The King’s Speech is the type of movie that I would normally never watch. I don’t understand the fascination with monarchy and period settings always tend to add another layer of dullness to an already suffering movie. I figured though, I should probably shoot for all ten movies this year since Precious and An Education are still unchecked from last year’s nominees. Not surprisingly, I found the movie good and certainly “uplifting” as many others have said countless times before. But best picture? No way.
Based on a true story, The King’s Speech focuses on Prince Albert (Colin Firth), the Duke of York, whose debilitating stutter causes much grief for himself and his father, King George V. After a number of failed treatments, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) turns to Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian with an unconventional but effective method of treatment. Along the way, King George V dies and due to a scandal with his older brother, the Duke assumes the moniker of King George VI just as the rise of Hitler begins to give the world pause. That’s a skimpy summary but you can read the rest in a history book … or on Wikipedia.
Vanity Fair pointed out that The King’s Speech is not a very original movie, although the comparison to Karate Kid actually makes it a bit more tolerable. At the core, this type of film should be a slam-dunk: it’s a underdog story with Bertie (I like this better than the Duke of York) having to overcome great obstacles while trying to live up to his father’s expectations yet stuck in the shadows of his older brother. Actually, that reminds me a bit of another movie that year. Yet, it is hard to feel sympathy for a character who is born into royalty and ultimately is kind of a dick. His interactions with Lionel see-saw between cordial to asshole-ish as he pulls rank on the common man or yells about treason.
Sure, the acting is good. Firth plays Bertie with a good combination of meek and regal and has some wonderful exchanges, especially when heated about something (that happens quite frequently). Bonham Carter is background for a lot of the film but she typifies the caring and understanding wife who just so happens to be next in line for the title of Queen. I loved Geoffrey Rush though. Lionel was smart, sarcastic, witty, and just came off really well as grounded in reality. Of course, he was the main cast member without a throne but that is beside the point. The production was well done and effectively conveyed a sense of grandeur in the early twentieth century.
Overall, director Tom Hooper did an admirable job of getting me involved in a story that does not interest me in the least. While some of his choices of shot composition were questionable, the film looks and feels and sounds just like an Oscar winning picture should. Above all though, I would have been highly upset if the score by Alexandre Desplat had won an award as it was okay, yet totally generic like it was plucked from a $3 CD from the classical section of Barnes & Noble.
It might seem like I have a bias against this movie. The truth is I do. This is not a bad film in the slightest and one that is an important tale, not only for historical drama, but as a testament to anyone who has overcome a deficiency. But this was tailor-made for the Oscar gold and almost comes off as a paint-by-numbers pretentious WWII-ish film. Next time, get Geoffrey Rush in Inception Part 2: Ariande’s Revenge and I’ll be more willing.
Comments
Post a Comment