The King's Speech is one of those movies that I've seen a million times. You have the main character who has a problem that the public obviously wants them to get under control. You have the first supporting character who's the teacher and can help the main character overcome his problem. Then you have the other supporting character that is either engaged to or just always with the main character to help calm any heavy emotions the main character has. Just add names to those characters and you'll pretty much have you're whole movie right there. Now I've given you the basics, so let me get to the specifics.
The funny thing is that it's based off a true story. That's right, the story of how King George VI (Colin Firth) was unable to speak until he overcame that, thanks to a man named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Firth and Rush both give great performances mainly thanks to their charisma provided on screen. Firth deserved the winning Oscar he won for this film, though not because of this role he played but because of the career he's had over the years. Same for Rush in scoring a nomination as well. Sure he plays that same type of character who's always likable and has clever dialogue, but Rush did this one perfect compared to most movies I've seen. Helena Bonham Carter who plays the wife of King George VI was also good in the film as well, but in my opinion didn't live up to Firth and Rush.
I can't really thin of much else to talk about this film specifically except the smooth dialogue and the music. David Seidler who wrote this film doesn't really develop the characters as well as I had hoped but the dialogue has its moments. Entertaining, but not engaging. Another highlight to the film is the score by Alexandre Desplat, my favorite aspect of the film. His part of the movie is what I find to be the only thing that draws me to the film. It defines the feel of the movie so perfectly that I got to know the characters through the music more than David Seidler's screenplay itself. It's that good that I wouldn't have minded at all if it beat The Social Network for Best Score at the Oscars. Desplat's overdue anyways.
Now to think a film like this could win Best Picture nowadays when this same type of film has been for decades, really shows that the Academy goes for the most traditional films instead of new ones like Inception or The Social Network. I could sort of understand it's Best Picture win knowing it is based off a true story and it being a period piece. It winning Best Director was a MAJOR shock to me because I can't think of any reason at all why this film deserved the win. In all fairness, I do respect Tom Hooper for all the films he's made, even this one. I just didn't see how this film had better direction than once again, Inception or The Social Network. This film seemed to just stretch out in a straight line and doesn't provide any curves or criss-crosses. I saw nothing new and no creativeness put into it. It was a well-made film no doubt, but compared to other films that year it had no unique direction to earn the top spot for the Academy of Motion Picture ARTS and SCIENCES. Knowing Harvey Weinstein was one of the producers of this film, I will always think everyday that he bribed the Academy to vote for this film.
Overall, my disappointment in its Oscar wins doesn't mean at all that I think the film is bad. It really isn't at all actually. It may have gone that same route that most movies do with the story it had, but the people behind it did it right. The actors showed realism with the parts they played. It featured terrific written dialogue. It did have a great production that was well designed. The music was the best part of the film. I thought this film was great, just not deserving for most of the Oscars it received.
***1/2
No comments:
Post a Comment