'King's Speech' sees its speech unnecessarily altered

You would think once a movie is released into theaters across the planet, it's safe from censorship and reediting.

You would also think the lucrativeness of a Best Picture-winning film would hit a peak in the week or two after the Oscar is distributed.

Apparently, however, neither is the case for The King's Speech, which received a hefty rerelease Friday that came with a head-scratching twist: The film was edited — censored, to be more specific — to fit the parameters of a PG-13 release.

Why would such an atrocity occur? The Weinstein Company hopes the younger rating will make the movie more appealing to audiences that otherwise may have skipped it because of its mature content.

In other words, Harvey Weinstein wants more money.

Speech, however, was never offensive to begin with. Originally rated R for "some language," according to the MPAA, the film contains no violence, no sex, no drugs, nothing. It's a British-royalty period piece. How much censorship can it possibly merit?

But the studio system couldn't help but milk its royal highness's profitability, despite director Tom Hooper's and stars Colin Firth's and Helena Bonham Carter's admonishments.

And with the seemingly never-ending ratings talk that occurred during this year's awards season — most notably via the gritty relationship drama Blue Valentine, which tinkered back and forth between R and NC-17 ratings — can't the studios learn just to let films be themselves? Despite its true R rating, Speech could be applauded for the positive message it sends forth. Whether it takes a few swear words to get there should not be of concern to studio heads looking to make a few extra bucks.

It seems like hypocrisy. The studio that applauded the filmmakers not too long ago for sweeping the industry's top awards is now taking the congratulations-worthy film and altering its dialogue to make some extra money. The ploy is transparent.

I'll be interested to see how much cash it accumulates this weekend. I have a feeing it won't be much. Even with a PG-13 rating, most teens simply won't be interested, and most adults who intend to see the film will have already done so.

For the sake of artistic censorship, I hope this deceptive plan blows up in Weinstein's face.

Can LARRY CROWNE's star power catapult it to success, or will the rom-com fall flat on its face?

If any two names are synonymous with both critical and commercial success in Hollywood, it's Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.

Together the two of them have earned eight Academy Award nominations and grossed about $6.5 billion at the box office, according to tallies from Box Office Mojo.

They can sell a movie with their names alone (a la Roberts' dismally reviewed Eat Pray Love, which grossed $80.6 million), and they aren't often plastered across tabloid headlines, save Roberts' love-life escapades, which have become few and far between since her marriage in 2002.

Now the duo is pairing up again for the July release Larry Crowne, about a middle-aged man (Hanks) who returns to college after being laid off and forms an intimate bond with his professor (Roberts). Given their individual star power and respectability, the movie could be pegged as a surefire hit — even potential Oscar bait — if it weren't plagued with the unpredictability associated with the romantic-comedy genre.

The two received generally positive reviews, along with Golden Globe nominations, when they first joined forces in 2008's Charlie Wilson's War, but that was a political dramedy complemented with historical underpinnings. Now, the two will venture back into the genre that has provided each with massive hits and major flops. Let's see if Larry Crowne will serve either of their careers based on the trajectories we've seen so far.

Roberts

The leading lady of the '90s, Roberts was pegged as the rom-com queen with entry after entry (Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding, Runaway Bride, Notting Hill) receiving generally favorable reviews, some even earning her award noms (most notably Woman, which nabbed her a second Oscar shout-out and 1988's girl-power flick Steel Magnolias).

But Roberts took on more serious fare in the 2000s, and her first major foray into pure drama (2000's Erin Brockovitch) garnered her her first Academy Award. Roberts' rom-com chops have ostensibly dwindled since that victory, with America's Sweethearts and The Mexican, both of which boasted strong ensemble casts, being generally panned by critics. The movies racked in decent box-office figures, but Roberts must have noticed the reviews because she spent the rest of the decade making more serious films like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Mona Lisa Smile and Closer.

To further Roberts' questionable status as rom-com queen, her only two major ventures back into romance films came via Valentine's Day and Eat Pray Love, both released in 2010 to reviews that ranged from mixed to scathing. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers went so far as to call Valentine's Day "a date movie from hell."

So should she have left her crown in the doorway of the new millennium? Perhaps Oscar bait is the only way for Roberts to go nowadays?

Hanks

Generally regarded as one of the best working actors today, Hanks has had fewer critical bombs, and it seems as if a clause is written into his contract saying all his movies must gross at least $100 million.

Partnering with Meg Ryan for Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, his two most straightforward romantic comedies, has proven successful, and while he doesn't really have any significant bombs on his filmography, his more lighthearted entries of the 2000s (The Terminal, The Ladykillers, The Polar Express) received mixed reviews.

It's apparent — a no-brainer even — that Hanks can drive a strong drama to success. The list of critical and commercial victories seems endless, and he is on a small list of actors who can simultaneously drive the masses of the box office and wow the critics (Saving Private Ryan and Cast Away both took in more than $200 million and earned him Oscar noms).

But is a romantic comedy an irrefutable victory for Hanks? Is he guaranteed to receive glowing reviews for Larry Crowne, which he also wrote and directed?

The verdicts

Given the film's subject matter, it's hard to say.

Larry Crowne isn't particularly youthful, but the high-profile actors will lead enough devoted fans to the box office for the film to earn around $100 million.

As for the reviews? They'll be mixed. We already know Roberts and Hanks have chemistry, but the trailer makes the film look its a bit cliche-driven, and it often takes more than star power to overcome that burden. The film surely won't produce any Oscar attention, despite being among some shortlists of buzz-worthy films that will be released this year. Can Hanks serve as Roberts' Richard Gere and Roberts as Hanks' Meg Ryan?

Given their career histories and general likability factors, they'll probably be delightful in the film, but the magic of the 1990s romantic comedies the duo made individually will be lacking when this middle-aged film rolls around.

Despite Roberts' early stature amid lighthearted fare, she has proven lately — in large part thanks to her age — that she's now at the top of her game when she plays it a bit more straight than she will in Crowne. Plenty of critics will love her and Hanks because, well, they're them, and lots of diehard fans would flock to the theater to see them headline any film, but this entry will be lost among an overcrowded summer filled with high-end blockbusters that include new entries in series like Pirates of the Caribbean, The Hangover and Harry Potter. Larry Crowne will end up not being much more than a cute break from high-tech visual effects and a nice escape from the sweltering heat.

Check out the trailer below. Do you think it'll succeed for the duo?

Hathaway, Franco don't provide intended Oscar makeover

The Oscars have never delivered more mixed messages.

Co-hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco provided an awkward prelude to the ceremony, followed by mediocre interludes throughout it. It was nice to see young faces on the stage, but the duo proved it's a safer bet to recruit a real comedian to emcee the awards. (This was emphasized when former host Billy Crystal graced the stage to present an award with built-in poise and a certain Oscar finesse Hathaway and Fanco lacked. Were the show's producers perhaps trying to send a message regarding next year's selection?)

The hosts were part of the Academy Awards' campaign to make the three-hour ceremony — which ran 15 minutes overtime — seem more youthful. But the youngsters played it too safe. The ceremony took four giant steps backward from Ricky Gervais' questionable (but brilliant, if I do say so myself) Golden Globes humor that took stabs at what some consider a few too many indelible celebrity newsmakers. Instead, it replaced the risque satire with mostly aimless banter. Hathaway's solo song-and-dance number was cute but needless, and the segment featuring characters from nominated films autotuned Antoine Dodson-style was a stab at a pop-culture sendup that failed.

Yet, amid all the attempts at seeming young, the ceremony continuously inserted dedications to former Oscar-winning films, something that seems to pop up at the Academy Awards every few years. Audiences were reminded of categories' winners in previous years before this year's respective award was presented. It's always nice to revisit favorite films, and being reminded of the greatness of Gone with the Wind, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars is never a bad thing, but ceremony wasn't consistent in when it chose to honor certain moves of lore, leaving the tributes — and the show — feeling incongruous.

To top it all off, the Academy had the chance to provide its ultimate youthful quality: that it could award a non-traditional Oscar-bait flick with the night's top honors. I can't say I'm particularly upset The Social Network didn't win — I was rooting for The King's Speech — but the once-favored Millenial manifesto could have been the icing on the pubescent cake. Instead, the Academy went with traditional fare, which is fine by me, but it doesn't bode well for a ceremony that's clearly working too hard to break away from its senile voting members.

Hathaway and Franco looked good — better than Crystal could have — but were too untrained for the Oscar stage, where they had to pretend to be comedians in a setting where no reshoots are allowed. We can all applaud the ceremony for striving to reinvent itself, however. Let's keep that up, but with a more fitting host (not hosts) next time.

Best Picture race gets heated

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced last week its list of nominations for the 83rd annual Oscars. The Academy amplified the Best Picture category last year to include a bloated 10 nominees, leaving little room for major shutouts. This year’s only significant dismissal was Ben Affleck’s The Town, but most people have probably already forgotten about it anyway.

Now that I’ve seen each of the 10 films nominated for the top prize, I’ll take a look at them in ascending order of my personal picks and discuss each one’s likelihood to win at the Feb. 27 ceremony.

10. 127 Hours

Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire follow-up clocks in as the shortest entry on the list at only 94 minutes. The true story of Aron Ralston, who was forced to cut off his own arm after spending five days with it penned between a literal rock and a hard place, 127 Hours made headlines as moviegoers have reportedly passed out during the graphic amputation scene.

Can it win? In short, no. Not only is it my least favorite entry on the list, but it also seems to have the smallest chance of winning. The film was denied nominations in several precursor Best Picture awards, including the Golden Globes. Boyle was additionally left off the Academy’s Best Director list, leaving the film with Best Actor (James Franco) and Best Adapted Screenplay noms — both of which it won’t win. Add in those factors with the film’s grittiness and the fact that it simply isn’t as unforgettable as most of the other entries, and it looks like Boyle and company can just sit back and enjoy the show.

9. Inception

One of the most talked-about snubs came in not including Inception’s Christopher Nolan on the shortlist for Best Director, making the summer blockbuster — which grossed almost $293 million — seem like a bit of an afterthought.

Can it win? Despite the glittering reviews, memorably elaborate visual effects and inclusion on a plethora of pre-Oscar nomination lists, Inception is simply lost among the overcrowded category at this point. Nolan’s snub was substantial, and the fact it was released in July — when most standard Oscar bait is still wrapping post-production — makes this dazzler something of a has-been.

8. The Social Network

David Fincher’s hugely acclaimed Facebook flick had been tagged (no pun intended) by many critics as the best film of the year. It’s young, sleek, modern and an entirely different fare than what the Academy typically honors. It didn’t earn the most nominations — that honor rightfully went to The King’s Speech — but thanks to its inclusion in several of the major categories (Director, Actor, Screenplay) and its dominance in the precursor awards, it might be a safe bet to place your money on this one.

Can it win? Absolutely. Up until this past weekend, in fact, nothing could beat it. It had won the Golden Globe, Critics Choice Award and Writers Guild Award — and that only begins the list. But now Speech has taken the top prize as the Screen Actors Guild Awards and the Directors Guild Award, giving Network a one-on-one battle for victory. Whether it will win largely depends on Network’s and Speech’s campaigns over the next few weeks, but I would place my bet on this one.

7. Winter’s Bone

Let’s label this one “the little indie that could.” Its chances of garnering a nomination fluctuated in the months leading up to the announcement, but the Sundance hit edged out The Town to land a spot. It also received two acting nominations (Jennifer Lawrence for Actress and John Hawkes for Supporting Actor) and a Screenplay nod, allowing the gloomy film about a 17-year-old on the hunt to find her meth-head dad to be a substantial Oscar entry.

Can it win? With all the blockbusters included in the category, Bone ­— which grossed the least at the box office with only $6 million — should feel honored simply to be nominated. Too many other films stand out here, so it isn’t favored to prevail in any of its categories.

6. Toy Story 3

Only the third animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture (after Beauty and the Beast and last year’s Up), Toy Story 3 received unanimously enthusiastic reviews and clocks in as the highest-grossing nominee at $415 million.

Can it win? Eventually an animated movie will make the leap and win the big award, but this won’t be the one. It may have made grown men across the world cry, but the Academy has too much serious fare to give this kids’ flick a chance.

5. The Fighter

The boxing drama serves up a pack of good performances, and director David O. Russell is the culprit for having edged out Boyle and Nolan for a nomination. The movie has enormous heart, so can it please voters enough to inch its way to the top?

Can it win? The Fighter has been included on nearly every Best Picture list since the award season began, but its best chances rest in its supporting-acting nominations: Melissa Leo and Christian Bale, both of whom are frontrunners in their respective categories. The two have racked up an array of awards, but the film continually falls short of a win in the top categories. Leo and Bale can look forward to a promising night, but Russell and company should just relax when the final category comes around.

4. True Grit

The film boasts a stellar cast (Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld), and it’s helmed by Joel and Ethan Coen, so it seems like it should be a surefire contender. It’s also a moderate box-office success, coming in as the Coen brothers’ highest-grossing film to date.

Can it win? The Coen brothers’ Director nomination helps, but it’s a little too Western for this year’s modernity-infused category. It could receive some votes from older Academy members reminiscent of the film’s 1969 original, but its dark humor and mainstream popularity still isn’t quite memorable enough to send it to the top. In fact, expect it to be shut out of all the major categories. Bummer.

3. Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky’s stylish psychological thriller about a darkly competitive production of Swan Lake is probably the most inventive movie in the category. It’s expected to reach $100 million by the end of its box-office run, and lead actress Natalie Portman will likely earn her first statuette for her impassioned turn as the lead in the ballet.

Can it win? Portman has swept a heck of a lot of the precursor awards, but Swan has neglected to collect any top-prize honors, which leaves it out in the cold as far as this category is concerned. Perhaps it could claim the BAFTA, which serves as the final precursor award, on Feb. 13, but it would still makes this category a long shot for Swan. The film will have to rely on Portman to carry its only significant win.

2. The Kids Are All Right

The indie dramedy about a lesbian couple whose sperm donor reenters their lives nabbed the Golden Globe for Best Picture – Comedy or Musical, so could it have a shot at this one, too? Annette Benning is Portman’s biggest competition, it’s earned mostly rave reviews and it serves as the one mandatory comedy entry in the writing categories.

Can it win? Perhaps this movie will be the route the Academy takes it if wants to surpass expectations. Probably not, though. The old fogies aren’t likely to acknowledge such a comedic piece (the last time they did was Shakespeare in Love in 1998). If it’s lucky, the quirky flick will sneak-attack The King’s Speech to win Best Original Screenplay.

1. The King’s Speech

The Social Network’s biggest competitor is my personal favorite in the category, and it very well could win. The true story of King George VI’s speech problem, the film has managed to nudge ahead of Network as the frontrunner thanks to its late-in-the-game prizes. It isn’t a box-office champ, but that probably won’t faze the Academy, considering it awarded The Hurt Locker last year, which attracted only $17 million.

Can it win? For now, it’s an arms race between Speech and Network. But if Harvey Weinstein continues on the aggressive campaign trail he has established, which includes a toned-down PG-13 release of the film, the kingly drama may prevail. Its chances will improve even more if it wins the BAFTA. Given its subject matter, Speech is a bit of a safer choice as far as standard Oscar bait goes, so the final question is: Does the Academy want to seem youthful by honoring the Generation Z manifesto Network, or will it give Best Picture to the beautifully constructed (yet more geriatric) Speech? It’s pretty much a coin toss at this point, but I’d place my bet on Network for now.

For a full list of nominations, click here.