort them out’. Not sure who he’s talking about, but I’m already guessing that we’re not supposed to be on his side. Supporting Hitler is something of an empathy-killer in the old movie-narrative game, I find.

Guy stops arguing about Hitler and looks for a bottle of wine. Colin decides to argue about something else. This is interesting – during the brief time I’ve been working on these ‘reviews’, I’d estimate that about 90% of movie scenes consist of people arguing. I know, I know, conflict is the essence of story and all that, but sometimes you have to wonder why we all can’t just get along? I for one would like to see ‘Switzerland: The Movie’, an uneventful, somewhat neutral epic in which everyone agrees to differ for three hours.

‘And you put that woman in our mother’s suite!’ Colin yells, angrily. Time for a bit of detective work. Colin plays King George VI, who famously had to overcome his stutter in order to deliver stirring speeches. As he’s talking about ‘our mother’, I’m gonna guess that Guy is playing his brother King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne following his decision to marry Wallis Simpson.

Oh yeah. I didn’t even need to google that shit. See that? That’s historical knowledge right there, bitches. (Although if you do want to expand your horizons online, it’s worth nothing that Ms. Simpson was a bit of a hottie).

Guy then talks about his plans to marry a commoner in a laboured bit of expo, which allows me to feel smug for a brief moment (not something which happens often). They carry on arguing about ‘duty’ and ‘privileges’ and ‘the approval of the Church’. Only a minute in and I’m starting to zone out. See, this is the problem I have with these sort of films – it’s always really, really, really hard to relate to the ‘problems’ of rich people. You wouldn’t be rooting so hard for Charlie Chaplin in The Little Tramp if he was called Ollie, was born in Kensington, went skiing every few months with his private school chums and insisted his ‘job’ was running a fucking drum and bass night or something.

Anyway.

Guy then teases Colin about his stutter. I kind of hope Colin will yell ‘shove it up your arse, Guy, at least I wasn’t in Neighbours‘, but that would probably break the fourth wall slightly. Guy then wanders into a party full of more rich people. Colin looks a bit unsettled … and then we cut to him with his therapist, played by Geoffrey Rush.

Isn’t Helena Bonham Carter supposed to be in this film? I want to see Helena Bonham Carter.

The whole therapist/King relationship is kind of odd – a bit like Tony Soprano and Dr Melfi had been rewritten by Evelyn Waugh (note to self: shit, son, keep dropping those high-brow references and you’ll have a guest-writing slot on Pitchfork in no time). Unfortunately The Sopranos also had bullets and guns and the mafia, whereas this has aristocrats saying ‘bugger orf’ in funny voices. I can only conclude one thing …

I STOP WATCHING AT: 1 hour, 2 mins

VERDICT: ‘THE KING’S SPEECH’ HAS OFFICIALLY FAILED THE ‘COMING IN HALFWAY’ TEST!

‘Black Swan’, Darren Aronofsky, 2010

STARRING: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel

TOTAL RUNNING TIME: 1 hour, 48 mins

I START WATCHING FROM: 54 mins

‘Oh,’ a random ballerina says as Natalie Portman walks into the dressing room, ‘look who’s decided to grace us with their presence.’ Two things are clear now: a) that this is a rather prescient first line to hear as one starts to watch a film halfway through, and b) that the other ballerinas don’t seem to like Natalie Portman much. Not sure why – she seems like a pleasant girl to me.

Natalie wants a word with Mila Kunis, the chick who does Meg’s voice in Family Guy, a great actress whose career has been overshadowed by people yelling ‘holy shit – she’s the chick who does Meg’s voice in Family Guy?’ on a perpetual basis. Natalie and Mila get all pouty and argue about something that happened last night. They both look quite gaunt and thin here, as do all the other girls. (Note: I’ve actually heard talk about how this movie is irresponsible, because it ‘promotes unrealistic body shapes to young women.’ These people might be missing the point somewhat, in that criticising a ballet film for featuring skinny girls is like criticising Conan The Barbarian for featuring bodybuilders. The girls in this film are skinny and gaunt because that’s what ballerinas fucking well look like. Christ, you wonder if such ‘cultural commentators’ can ever just leave their half-arsed, sixth-form-sociology-dropout, OMG-I-understand-issues horseshit aside for just one second of their pointless lives.)

Ahem.

Next scene. Natalie sits on a subway train, at which point a nearby old man stares at her and licks his lips. Not sure if he’s done this to her before. Maybe this is just part of her daily commute. Not entirely fair, as whevever I try that sort of thing I get arrested. The old man starts to blow kisses and simulate masturbation, a bit like Leslie Grantham in that old webcam video.

Natalie is now at home, sitting with a woman who – I guess – is her mother. This suspicion is soon confirmed when the older woman mentions that she ‘gave up her career’ to give birth to Natalie. Looks like Nat’s old lady was a ballet dancer too. God, nepotism is just rife in the creative industries, isn’t it?

‘How’s your skin?’ the mother asks, rather creepily. She then orders Natalie to take off her shirt, which is ironically what I was shouting to Mila Kunis a couple of scenes ago. Natalie refuses. I wonder – what is wrong with her skin? A horrible thought: there isn’t going to be some horrible, heavy-handed psychological ‘twist’ wherein she imagines herself growing Swan Wings, is there? Please say it ain’t so. *

Mila turns up, and she and Natalie decide to go out and get wasted. Mum doesn’t like this, but, like, she’s totally not the boss of Natalie, and shit. Natalie and Mila take some drugs and then try to seduce two boys who look like background extras from a mid-90s episode of Beverley Hills 90210. Natalie talks about Swan Lake, the ballet she is presently rehearsing. One of the boys pretends to be interested in what she is saying. They start to dance to some EDGY music while epilepsy-unfriendly lights strobe across the scene.

Natalie and Mila get a taxi home. Natalie argues with her mum. Hmmm. I’m perilously close to stopping watching – this is all starting to seem like a well-shot episode of Hollyoaks. Not sure if it’s worth persevering with, to be hones—

—holy shit, is that a Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis lesbian sex scene? It is. It really is.

Mila’s shoulderblades begin to oscillate freakishly for some reason, and then her face turns into Natalie’s face. Guess this is all symbolic of madness, or something. Still: a Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis lesbian sex scene, people.

Natalie wakes up, hungover, and gets to work late. Mila is dancing around. Natalie looks upset. They argue again. Natalie looks upset again. She goes home. Lies down. Looks upset again. Throws some things around. Looks upset again. By this point I’m starting to look upset too, and I’m more or less content to declare this one over.

Christ, if only I’d been ‘reviewing’ Aronofsky’s The Wrestler, I could have finished by saying ‘ding-ding-ding-ding’. Or is that more of a boxing reference? Oh, I don’t know.

I STOP WATCHING AT: 1 hour, 13 mins

VERDICT: ‘BLACK SWAN’ HAS OFFICIALLY FAILED THE ‘COMING IN HALFWAY’ TEST!

*Since writing this ‘review’ I have watched the movie in full, and – while my prediction was right – to my surprise Aronofsky actually pulls this motif off quite well. Infact, the whole thing is really rather good. How about that?