The King's Speech
Jan. 29th, 2011 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reviewthatMovie: The King's Speech
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter
Opened Nationwide: December 10, 2010
Stars: 4
This is the story of George VI (king of England from December 11, 1936 to February 6, 1952) and the process in which he began to really learn how to overcome a stutter. After he becomes frustrated with the doctors who have been no help to him, Elizabeth (the mother of the present Queen Elizabeth) goes to seek the help of Lionel Logue (a speech therapist from Australia). There is resistance from the prince in the beginning, and many unnecessary rules put on Logue in the manner in which he is allowed to help the prince. But along the way, the two men become friends, and there is a great deal of success in helping to relieve the stutter.
I thought that I might really enjoy this flick (I love historical movies, I love the time period that this film takes place in, and I've enjoyed Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush in everything that I've ever seen them in), and I was pleasantly surprised by just how much I really did like it.
This was by no means a short film (sure, it's not Return of the King in length, but it takes it's time in telling the story that it means to tell), but I was so entertained by it that the time went by rather quickly. The acting was very well done by all three of the leads, and the writing was superb (there are quite a few funny moments, a lot more than I expected for there to be, and everyone in the theater when I saw it laughed quite a bit).
I was pleased to see that there was an appearance by Churchill (who is my one giant image of England during WWII), but the actor that they chose to play him ... anytime that I see him in anything now, my brain goes directly to "WORMTAIL!! WORMTAIL!! WORMTAIL!!" But then, the same could be said for the actor they chose for George V (since my brain went directly to Dumbledore). But neither of those instances really jarred me out of the film. The only one that did was having Guy Pearce as Edward VIII. Not only did I not believe Pearce was old enough to be Firth's older brother since he seems to be a bit too young, I also do not care for his acting style. But thankfully, he was only in the film for a short period.
There is a bit of cursing in the film (more than you might expect), but unlike with Gulliver's Travels, there was a purpose to it. Logue wanted to prove to the prince that he could speak without a stutter, and that he seemed to be able to when he was upset. And yes, the scene was very humorous ... far more humorous than the scene in Gulliver, because the writers of this film seem to know what they were doing.
All in all, this is worth the price of admission (as well as the price of the DVD when it comes out).
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter
Opened Nationwide: December 10, 2010
Stars: 4
This is the story of George VI (king of England from December 11, 1936 to February 6, 1952) and the process in which he began to really learn how to overcome a stutter. After he becomes frustrated with the doctors who have been no help to him, Elizabeth (the mother of the present Queen Elizabeth) goes to seek the help of Lionel Logue (a speech therapist from Australia). There is resistance from the prince in the beginning, and many unnecessary rules put on Logue in the manner in which he is allowed to help the prince. But along the way, the two men become friends, and there is a great deal of success in helping to relieve the stutter.
I thought that I might really enjoy this flick (I love historical movies, I love the time period that this film takes place in, and I've enjoyed Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush in everything that I've ever seen them in), and I was pleasantly surprised by just how much I really did like it.
This was by no means a short film (sure, it's not Return of the King in length, but it takes it's time in telling the story that it means to tell), but I was so entertained by it that the time went by rather quickly. The acting was very well done by all three of the leads, and the writing was superb (there are quite a few funny moments, a lot more than I expected for there to be, and everyone in the theater when I saw it laughed quite a bit).
I was pleased to see that there was an appearance by Churchill (who is my one giant image of England during WWII), but the actor that they chose to play him ... anytime that I see him in anything now, my brain goes directly to "WORMTAIL!! WORMTAIL!! WORMTAIL!!" But then, the same could be said for the actor they chose for George V (since my brain went directly to Dumbledore). But neither of those instances really jarred me out of the film. The only one that did was having Guy Pearce as Edward VIII. Not only did I not believe Pearce was old enough to be Firth's older brother since he seems to be a bit too young, I also do not care for his acting style. But thankfully, he was only in the film for a short period.
There is a bit of cursing in the film (more than you might expect), but unlike with Gulliver's Travels, there was a purpose to it. Logue wanted to prove to the prince that he could speak without a stutter, and that he seemed to be able to when he was upset. And yes, the scene was very humorous ... far more humorous than the scene in Gulliver, because the writers of this film seem to know what they were doing.
All in all, this is worth the price of admission (as well as the price of the DVD when it comes out).
