The King's Speech (2010) User Reviews

The King says a mouthful

[Samiam3 · 8/10 · 10 December 2010]

There were a lot of elderly folks in the theatre when I saw The King's Speech. It occurred to me that some of them may have been alive when George VI gave the actual speech to the British Nation which had just declared war with Hitler.

The King's Speech is a feel good movie, but a very adult one, and while it tells a good story, well scripted, absorbing and believable (except for an odd line or two), Tom Hooper's film is far more driven by character than by plot.

You may need to see it to believe it but, Colin Firth has no obvious competition for the best actor awards which are coming his way. He is absorbed in the role of the stammering king who is timid, low in self-confidence, and frustrated but perfectly warm-hearted. The only time he doesn't stammer is oddly enough when he curses. This is something which his new speech therapist suggests he use as a practise tool in the one scene which earned the film an R rating. The King's Speech is arguably a proud moment for Geoffrey Rush as well. This is him at his best, and he and Firth together almost make the movie. Their exchange of dialogue is flawless.

The King's Speech boasts an exceptional cast, which includes Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi and Guy Pearce, all of whom help contribute to the picture with the smallest amount of screen time.

The King's Speech says a mouthful, and it warms the heart without question. There is also no question is arguing that it is among the very best of the year.

King Colin

[pauletterich-la · 9/10 · 18 December 2017]

After seeing "Apartment Zero" and being bowled over again by his amazing performance as the Argentinean pretending to be British, I felt the urge to see "The King's Speech" again - So glad I did. It was very moving to see Adrian Leduc being George VI. What an astonishing actor. In Apartment Zero he creates a character without a personality. A repressed, innocent that comes out as a total weirdo but we know better. His undeclared needs reflected in Colin Firth's eyes are a prodigious acting feast. In The King's Speech, his George VI suffers from a different fear but it's also pungently clear in the actor's eyes. I think what they both share is a desperate wish to be invisible. For King George that's an impossibility so, his struggle to move forward, learning to be the man everyone expects him to be is enormously moving. As you may have guessed, Colin Firth has become one of my favorite actors of all time.

Colin Speaks

[don_agu · 9/10 · 12 January 2011]

What a wonderful performance! Compassion and clarity of vision, side by side. Colin Firth has been a favourite of mine since the extraordinary "Apartment Zero' (1989) His maturity as an actor reflects his maturity as a person and how many times are we able to say that? Very few I'm afraid. What I thought I saw in him as an actor playing the zero of the title in "Apartment Zero" is here in spades. Wow! How rewarding! Here he's not alone. Goeffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce are all standouts and the stutter is just a device to show a whole picture. How strange we knew so little about this man. I guess Hitler got all the headlines. So from a historical perspective is also a feast of sorts. Bravo indeed!

A Royal Treat

[JohnDeSando · 17 December 2010]

You heard it from me: Not even James Franco with his boffo performance in 127 Hours can beat Colin Firth for the Oscar in King's Speech, a docudrama about the Duke of York (Firth) becoming King George VI while overcoming a crushing stutter. Not only does the actor get pitch perfect the stutter, but he also invests a kindness, courage, and vulnerability in the character that work in harmony to create an unforgettable George in an exquisite period peace.

Not to forget how generously Geoffrey Rush underplays Lionel, the speech therapist who is instrumental in making the king a speaker and a friend. That low-key acting allows Firth the room to expand his king's personality without interference from an Oscar-winning co-star. This is history as I like to learn it—honest and engaging with palaces and minor characters well-appointed and underplayed themselves as part of a mosaic of challenges facing a handicapped king and a nation on the brink of WWII. The pace is close to languid, better to allow us to settle in for the painful transformation of a man unused to public speaking but used to family mocking his disability.

George's bravery is the film's heartbeat, not flamboyant courage, mind you, but rather the kind that wakes us up to the character as complex and lovable. But valor is not his exclusively, Guy Pearce's Edward, who abdicates for his love, Wallace Simpson, can be seen as a courageous man giving up a crown for love or a fool falling for a twice-divorced socialite.

Such an ambivalence is fitting for a film that gently introduces you to a period in British history when alliances are not clear and allegiances dangerous. One thing is patently clear, however—this is going to be on most critics' best film of the year list with a sure Oscar winner for its star. If Firth missed the brass ring last year in A Single Man, he'll grab it this year in King's Speech.

Brilliant movie!

[slythinker · 10/10 · 12 September 2010]

This is a biopic about how King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II, overcame his stuttering problem. Widely considered by all but his father unfit to be king, George is reluctantly thrust unto the throne and into the spotlight after his brother is forced to abdicate. Overshadowed on the global stage by powerful orators like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, the King relies on the help of a little-known Australian speech therapist named Lionel Logue to find his voice and courageously lead his people into the most devastating war humanity has ever faced.

This is a powerful, hilarious and deeply moving story, told against the backdrop of a critical juncture in modern history, of the emergence of a deep friendship out of a professional relationship between two men who would otherwise never have socially interacted. The screenplay, written by David Seidler (who also wrote Tucker: The Man and his Dream), is excellent. The dry British wit is hilarious. I was literally slapping my knee during some of the scenes. Tom Hooper (Elizabeth I) does a superb job directing this movie. The buildup to the climactic finale is skillfully executed and prompted the audience to erupt into spontaneous applause. (Apparently, this also happened at the Roy Thomson Hall premiere.) Geoffrey Rush (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) does a fantastic job as Lionel Logue and Colin Firth (A Single Man) is excellent as King George VI.

I saw the second public screening of this movie at the Ryerson Theater during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Tom Hooper was present to introduce the movie. He was joined by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush after the movie ended for a brief Q&A.

It turns out that David Seidler also had a stuttering problem as a child and drew inspiration from the king's struggle. Early in his career he wanted to write a screenplay about it. He dutifully asked the Queen Mother for permission. She agreed but told him "not in my lifetime". Little did he know she would live to be 101 and he would have to wait another 30 years.

Another interesting tidbit we learned was that near the end of the shoot, the crew finally located one of Lionel Logue's grandsons, who just so happened to live about 10 minutes away from the director. They got access to Lionel's diaries and correspondence and managed to incorporate some of it into the script.

This movie is an unqualified must see.

A touching, historical masterpiece

[dbogosian-1 · 10/10 · 27 December 2010]

I rarely rate a movie a "10" but in this case, it is well deserved. Truly, there is no way to improve upon the achievement that this film represents, whether in casting, direction, writing, artistic value, you name it.

The story gives us a fascinating look into the struggles faced by George VI on his way to becoming king of England. The story line is all about his stuttering, but underneath all that are suppressed memories from childhood, growing up in the shadow of an elder brother, perpetual negative reinforcement from a domineering father, etc. It's a psychoanalytical look at a well-known royal family, and while I can't vouch for its absolute veracity, it gives a rare glimpse into the lives of people we wouldn't otherwise observe at this level of intimacy (much like "Queen" did a few years ago).

The contrast between George and Edward VIII is most fruitful. It's the clash between duty and hedonism, fulfilling one's personal quest for happiness vs. overcoming one's worst fears on behalf of your people and country. Edward is typically romanticized and lionized, but here we see him as more of a spoiled, selfish lout.

But the heart of the movie is the relationship between George and Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who is helping him overcome his speech problems. Both actors are at the absolute top of their form. Firth is brilliant as the aloof, initially reluctant and distrustful monarch, while Rush shows the same wink-of-the-eye humor and irony that he did as Barbossa, relishing the sheer inequality of their positions yet knowing the extent to which George is dependent on him. Ultimately a true friendship develops between the men, and since they are both such endearing characters, it's a joy to watch.

I should add that Helena Bonham-Carter is also spot-on as the haughty yet practical queen consort. Other more minor roles are effectively played (e.g., Winston Churchill, George V). The entire movie is a perfect blend of history, personal and familial drama, with broader themes of perseverance and overcoming adversity which give it a timeless application.

Lastly, in this movie's case, the "R" rating is for "Ridiculous." The only potentially offensive material is some over-the-top language (including the F-word) which plays a part in one scene, and is clearly used for comic purpose and with great effect. I unhesitatingly took my 13 year old daughter and (depending on the child) might be okay for even younger ones. Don't let that stop you from seeing this gem.

Superb drama of courage and humanity

[Colinrocks · 10/10 · 6 November 2010]

I think I must have seen a different film from the previous two reviewers at Leeds on Friday. It is now two days ago and I am still feeling overwhelmed by what I saw. It is a very touching, and quite inspiring story about a man, psychologically scarred, and trapped in a situation from which he could have no escape and facing it with immense courage. It so happens that he was royal, and that was a large part of his problem- but the film isn't so much about royalty as a human story. The film conveyed very powerfully in the opening scene, the enormity of what was required of him. As the film develops, the complexities of the character are revealed. The acting is superb, especially from the three principals, and the development of the troubled and sparky relationship at the heart of the film is a joy to watch. The film is very funny and the characters have warmth and humanity. The film is well paced, and carries you along to the emotional climax, so that, even though I knew the story, it had me holding my breath. If you don't need lots of action or special effects in your film, and enjoy seeing top-notch actors at the very peak of their craft, this will be for you. You might also, as I did, gain a bit more insight into the human drama behind a significant, but relatively unexplored period of British history.

If CF and GR both win Oscars they will be more than worthy winners and if they don't then "best" has no meaning.

One further thought- anyone who thinks that this film is unsuitable for teenage viewers needs to have a long hard look at their priorities. It could prove inspirational to anyone with communication difficulties.

A wonderful movie!

[kepc · 10/10 · 9 October 2010]

No spoilers here. I would like to let everyone know that this is an excellent film. I enjoyed it this week at the Mill Valley Film Festival in Marin County, CA. Given the outstanding cast and director, and my fascination with historical figures, I had high hopes for this film, though mixed with a certain resignation that I might be disappointed. There was no way I could have imagined how wonderful "The King's Speech" would be. There was abundant humor without the film ever becoming a comedy, drama without dreariness, and many deeply moving moments. I can't praise this film enough. It boosted my appreciation of the human capacity to become our best selves, and rise to meet even the most daunting challenges.

Well, now we know where all the Oscars are going. Or should...

[hughman55 · 10/10 · 2 January 2011]

I could write for hours about this film. I only just heard about it last night at a New Year's Eve party. Saw it today. To use the vernacular, OMG. Director Tom Hooper has a masterpiece on his hands. Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi, and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill, all turn in excellent performances. Not to forget Guy Pearce as King Edward who abdicated his throne for an American divorcée. David Seidler's script is brilliant. The story is laid out cleverly. The pace and rhythm are PERFECT.

I think this is one of the best films ever made. It will tear at your guts. And that is where Collin Firth comes in. Mr. Firth gives one of the most poignant and affective performances ever by a male movie star. Where, inside himself, an actor goes for a performance like this, is beyond my comprehension.

In the movie, "A Single Man", Colin Firth served notice that he was an actor of depth and subtlety, the surface of which he had only just begun to scratch. Now, he's more than scratched that surface. He's gouged a chasm through it. He plays the tormented, soon to be King of England, George VI, and does so in a way that very early in the movie buries his hooks in you and doesn't let go. I can not ever recall, while watching a film, having to choke back tears for over an hour and a half. The suffering portrayed by Firth as George VI is subtle at times. In your face at others. But painfully present always. When Firth bellows, "I am a King" I nearly lost it in a very quiet, and stunned, theater. If you've already seen this film you know what this refers to.

As an American I find the concept of a monarchy bewildering. Why is one person more privileged than another just because of the womb he or she sprang from? That being said, I do find the stories of those trapped in this anachronistic time warp fascinating at times. This would be one of those times. This film is the intersection of great personal pain, international upheaval, and a family that is ceremoniously dysfunctional to it's core.

Above this chaos, confusion, and unrest, rises a weak shell of a man to greatness. Colin Firth is the vessel for that transformation and if he doesn't win an Oscar for this performance it will tarnish the Academy forever in my humble opinion. This is the kind of performance, and film overall, that you leave thinking to yourself that you've just seen the greatest movie ever. Maybe later you'll see another brilliant film and think that "this one" is the best ever, but for now "The King's Speech" has no equal.

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush Are a Pleasure to Watch

[bob-790-196018 · 7/10 · 21 February 2011]

While the very idea of a stammering king is inherently interesting, as is the historical context of a gathering world war, the real substance of this movie is the interplay between two fine actors, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. Firth gives a particularly rich performance, bringing his character to life with depth and subtlety.

As an American, I find the notion of monarchy in the Twenty-First Century to be at best puzzling. But the movie helps us understand the importance of the king as a unifying symbol of Britain during a time when the very existence of Britain was under threat. So even we Yanks can see how crucial it is that the king be able to address the people with reasonable fluency.

A very enjoyable film.

Good movie, with a great cast

[haakondrang · 8/10 · 4 June 2015]

This is a beautiful and well made movie. The director has made the story of King George VI into something more interesting than just "the story". The movie starts with George as the duke of York, and follows his way to become king, and his difficulties with the stammering. George finds a therapist, Lionel Logue, who will become more than just a therapist. A true friend.

The movie is really well made. The music, the cinematography, the cast, the script etc. is good, and as it should be.

Colin Firth in the role as King George VI is really good, and he is completely convincing as a man who struggles with different things, such as his temperament, memories from his childhood and of course: his stammering. The story of King George, and how he defeats this problem with stammering is a touching story to follow. Overall, a good movie, but not the best. 8/10.

Boring Achievement Story of Boring Aristocracy

[CriticsTR · 3/10 · 23 July 2022]

Why does the king's speech become "a matter of life and death", when the king himself said that he could not make a decision about anything, he could not determine any law? How do people become so sure that they will win the war against Nazis if the king makes that boring speech? How can this film equate the Nazis and the Soviets? In the war against the Nazis, the Soviets lost 30 million of their people. Three stars for good performances of all cast - except Timothy Spall who looks like a Churchill caricature.

One word; Brilliant

[jkeggen · 10/10 · 14 December 2010]

The title of the film wouldn't necessarily have caught my eye, but am I glad I went to see this film, courtesy of an advance screening. It was bound to be good with Colin Firth playing the Duke of York who went on to become George VI, and he didn't let the audience down. Let's not forget also the other main characters, Lionel Logue played by Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter as the Duchess of York, Michael Gambon as George V and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill - all absolutely perfect for their respective roles. Whilst the dates in the film might not have been completely accurate, the film tells the story perfectly, sometimes humorously and and certainly sensitively, and I would like to think in such a way that doesn't cause any embarrassment to any surviving members of our Royal Family or indeed people who suffer from what must be a very difficult condition to live with. Certainly a film I would recommend to my friends.

Just one word- "beautiful"

[mahaswetasunyub · 9/10 · 20 June 2019]

Moving, captivating, emotional. A beautiful tale of how friendship and faith can make you move mountains. Can't even begin to review the acting since each of the actors were too good to be reviewed.

Not entirely speechless

[CineCritic2517 · 7/10 · 8 February 2011]

While his ascension to the throne of England seems imminent, future King George VI struggles with a speech impediment that won't allow him to speak in public without a fair amount of embarrassment to himself and his audience. He seeks and finds help by approaching speech therapist Lionel Logue who offers him his services. This Oscar nominee showcases some very entertaining and witty writing accompanied by excellent cinematography and acting. I don't however think the film is all that it is made out to be with the exceptionally high score it currently presents itself with on this website and roaring Oscar buzz. The story itself is quite thin and there aren't many memorable scenes that warrant a second viewing any time soon.

74/100

Heartfelt, moving drama

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 3 September 2011]

The true-life story of one man's journey to overcome a speech impediment, with the added twist that that man just so happens to be the king of England. This is carefully crafted, emphasising characterisation over drama or action and with a wonderful and engaging script (incredible to believe that David Seidler's prior screenplay to this was the David Carradine vehicle KUNG FU KILLER).

Colin Firth gives a pitch perfect performance as King George VI, a man beset by worries both internal and external. One thing I liked about the script is that it never seeks to paint the king as a man above all others: instead he's completely human, often displaying petulance, temper tantrums and arrogance as well as the courage and bravery we expect from the story. Geoffrey Rush steals every one of his scenes as the impish speech therapist, and he also gives the best I've seen from him. So check out THE KING'S SPEECH, a film that keeps on giving and giving; you won't be disappointed.

the king speech

[auuwws · 8/10 · 11 December 2020]

Excellent film The performance of the actors in the film was excellent. The story of the film was interesting. The atmosphere of the film was excellent. I felt some boredom watching the film, but it did not affect the level of the film despite the presence of some historical errors that it did not affect my experience with the film

Solid But Unspectacular

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 20 January 2011]

In opening, I must say that everyone involved with this production did a solid job. They all did their duty. In that sense, the movie resembles the British royal family as a whole - they're not especially important really, but they perform a useful function that fate has assigned them to. The trappings of monarchy aside, I suspect that their lives are probably rather dull and largely scripted. That brief description of royal life and duty sums this movie up perfectly.

There's really nothing wrong with it. Colin Firth was believable as King George VI, Helena Bonham Carter good (if, I thought, a little too irreverent in places) as his wife Elizabeth. George was the second son of King George V. As such, he was never supposed to be King, never trained to be King and afflicted with a terrible speech impediment that probably made him relieved to know that he would never be King, with all the public duties entailed with the office. Then - the abdication crisis, as his brother King Edward VIII gives up the throne for the woman he loves (the American divorcée Wallis Simpson) leaving poor Bertie (as George was known) to take up the reins and the responsibility of rallying the nation as Britain and its Empire slide toward inevitable war with Nazi Germany.

The movie begins with Bertie's disastrous and almost incoherent 1925 speech at Wembley and ends with a still hesitant but nevertheless eloquent speech declaring war on Germany in 1939. In between, the movie essentially deals with the speech therapy that Bertie received from the Australian Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush.) It isn't really all that interesting to witness almost two hours of speech therapy, but one has to feel a certain sympathy for Bertie as he faces this situation that to him must have been terrifying as well as a certain admiration for him - unlike his brother, he sucked it up and overcame his weaknesses and limitations and did his duty. Firth did an admirable job of drawing us into the King's emotional torment as he takes on this role he never wanted. So, while the movie as a whole isn't exciting or - at times at least - even particularly interesting, it's solid. I personally don't think it rises beyond that, and I think it's somewhat over-rated. But it's solid. Just like the royals themselves, it does its duty, even if it does so unspectacularly.

not worth the praise

[krzysiektom · 4/10 · 1 February 2011]

I really do not get the Hollywood's weakness for everything royal and British. It is enough for a British actor to play an English queen or king to get nominated, it seems. For example Helena Bonham getting nominated here is just ridiculous, she is good of course but nothing deserving an Oscar nomination. The film is well made and acted, but is basically a lie, sentimental and simplistic one at that. King Edward VIII, the older brother here, was a known supporter of Hitler but the film does not mention it here. King George's speech impediment was not really so important, because the king's role was pretty limited at the time and his importance was little compared to prime minister's Churchill in preparing the country for war. Big deal that he was stuttering, he could have been mute and it still would not have changed much! The film also conveniently ignores that king George was NOT Churchill's supporter and thought his politics of clearly opposing Hitler was incorrect, instead he showed strong support for Neville Chamberlain's politics of appeasement, even after Chamberlain had cynically approved in Munich Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia! If it were up to king George, Churchill would not have been appointed PM, Halifax would have. And Halifax was just another Chamberlain. So the film is a sentimental lie for naive, sentimental public.

A Charming Film

[Theo Robertson · 8/10 · 8 January 2011]

By a strange irony the film I'd watched at the cinema the previous night was 127 HOURS by Britain's most innovative director Danny Boyle whilst this evening's offering was THE KING'S SPEECH which had made in Britain plastered all over it . Boyle's film fails to a large extent because it's rather anti-cinematic where as Tom Hooper's film should fail down to the rather passé seen it all before feel that tries a little too hard tro appeal to prize ceremonies . If I was disappointed by Boyle's latest offering I was pleasantly surprised by THE KINGS SPEECH

The movie suffer somewhat from the hype surrounding it but that's not to take away from the fact that it's one of the most charming films I've seen in a long time . Watching a movie at a cinema has both pros and cons . It's an expensive night out and there's the danger of being surrounded by philistines and peasants of the most bourgeoisie kind but one good thing is to guage public opinion as to the merits of a movie and listening to the crowd react to the pithy dialogue with delayed laughter reminded me how an audience reacts to the best works of Wood Allen or Mike Leigh . This is very much comedy of manners developed to its best potential

Colin Firth is an actor I first took notice of in TUMBLEDOWN . He's best at playing manly roles but until now he's been best known for playing Mr Darcy in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE but is never less than superb as Prince Albert/King George and this is a career defining performance which will almost certainly earn him an Oscar .. Geoffry Rush as Lionel Logue as a maverick speech therapist who has a slightly dark secret is equally superb and will earn an Oscar nod at least . With this type of movie a film largely succeeds or fails due to the supporting cast since the two are in danger of dominating the film to the detriment of everyone else but Bonham Carter , Jacobi , Pearce and Gambon make an impact with their small roles as does as unrecognisable Anthony Andrews

Realising that the main story of the Prince's stammer isn't enough to carry a 2 hour film the screenplay by David Seidler has a couple of subplots involving King Edward's abdication and the ascent of Hitler in Germany and director Hooper develops the subplots very well . If there's a problem with the film it does have " Award winning movie " written all over it but as I said it's so charming you quickly forget that . If it sweeps the award ceremonies it'll probably be down to the merit and even this republican film goer was swept up in the story . In fact it made me proud to be British

Five Reasons to see King's Speech

[mgorman-6 · 8/10 · 27 December 2010]

1. The actors - Firth compels attention and sympathy, Rush is irresistible, and Bonham Carter brightens every scene she enters. The supporting roles are studded with familiar British actors (Jacoby, Ely, etc.) being, and celebrating being, very British. 2. The visual experience - Scene after scene that is arresting. Shades of gray predominate. I particularly liked the royal car being led through foggy London streets. 3. The story - Revisits familiar dramatic ground, the lead up to the war and the English royal family, but finds new life by focusing on the future King's struggle to live up to the role thrust upon him 4. The writing - Provides a string of satisfying payoffs on the way to a solid dramatic conclusion, with witty repartee between the principles that is amusing but never overdone 5. The period - Costumes,settings, radio paraphernalia, autos, streets, palaces, royal hobby horses, ordinary British homes, everything fits together to conjure the time, which is really starting to feel distant.

Mission accomplished: maximum number of Oscar acquired

[basrutten · 6/10 · 22 April 2011]

Two years after the decent but unremarkable "Slumdog Millionaire" got an Oscar, and a year after the even more unremarkable "The Hurt Locker" also undeservedly received the coveted statue, the Academy performs an even worse atrocity by denying The Social Network and Black Swan (among others) the best picture award, instead opting for "The King's Speech", a movie so obviously engineered to win a lot of Oscars that it hurts.

Of course, this is not a BAD movie. It is just that every aspect of it is directed at raking in as much Oscars as possible: an "inspiring" story, based on "a true story", about an underdog who overcomes his difficulties and comes out triumphantly, all set to appropriate and beautiful classical music.

Granted, it's an expertly made movie. The acting by Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter is first-class and the cinematography is beautiful.

Unfortunately, a story about a man overcoming his stuttering is about as boring as it sounds, and the totally risk-less direction doesn't help things either. Historical accuracy is thrown out of the window in favor of creating sympathy and the result is a movie that lacks any kind of real drama or conflict. Instead it just moves along a predictable course in which the "protagonist" overcomes predicable problems (childhood trauma, anyone) and achieves a predictable triumph.

Along the way, it IS good for an occasional smile, a cozy warm feeling, and a little bit of historical insight. But inspiring cinema, this is not. Rather, it's an over-engineered piece aimed at pleasing the crowd in general and the academy in particular. It's not surprising it works, but it doesn't make the movie by itself any good

Self-discovery, friendship, duty, and the power of perseverance

[mattlx · 10/10 · 24 July 2023]

"The King's Speech" follows Prince Albert (Colin Firth), who unexpectedly becomes King George VI of England. With the support and guidance of speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), Albert embarks on a journey to overcome his speech impediment and address the nation with confidence during the tumultuous years leading up to World War II.

The performances in "The King's Speech" are nothing short of extraordinary. Colin Firth delivers an Oscar-winning performance as King George VI, portraying the monarch's vulnerability, determination, and emotional journey with remarkable depth and sensitivity. His portrayal humanizes the royal figure, making him relatable and sympathetic to audiences.

Geoffrey Rush is equally brilliant as Lionel Logue, the unorthodox speech therapist. His chemistry with Colin Firth is a highlight of the film, as their evolving friendship and mutual respect become a driving force in the story.

"The King's Speech" is a moving and beautifully crafted historical drama that showcases outstanding performances and heartfelt storytelling. With its portrayal of a royal figure grappling with personal challenges and finding his voice, the film resonates with audiences on an emotional level.

More often than not, the success of a movie can be attributed to its director. This time, it's the actors.

[TheUnknown837-1 · 7/10 · 3 April 2012]

More often than not, the success of a motion picture can be attributed to the discipline and talents of the director. Obviously, there are many other people involved--hundreds, often--but the man yelling "Cut!" and "Action!" will often, with a good script at hand, also judge whether his project will be a success or a failure. That is the case most of the time, but not with "The King's Speech." Rather, the directing, by Tom Hooper, is rather pretentiously artsy, like something from a second-rate avant-garde movie. So he can not, as far as I am concerned, be awarded for the overall success of this movie (I'm talking about aesthetics, not the Oscars) but rather, the actors.

The people in "The King's Speech" make good acting look easy. They include Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Michael Gambon. Firth tackles the tricky role of playing King George VI, a monarch who had a famous speech handicap: he could hardly utter a sentence without stuttering. I'm not an authority on British history, but as the movie tells the story, it is shortly before Britain's involvement in World War II, and Mr. Firth is near the time where he must speak to the entire world. To help him, his wife (Miss Bonham-Carter) enlists the assistance of a speech therapist (Mr. Rush), who forms a friendship with the king.

Some might be affronted by "The King's Speech"'s apparent lack of concern about other historical matters at the time its story takes place. Chiefly, how King George VI appears to have been more concerned about eradicating his stutter as opposed to governing a country and leading them into war against Adolf Hitler. This is the overall concern of the picture; it might as well have been a fictional story about a fictional man just wanting to speak better. That may also be one of its weaknesses, and why it did not involve me on a broader scale.

But involved I was in the dynamic between Mr. Firth as the king and Mr. Rush as the therapist who helps him. They have such strong chemistry together and play off their costar's personalities so efficiently. Mr. Firth, in particular, is wonderful in the movie. It is difficult to effectively play a person with a handicap. Many times, an actor will just succumb into ham-acting or play-acting. Not here. Mr. Firth, with his dialogue-driven character, convinced me in every shot that he was a human being with a speaking problem. Geoffrey Rush plays the wise but eccentric doctor without being ostentatious or smarmy. Miss Bonham-Carter, most of the time, is effective. She just occasionally slides into her bizarre alter-ego which has undoubtedly been influence of her involvement in so many Tim Burton movies. But again, that only shows here and there. Most of the time, she's very good as well.

But directing in any movie, good or bad, cannot be ignored. Therefore, I must elaborate my severe reservations about Tom Hooper's handling of the material in "The King's Speech." It's a nightmare: too pretentious, too playful, too kidding, too clumsy. It's almost as if Mr. Hooper had, for the first time in his life, stumbled upon the variety of lenses and focus tricks that can be done with a motion picture camera and just let the creative monster in him come out without a leash on. There is nothing wrong with being inventive or clever, as long as there is a mind behind it. Mr. Hooper seems far less interested in his story than he does in tinkering around with lenses and oddball misc-en-scene.

The first appointment scene between Mr. Firth and Mr. Rush is really distracting, as the director stages his cameras so that the actors on the opposite side of the screen that we expect. Example: Mr. Firth is in the left side of the screen, looking to the edge of the lenses, which is just two inches from his nose. Vice versa for Mr. Rush. If this was intended to give a sense of awkwardness, it only worked in terms of how uncomfortable it made me feel watching the scene.

There are countless other distracting shots. Tracking shots upon a wall and back meant to convey a long stretch of time. Weird angles just showing off speaking equipment. Fish-eye shots of large crowds. All so pretentiously artsy, as opposed to creative in a controlled manner, that it really did wear me thin after a while. Had a more disciplined director been given the job, "The King's Speech" might have excelled from a perfectly-decent movie to an overall great one. Then again, many people would say that it has and in today's world, majority rules. So, what do I know?

needed more

[Aldri7 · 6/10 · 6 February 2011]

The King's Speech was nicely photographed and gave us some insights into the period leading up to World War II. But the story was too narrowly focused on its principle subject and could have really benefited from a sub plot or diversion to give us some contrast and more historical insight. So yeah, it was a bit boring. Predicably the movie begins with a badly given speech and ends with (oh sorry, I guess this might be a spoiler here) a well given speech. Is this a spoiler? Ha! Anyone could have predicted that, so I don't see how it could be! But anyway, worth a look but pretty much what you get is what you would expect to get. Don't look for any surprises.