Triumph over adversity - - it's screenplay writing 101.

...and on one level I'm underwhelmed by The King's Speech, I mean I just saw Made in Dagenham a couple of weeks ago - - and it's that same theme again: triumph over adversity and presented convincingly as an authentic slice of history done up in full period style. What's to say that one is better than the other? They are surely both quality productions starring talented actors.

...but on the next level I'm bowing in awe to the majesty of the moment.

Bertie had not only to triumph over the adversity of his speech impediment but it needed to be done at a crucial crossroad in world history - - in context, it turns into the most intense action movie you've ever seen. Our whole Earth hangs in the balance. Yet with his trusty Sam at his side he manages to scale the heights of Mordor and cast Sauron down. It's that epic.

The acting is superb. Colin Firth (in the language of Tropic Thunder) goes full retard, and it's a bravura performance - - that's Acting! And standing right there, shoulder to shoulder beside him is good old Geoffrey Rush, a veteran pro of the highest calibre. They sold me - - I travelled back in time to the '30's - - I was there.


26 out of 5.


(^ Same as Made in Dagenham.)

It's handsomely filmed in a way that compliments the characters, who are the primary reason to see The King's Speech. Colin Firth expresses Bertie's emotions often entirely through the color of his face - was it lighting, makeup, or just good acting? Geoffrey Rush is as peculiar and charming as ever. Watch for him hamming up Shakespeare. The supporting cast is also rather good, be it Guy Pearce, Helena Bonham Carter, or even Timothy Spall as Churchill!

The whole enterprise did seem rather bittersweet. We all know that the British get crushed by World War II... So what was the significance of these speeches?

An entertaining, well-mounted film. Colin Firth delivers a compelling and regal performance as King George VI, a hesitant, but dedicated man who rose to power on the eve of World War II after his more mercurial brother, Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), decided to wed an American socialite and twice-divorcée. The film centers on George's debilitating speech disorder and the outlandish Australian therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who helped him cope with it in time for a significant wartime address. The very prestigious supporting cast includes Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, George's adoring wife, and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill.

Structured as a sports film (Firth's George VI is the struggling team and Rush's Lionel Logue is the charismatic new coach who will lead the underdogs to the championship), The King's Speech is a pleasant, if rather safe film with moments of transcendence throughout. My favorite scene may be a heated conversation between George VI and his brother the king, played well by the great Guy Pearce. The topic: the latter's passionate love of/intent to wed American socialite Wallis Simpson. Edward's point: common men can follow their hearts, so why shouldn't he be allowed to do the same? George implores his brother to continue to be with Simpson in a more quiet way (award her land and a title, continue the affair in private)--a mistress. Edward becomes furious and taunts (t-t-t-t-taunts) his brother, ending the conversation. There is so much of interest here, not just in terms of the tense relationship between the two brothers, but the nature of the crown in general and the pressure it puts on people and those they love.

The core of the film--George and his often comic, at times poignant sessions with Logue--are never as fascinating, but also never less than entertaining. Firth's portrait of a man imprisoned within himself by an inability to communicate with ease is detailed and heartrending. Rush is a delightful presence, injecting warmth and feeling into a rather standard inspirational character who says line such as, "You needn't be governed by fear!" Helena Bonham Carter meets the modest demands of her supporting role, and it is nice to see her in a film not directed by Tim Burton or co-starring Rupert Grint, though her career-best performance in Howards End remains untoppled.

Behind the camera, Tom Hooper's (the underrated The Damned United) directorial hand is firm, though perhaps a bit too grandiose and stylized. This was also true of Hooper's direction of John Adams, the fantastic HBO mini-series in which Hooper drew several brilliant performances from his cast, but also distracted viewers with an excessive use of Dutch angles.

The King's Speech overall is a fine chronicle of a therapeutic friendship buoyed by terrific performances by Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and, though he's received almost no attention this Oscar season, Guy Pearce. I do, however, wish it dug deeper into the emotional turmoil which led George VI to stutter in the first place, including the compassionate, but fractured relationship between him and the wild brother who gave him access to the throne by abdicating. A few years ago, the superior The Queen explored similar territory with great success. The King's Speech isn't as curious, but it is top-notch in most every other department. Call it the year's toniest popcorn movie.

B+

Excellent observation!



Spoiler tags! (But seriously, I hope you're joking here.)



Elizabeth may well have been "adoring", but that wouldn't be in my list of the top ten adjectives I would use to describe her relationship to Bertie.



My pick would be The Wings of the Dove, though the extensive nudity may still be clouding my judgement.



Agreed on all the above counts.

If I didn't know this was an original screenplay, I might have assumed it was adapted from a play. In terms of its technical "feel" (the camera movements, the lighting), I was strongly reminded of Doubt--the ways John Patrick Shanley tried very hard to give Doubt "cinematic" flair.

With the exception of The Damned United, Hooper's projects tend to suggest a good director who overcompensates because he's uncomfortable with his BBC-One-by-way-of-PBS directorial instincts. Though nothing in The King's Speech is nearly as grating as:

One other small gripe ( ) --

The handful of Lionel Logue-centric scenes (see: Richard III audition) felt very half-hearted and extraneous.

Yes, The King's Speech could very well fall under the term "oscar bait" but it's fucking good "oscar bait". Colin Firth continues to show acting chops here and even tramps his already fantastic turn in last year's A Single Man. It could be very simple to mess up a performance when a stammer has to be believable, but Firth does it perfectly. He should definitely earn an Oscar this time around for his work. Geoffry Rush is just as strong here and at least deserves the Oscar nomination. The film strives at most not with King George VI conquering his stammer but in the friendship that grows between George and Louge. The scene they share in the end when George gives his first long speech to the nation is a nice top off to the friendship. Helena Bonahm Carter also pulls out a noteworthy performance though she is not part of the film as much as expected. Desplat's score along with the art direction are also fantastic. It's a film that ranks near the top of the year. ****

Wonderfully elegant, with superb acting from Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush (and the rest of the cast, including the awesome Helena Bonham Carter, although they all have much less screen time). A-

It's not as dull as one would expect considering Hooper (courageously) makes no effort to throw in extraneous tension or conflict, it really is about some guy trying to get over a speech impediment. Thus, it is boring. However the thing is so intricately, meticulously crafted the intentionally slow pace allows time to admire this. The cinematography is gorgeous and the framing of certain shots throughout the film are really beautiful, especially when trying to evoke angst from Berty. There are a few shots that tilt up framing his face in manner to reflect his nervousness and consternation that are remarkably effective. In addition Hooper plays with some shallow focus, slow pans, and other simple techniques that give the audience something to pay attention aside from the dull plot. The actors also liven up the movie, a friend remarked that he thought Rush's performance was amazing. I'm not sure I'd agree, but he was very fun and made the movie far more engaging than anyone else on earth would have. Firth was brilliant imo, the slight adjustments of his face and his communication of frustration was magnificent. I think I still prefer him in A Single Man, but from what I've seen he deserves the oscar this year. Also Carter's supporting performance is very underrated, while she doesn't get much screen time she was a great addition here. It was a good movie, the craft impeccable, but didn't have any interesting story or script to make it great. I'd say 7/10or***or3.5/5orB

Make paragraphs, asshole!

Better?

I'm not sure you have fully grasped the meaning of the word paragraph.

Not one of my favorites of the year but I found it very enjoyable. Geoffrey Rush was fantastic, and I'll be happy if Firth wins the Oscar. (Bonham Carter's fine but nomination worthy? Not really...)

To my own surprise, this may just have become my favorite film of 2010. Firth deserves his upcoming Oscar, Rush played his counterpart expertly, and Helena gave a quite understated performance. Those three are simply fantastic. Impeccably shot (should win Art Direction), and the score is nice too. It also left me a bigger impression than The Queen, which on its own was one of my favorites for its year, and I could see why people would consider this more of a "crowd pleaser" among British historical dramas. A.

I feel so removed from this movie. I saw it, I highly enjoyed it as far as it goes, but...nothing else. The hurricane of accolades circling it continues to baffle me a tiny bit.

I agree, it was good, and certainly the acting kept it interesting, but it was in no way shape or form spectacular or memorable.

reverse shot tore this movie apart in their "two cents" piece:

What is your opinion of the movie?

i don't have one, but i will say you said this regarding the king's speech:

and reverse shot said this regarding the king's speech:

so, to summarize, fuck you troll.

...said the person posting in the review thread of a film he hasn't seen.

Perhaps Hooper was just trying to overcome a bland and flavorless script that some how got green lit as a film after it came out Screenplays 101. That being said, he certainly didn't add to any of what made the film any good. Those honors should be reserved for the actors and the set designers. Although I'm sure the above reviewers found the set too distracting and not zen enough. And I'm sure they wouldn't approve of my use of the word "zen" as an adjective. Or maybe they would as I used it out of its denotative context, therefore using some part of some form of my imagination.

I have to completely disagree with their assesment of the camera work. Hooper certainly pulls a lot of cinematography tricks out of his bag but I never thought it bordered on obtrusive or ghoulish. This wasn't anything like Danny Boyle, or Terry Gilliam, behind a camera. The lingering shots and slow cuts were quite reminiscent of classic film, while Hooper through in enough long shots, side angles, etc. to make it his own piece. I actually quite enjoyed the way the thing was filmed, the major flaw of the film was the dull script and premise. Hooper's pacing was certainly very slow and deliberate, and the thing feels very... insubstantial after a week, but his camera work was solid. I'd like to see what you think if you actually watch it makeshift.