Almost every time I've discussed The King's Speech with my fellow film geeks or read reviews for the movie, I've been hearing a particular term spoken left and right... "Oscar Bait." What is Oscar Bait? It is a movie that is released in the last two months of the year with recognizable casts, featuring relevant subject matter with the hopes of catching the Academy's attention. The King's Speech is just that kind of movie. Depending on who you are, its either a movie you'll love... or love to hate. Elitist remarks aside, how does The King's Speech fair out?The movie is based on the true story of King George VI, and how he overcame his speech impediment before taking the throne. It begins in the year 1925, as Prince Albert (played by Colin Firth) has difficulty making a speech do to a stutter he had since childhood. After his regular doctors and physicians have no luck fixing his speech issues, his wife, Princess Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out a speech therapist named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). While reluctant at first, Albert continues to see Logue while working on his speech as well as sorting through some of the Prince's past issues.
Okay... a cast of recognizable stars, a drama based on a true story, and released in December... 
The King's Speech might as well be the blueprint for Oscar bait. With 12 nominations in its grasp already plus buzz about it being a serious contender for Best Feature... you can't escape what it is. And what it is... is pretty dang good. I admit that what The King's Speech represents makes it an easy target for criticism, but that shouldn't really affect one's enjoyment of a solid movie.
The King's Speech might as well be the blueprint for Oscar bait. With 12 nominations in its grasp already plus buzz about it being a serious contender for Best Feature... you can't escape what it is. And what it is... is pretty dang good. I admit that what The King's Speech represents makes it an easy target for criticism, but that shouldn't really affect one's enjoyment of a solid movie. One thing that I've been finding interesting about this movie is the buzz that Colin Firth has been receiving. Even before Oscar nods were announced, Firth was the actor to beat. He was nominated last year but didn't win, he has good ties with the academy, and he stars in an actor-driven movie. Ironically, what I didn't hear too much of... how good his performance actually is. So yeah, Colin Firth is good in this movie... REALLY good actually. Like, even Oscar-worthy good. Yes, Firth will win the award for Best Actor this year, and you know what... he earned it. Say what you will about Firth, hypotheses of Academy politics or conspiracy theories or whatever but the fact of the matter is this, a solid performance is going to win an Oscar... that works for me.
As great as a job Firth does, I think Geoffrey Rush steals the show in many ways. 
He plays the eccentric actor-turned speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Rush looks like he was having a fun time playing the character, and everytime he's on screen, its hard not enjoy his quirkiness. I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter too. She wasn't given as much screentime as Firth or Rush but she does a good job with role. Plus, Its nice to see her playing a character in a movie not directed by Tim Burton. You'll see right away that this is an actor-driven movie, and if the performances failed to deliver, the whole film would crumble. Fortunately, everyone gives a great performance and makes the movie entertaining.
He plays the eccentric actor-turned speech therapist, Lionel Logue. Rush looks like he was having a fun time playing the character, and everytime he's on screen, its hard not enjoy his quirkiness. I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter too. She wasn't given as much screentime as Firth or Rush but she does a good job with role. Plus, Its nice to see her playing a character in a movie not directed by Tim Burton. You'll see right away that this is an actor-driven movie, and if the performances failed to deliver, the whole film would crumble. Fortunately, everyone gives a great performance and makes the movie entertaining. The director, Tom Hooper, finds himself in something of an interesting spot. See, The King's Speech is primarily a actors movie. While the directorial efforts are important, there's only so much a director can do with a movie like this. And make no mistake, Hooper is clearly a skilled director. The movie looks great, the cinematography is excellent, the acting is consistent, the costumes look nice, and the film is well put together. I guess it just feels kind of by-the-numbers. Acting aside, there was nothing that was particularly unique, innovative, or memorable. Basic, though solid, filmmaking, nothing wrong with that I suppose but I wouldn't expect it to be a timeless classic or anything like that.
The story is about on par with the direction. 
Its a historical piece, so you can't fudge the script too much or else you risk historical authenticity. And while it has enjoyable characters and an interesting concept, its incredibly predictable. No big twists, surprises, or anything I didn't see coming. Its not bad per se, but like the direction, its so by-the-numbers that it'll entertain but won't amount to something anyone will be talking about years from now. It could be worse I suppose.
Its a historical piece, so you can't fudge the script too much or else you risk historical authenticity. And while it has enjoyable characters and an interesting concept, its incredibly predictable. No big twists, surprises, or anything I didn't see coming. Its not bad per se, but like the direction, its so by-the-numbers that it'll entertain but won't amount to something anyone will be talking about years from now. It could be worse I suppose. Overall, The King's Speech was quite good! See it for the great performances, see it for the historical relevance, or just see it to be entertained. Not one of my favorites of the year, but still good enough to watched.
My Score: 4 out of 5!
No comments:
Post a Comment