The King's Speech Reviews
The king's speech is a well acted dialogue-type character study, Colin Firth shines as king George and has a compelling chemistry with Geoffrey rush character is Lionel Logue
If I have to spell it out, there are five major Academy Awards handed out each year: (1) Best Picture; (2) Best Director; (3) Best Actor; (4) Best Actress; and (5) either Best Original or Adapted Screenplay. The King's Speech won 4 of those awards, which in itself is no easy feat. Almost nobody would complain at The King's Speech having won Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay. Firth's and Rush's performances were sublime, and Helena Bonham Carter was a strong supporting actress. Given that this film arguably deserved to win 3 of the five major Academy Awards hands down, it just makes sense to me that it also deserved to win Best Picture.
Why all the complaints then? Most critics of this movie will say because The King's Speech is "Oscar bait," but I don't buy that reasoning. Arguably, every good movie is, in some sense, an Oscar bait, as every good director will try to find new ways to make creative shots and build a storyline that will ultimately be successful. By this standard, the movies There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men are also Oscar baits, but hardly anyone complains about them. It seems ridiculous to me to criticize a movie because it was done well. At its core, the work of a director is to be a visual storyteller; accolades like the Academy Awards are simply given to those who succeed at it.
I have my own reservations for The King's Speech. First, the scene where Logue and Bertie start swearing almost uncontrollably seems a bit out of place, as if it was inserted into the movie just for comedic purposes. Second, the scenes where Bertie tells Logue about his hard childhood and where Logue's wife walks into the apartment when the royal family is there seem like cliché feel-good moments. Still, these are merely minor detractions from what I consider to be an otherwise strong film. I've always loved the speech scene with Beethoven's music playing in the background (I adore the whole soundtrack), and, for the most part, I also actually like the cinematography. In whole, the storytelling is effective and is supported by a great cast who gave it their all. Hate me for it, but I can see why The King's Speech won Best Picture.
It is all done on a very shallow scale, a video made to satisfy and respond to the orders of those who asked or even to follow the course of the 2000s, which generated a line of biblio-cinematographic achievements on the reigns, especially the English royalty.
Even the performances follow the same rhythm, Colin Firth is fine, but we know of his ability, honestly here, it was not the time to receive his Oscar as best actor.
Geoffrey Rush goes further, which is the great relief of the film, his good character, can follow a rhythm of his own, but nothing more than something great, and we know that Rush is an excellent actor.
Perhaps this strangeness of being only good is justified by the direction of Tom Hooper, who is more accustomed to television accomplishments, which we can check in "King ...", not only because it is a closed script in internal locations, with a lighting Very clear and at the same time very artificial, but mainly for punctuating plans and against plans, a simple work almost lazy that the TV uses to simplify to the maximum and make clear what is talked about and with whom one talks, not opening spaces for Reflections and possibilities.
Apart from this the scenarios, especially where we have the presence of the character "Lionel Logue", is a clear reference of old age and decomposition that conversely give beauty to the film, however, Hopper (specifically close to the characters seated), abuses in wanting to present Such scenarios with cutouts that even work, but that used too much, tiring and only show that they are there like figurative form of a little explored world.