Reply With QuoteI was afraid of this becoming some proverbial british 'stiff upper lip' drama, but apparantly I'm wrong.
I went to see it last week, but unfortunately the cinema website lied.
Saw Tron instead :s
Surprised not to see a topic on this superb film. Do we only talk about the crappy films here? :)
Superb performances all around (except for the minor character of Winston Churchill, who felt like a caricature).
Very interesting to hear the real king's speech after seeing the movie. Firth nailed it.
I was afraid of this becoming some proverbial british 'stiff upper lip' drama, but apparantly I'm wrong.
I went to see it last week, but unfortunately the cinema website lied.
Saw Tron instead :s
Good call on listening to the real king's speech. I'll admit that Firth had to win me over, and it took a good 20-30 minutes. I thought he was overdoing it at first, but it didn't take long before he had me completely. Past that point, the whole film, awkwardness and all, was just delightful.
"I was well reviewed."
Yes, this is definitely worth watching. It's not very over the top or flashy, but well paced and well acted (especially Firth).
I thought Geoffrey Rush stood out more than Colin Firth. He had me from his first line.
Great film - I saw it with my son it was a perfect balance of drama, tension, and humor. I know it's typical award bait trope to pick something older and English, but this one seems awfully deserving of praise.
I didn't get too caught up in the plot, but great acting. I liked it pretty much out of watching Firth and Rush play off each other. A well done period piece is also always neat. Thanks for the link to the actual speech!
The speech works much better with that Beethoven piece accompanying it, like they did it in the movie. The real George should have done it that way.
-Tom
I loved it, but it's total award bait. You play someone with some sort of handicap + English (which classes up the joint) + WWII (usually Holocaust, but y'know, rising to the challenge and all) = Oscar!!!Originally Posted by Dan_Theman
Again, I loved the movie, but as we were standing up and putting on our coats, I asked my wife, "Who was making great speeches for England during WWII? Because I kind of remember, 'We will fight them on the beaches...' not whatever the King said."
Plus it has half the cast of Harry Potter, but that's not saying much these days because half of all English actors have now been in a Harry Potter movie.
How else are you going to do Winston Churchill? The dude looked and talked funny. Besides, that was the great Timothy Spall!
-Tom
We saw this last week. I liked it enough, but it does not compare favorably to The Madness of King George (or, depending where you saw it, The Madness of George III). It's the same basic plot - An English King named George has a very serious medical problem, and if a doctor can't get inside his royal head and fix the problem, the realm is in jeopardy! I liked Ian Holm's doctor better than Geoffrey Rush's "doctor", and the stakes were higher in the first movie. King goes absolutely crazy and starts sexually assaulting the chambermaids vs. King isn't as impressive on the mass media as his enemy Adolf Hitler. It's twice the amount of Georgeness but feels watered down by half.
That said, Helena Bonham Carter was an awesome wife and queen. Tim Spall is great as a rat-thing or a assistant soccer coach. And where we've always heard of Edward VIII's abdication of the throne for Wallis as a triumph for Romantic Love, Guy Pearce shapes it into a triumph for Cowardice and Indolence.
I liked how they showed the abdication as well, a very different spin.
Tim Spall was the only actor that didn't ring true for me. Maybe his recent stints as "bumbling toady" in Harry Potter, Enchanted, Sweeny Todd, etc. have typecast him in my mind, but he just didn't have the gravitas to play Churchill.
SPOILERS DENNY!
I kid. Great flick, saw it tonight. Wish there was a full podcast on it.
Agreed. I've grown weary of her antics lately, somehow. This is curious to me, because I have this recollection of thinking of her as sexy. Maybe I have come to attach my late annoyance with Tim Burton to her. Blaming her for Alice or somesuch. I don't know. But I've come to disregard her when I see her name and she really restored my love for her in this.
Her sigh after the speech. Man. That did it for me.
My quibble with the film is the casting of Guy Pearce. In what universe is he Colin Firth's older brother? Help me out with this.
-xtien
"Well, as a little reward you get to put some glue on these struts."
We saw this, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was interesting that they portrayed the royal family (that is, George's family) as a normal family who just happened to have the heir apparent to the throne as the father.
Interesting also that Elizabeth (that is, George's wife Elizabeth, not the daughter) was a "commoner" in the eyes of the English.
At any rate, all the performances were fabulous. Sure, it's Oscar bait, but if you're gonna have Oscar bait, let's do it with class.
(Have Rush and Firth been in anything else together other than Shakespeare in Love?)
Alright, having throughly enjoyed it, one scene felt wrong to me.
(are we in spoiler territory in this thread yet? If we weren't, we are now!)
When Logue and "Bertie" show up to practice for the coronation, it seemed like Logue was a bit too cocky. Throughout the movie he was obviously assertive and uncompromising within the domain of his lessons, and eventually that crept into his relationship with Bertie (leading to their initial "break-up"), but it still felt a little wrong that he'd be so directly pushy with the archbishop. At that point he had the king's confidence again (for the moment) and it wasn't like he needed to be so confrontational himself. That he was confident in his skills but not a prick or pushy about it outside of his role in teaching was part of what made him interesting, and it felt like that got sacrificed to have a dramatic confrontational scene.
But maybe that's exactly how hit happened! I don't know. And it's a minor bother, but hey, the movie was otherwise all around pretty great and we've got to talk about something. Anyone else have a similar reaction?
That's a fair point, Schmidt. I wonder if part of what that scene was trying to capture was that Logue was a maverick because he was Australian. Which was largely lost on me, because he sure sounded like a Brit to my Yankee ears. But I loved that Logue's "colonial" status was kind of obvious to everyone over there in Britland.
Also, it was only Derek Jacobi, so you know he's the bad guy, and therefore any feelgood movie needs to slap him down with some feelgood comeuppance.
-Tom
I guess I can feelgood about that.
Why is this movie rated R?
Much chance it would be suitable for and enjoyed by my 11 year old or maybe even my 9 year old?
They shout words like fuck, shit, and arse, to rather comedic effect, during some lessons. No violence or sex, though a few discussions of affairs and mistresses and whatnot that may just go over the kids' heads. It's hard to see the appeal for a 9 or 11 year old, but maybe I'm selling your kids short.
"FUCK FUCK FUCK SHIT ARSE DAMN FUCK SHIT FUCK FUCK-
...Tits."
I haven't seen The King's Speech yet so I'm not trying to compare, but can I join Djsc in recommending that you watch The Madness of King George. A highly under-appreciated movie I reckon.
I fully expected this movie to be sentimental claptrap - wholly predictable, with no ambition other than to be melodramatic, shameless Oscar-bait. And after seeing it, I can't really say it's not those things, but it's very enjoyable.
I've tried hard to think of what it is that separates good drama from bad melodrama. The word melodrama tends to be used a lot and I've seen it defined a number of different ways, but the definition I've heard, that I like, is:
- When emotions are high, but stakes are low
- When the movie relies too much on music, costumes, sets, etc. to convey the emotions.
I think King's Speech avoided both of these pitfalls. For starters, it establishes that the stakes are high with some skillful direction in the opening scene. Good tension through use of sound (Firth's stuttering voice echoing through the stadium) and camera angles (the wide angle lens making the microphone huge in the foreground) and choice editing (embarassed people staring at their laps). And the dialog is well-written to immediately convey the idea that Bertie's stutter isn't just his own small problem; it's actually a large problem that could affect the whole monarchy.
And for the second piece of the melodramatic definition; Tom Hooper wisely used classical music for the key scenes, and likely directed the rest of the score to do the job of keeping the pacing light. But I think the performances are largely to credit for keeping the emotions reigned in. Firth does an incredible job of underplaying his scenes. I particularly loved how he stutters more (or less) depending on the company he's in. And I thought Rush gave a performance that was just on the borderline of being over the top, which is exactly what that role needed.
You could easily imagine this movie going horribly wrong. Just imagine if someone like Robin Williams had been playing the Geoffrey Rush character. Ugh. I like the movie even more when I think of all the land mines it sidestepped.
So ultimately, I think no, The King's Speech isn't melodramatic. It's just dramatic. It's very good at what it set out to do.
Saw this today, finally, and totally loved it. My girlfriend is hosting a Colin Firth themed movie day this weekend, so this was the perfect way to start off the week. :-)
Lawrence*,
Great point about sidestepping so many landmines. Early on, I was wondering how on earth it was going to get me to sympathize with the privileged son of a monarch. Let's see, you're wealthy, entitled, famous, and set for life? Oh, you've got a stutter? Really? Boo hoo. Poor boy.
But then the script and Colin Firth sell it perfectly by showing him with his daughters. He's a father. Great move, movie. You got me.
Gah! Some things shouldn't even be said, because you can't unsay them. Now you've put that in my head.
-Tom
* Peter**
** Nick
Personally, I'm just pleased to have seen a movie that was brilliantly acted from start to finish.
But! There was glaring* mistake in the first scene with Geoffrey Rush. Here's a hint: it's in the shot that establishes that he is an Australian. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
*Well, glaring in that I only know this factoid because of a recent tour I did.
I expected all of those things and it delivered readily and bored me quite a bit. I found it mediocre and forgettable.
I thought it was great, and hearing the real speech was an interesting top-off to the movie.
Your instincts were pretty good about this scene. This article is critical of it too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...gs-Speech.html
In all after seeing this today, I must say it held my attention and I found it quite enjoyable. I never knew George VI had a speech problem , and the whole ordeal of him getting over it was very interesting to watch (even if not 100% accurately portrayed).
Posting Permissions