The King's Speech

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810124453/video/22074155)

Colin Firth is so winning Best Actor next year.

Film looks amazing too.

[Wryan]

Does look good.

[Ezee E]

I'll predict Firth/Rush both winning.

[Barty]

This looks so brilliant.

[Sven]

Perfect example of a film that looks very good despite being packaged into a horrific trailer.

[Winston*]

Looks good. I liked Hooper's The Damned United.

[[ETM]]

Perfect example of a film that looks very good despite being packaged into a horrific trailer.

This is exactly what I thought: "Even the run-of-the-mill trailer can't disguise how good this looks".

[lovejuice]

It's very good. I love it.

[Henry Gale]

Ah, I said a bit about what I felt a couple of days ago in the FDT, but didn't think to look for a thread for it. So here it is... again(!):
I actually liked The King's Speech quite a bit. It never feels like a particularly biting or revelatory portrait of anything it chooses to deal with, but it does spend quite a bit (or if not all) of its time sufficiently developing and presenting its major characters, setting, locations, politics and emotions with enough lively details to make it come through as a very thorough and properly realized world to live in for its two hours.

The scenes of just Firth and Rush speaking to one another, whether it's in a place as small and shabby as Rush's office or as grand and other-wordly as the inside of Westminster Abbey, the two of them are just so good working together and off of one another that it almost feels lopsided when the script isn't providing scenes of just the two of them interracting since it's those scenes that are the most electric. But it does seem like, aside from them two, that the film doesn't quite know how it wants to involve the rest of its characters. Helena Bonham Carter is the only other person that gets anywhere near the amount of screentime as the two male leads, but she often doesn't seem to function as more than the loving, supportive wife once we get past her first couple of scenes where she seeks out and finds Rush's Logue in the first place. She feels way more spunky and unpredictable when we first meet her, and then it feels like we see much more of that as things progress.

In the end though, the film never feels like it wants to go too far outside of the sort of convention that it seems informed by with other classy British royal family films, and it doesn't feel like it strives to reach any sort of perfection in ways more unique than what any those past films may have. But at the same time it also doesn't often underwhelm or find ways to fail in any of its individual and even trickier aspects, and the final product fits together and flows very nicely. It feels like it's exactly the film it needs to be to get across the story it possesses. It's not any more or (for the most part) any less.

***1/2

And I will say I'm definitely on the side that thinks the movie looks gorgeous. That is, aside from its (sadly) standard late-2000s, overly-teal colour timing that seems really out of place when it's most noticable.

[Morris Schæffer]

This thread really exploded. :)

Didn't know the director did The Damned United. That's one sports movie that should have been nominated last year instead of the The Blind Side.

[Dukefrukem]

Anyone else feel the same embarrassment characters feel when they flub up in front of crowds?

[eternity]

It's somewhat pretty and there's a bunch of good actors phoning it in here, but god...I really have grown to dislike this movie. Needs more nazi sympathizing and some of that actual "heart" people have been attributing to it. The guys don't have a friendship and the King never stops being a petulant brat. I'm not going to criticize the movie for what it isn't, but I am criticizing people who are noticing things that aren't there.

[Spinal]

Even worse than I expected. Geoffrey Rush is really the only saving grace. The critical reaction to this is utterly bewildering.

[Pop Trash]

Even worse than I expected. Geoffrey Rush is really the only saving grace. The critical reaction to this is utterly bewildering.

I thought Firth was better than Rush (kinda blah role), but yes, you are correct sir.

[Mara]

Anyone else feel the same embarrassment characters feel when they flub up in front of crowds?

Yes. To the point where it will kill the enjoyment of the film for me.

This movie was okay. It would be easier to enjoy if the viewer wasn't wading through a mountain of barely-warranted acclaim.

[baby doll]

This movie was okay. It would be easier to enjoy if the viewer wasn't wading through a mountain of barely-warranted acclaim.What precisely do you mean by "barely-warranted" acclaim? Either acclaim is warranted or it isn't.

In any case, said acclaim all seemed to be coming from the same Oscar-prognosticator types who were so keen on Black Swan, The Kids Are All Right, and True Grit--not anybody whose opinion I'd take seriously.

As for the film itself, it's undistinguished on every level. It doesn't do anything interesting in terms of form or narration, every point is underscored with a lack of subtlety that would make Paul Haggis blush, and the style is atrocious. (It's as if the film was being told from the point of view of a far-sighted glaucoma patient.)

[Mara]

What precisely do you mean by "barely-warranted" acclaim? Either acclaim is warranted or it isn't.

Says you.

In my opinion, it warranted some acclaim, but not the volume and extent it received.

[Ezee E]

In any case, said acclaim all seemed to be coming from the same Oscar-prognosticator types who were so keen on Black Swan, The Kids Are All Right, and True Grit--not anybody whose opinion I'd take seriously.

Those movies are so far different, I doubt there's someone who loves all three.

[baby doll]

Says you.

In my opinion, it warranted some acclaim, but not the volume and extent it received.Well, as I said, it's not like it was praised by anybody who's opinion I have a lot of respect for. Yeah, it got a lot of praise, but the people praising it are the same douchebags who spray their shorts for most Pixar movies.

[baby doll]

Those movies are so far different, I doubt there's someone who loves all three.Ebert gave all three enthusiastic reviews.

[Boner M]

Baby doll ca. p4: "How do I get out of this sentence?"

[baby doll]

Baby doll ca. p4: "How do I get out of this sentence?"Seriously though, I'm sick of fucking mediocrity. Doesn't anybody else get tired of this shit? It's depressing how many people (including most reviewers) just want safe, unchallenging movies that require no mental exertion whatsoever. Reviewers are constantly bitching about how there aren't any grownup movies around, and then when a Godard or an Angelopoulos comes along, they freak out. If you want to be one of those morons who cries at Forrest Gump, go ahead, but I can't do it.

[Mara]

No, it's just you. The lone sane man in a world gone mad.

[baby doll]

No, it's just you. The lone sane man in a world gone mad.Come on, dude, if Leonard Maltin likes a movie, you know it's probably not going to be very good. It might be mildly diverting, but it's not going to stick with you for very long after it's over.

[Morris Schæffer]

I liked this movie enough and I suppose the ** from Spinal is an indication it wasn't a total loss for him either. I liked the subject matter. It was, how shall I say, unusual, a bit off-kilter and the execution, though directorially serviceable, benefited from a script that largely abstained from schmaltz and a sense of glorification.

[Raiders]

Come on, dude, if Leonard Maltin likes a movie, you know it's probably not going to be very good. It might be mildly diverting, but it's not going to stick with you for very long after it's over.

Yet, this is what the majority of people want from their movie experience. Maltin and mainstream critics care more about pandering to them than to you.

[D_Davis]

People are still talking about this movie?

[Watashi]

Well, as I said, it's not like it was praised by anybody who's opinion I have a lot of respect for. Yeah, it got a lot of praise, but the people praising it are the same douchebags who spray their shorts for most Pixar movies.
I didn't like The King's Speech.

[Mara]

People are still talking about this movie?

No, we're talking about you.

In code.

You caught us.

[Watashi]

Seriously though, I'm sick of fucking mediocrity. Doesn't anybody else get tired of this shit? It's depressing how many people (including most reviewers) just want safe, unchallenging movies that require no mental exertion whatsoever. Reviewers are constantly bitching about how there aren't any grownup movies around, and then when a Godard or an Angelopoulos comes along, they freak out. If you want to be one of those morons who cries at Forrest Gump, go ahead, but I can't do it.
Dude. You gave Hereafter 4 stars.

You have no rights to talk about mediocrity.

[Arthur Seaton]

Dude. You gave Hereafter 4 stars.

You have no rights to talk about mediocrity.

No shit.


Well, as I said, it's not like it was praised by anybody who's opinion I have a lot of respect for. Yeah, it got a lot of praise, but the people praising it are the same douchebags who spray their shorts for most Pixar movies.
And you have no right to call anyone a douchebag, douchebag.

Love,
A fan of The King's Speech

[D_Davis]

No, we're talking about you.

In code.

You caught us.

I'M the King's Speech?

http://files.sharenator.com/OkayGuy_The_Keyboard_Game-s500x462-168083-535.jpg

[baby doll]

Yet, this is what the majority of people want from their movie experience. Maltin and mainstream critics care more about pandering to them than to you.Which is why I say that I don't respect their opinions, because I've moved beyond their limited conception of what cinema can and should be (i.e., television drama).

[Derek]

I didn't like The King's Speech.

Don't worry. Baby doll will find another way to pigeonhole you so any opinion you have can be dismissed. It's his gift.

[Derek]

Which is why I say that I don't respect their opinions, because I've moved beyond their limited conception of what cinema can and should be (i.e., television drama).

And yet you spend far more time talking about those opinions which you don't respect than the films you actually do.

[baby doll]

Dude. You gave Hereafter 4 stars.

You have no rights to talk about mediocrity.How did I know this would come up sooner or later? (Only I thought Boner would be the one to bring it up.) I had pretty low expectations for the film going in (I'm far from the world's biggest Eastwood fan), and was surprised how much I liked it. And in light of the critical drubbing it received, I decided--what the hell--I'll give it four stars as a sort of provocation. (When I saw it a second time a few weeks later, I found it still very good but less impressive than on first viewing.) As Ebert would say, giving four stars to Hereafter doesn't mean the same thing as giving four stars to The Traveling Players.

[baby doll]

And yet you spend far more time talking about those opinions which you don't respect than the films you actually do.When David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum weigh in on the film, we can talk about that. Unfortunately, Robin Wood is dead, so he's not likely to write about the film anytime soon.

[Ezee E]

Babydoll amazes me like Barty does.

[Spinal]

People are still talking about this movie?

I only saw it last night. I had about three sentences to say. That seemed like enough.

[Qrazy]

Which is why I say that I don't respect their opinions, because I've moved beyond their limited conception of what cinema can and should be (i.e., television drama).

Doesn't it ever get tiresome to formulate all your opinions in reaction to those of others?

[Barty]

The famous King's Speech set was used first in a gay porno film. (http://gawker.com/5767428/the-kings-speech-was-filmed-on-a-gay-porn-set)

[Spinal]

Did anyone listen to the actual audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opkMyKGx7TQ) of the pre-war speech made by George VI? It's pretty bad.

[Derek]

When David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum weigh in on the film, we can talk about that. Unfortunately, Robin Wood is dead, so he's not likely to write about the film anytime soon.

Than the films you actually do respect.

[baby doll]

Doesn't it ever get tiresome to formulate all your opinions in reaction to those of others?I think the real issue here isn't so much my opinion of the film as it is my opinion of mainstream reviewers like Ebert, Maltin, and Travers. Mara said she felt the film was over-praised, but when you look at who praised it and why, you can't reasonably expect anything more from the film than diverting hokum--which is apparently what said reviewers (and the majority of filmgoers) go to the cinema looking for. However, even on that level, I felt the film failed to deliver. (By way of contrast, Hereafter is hokum of the highest order.)

[Spinal]

Stephanie Zacharek, J. Hoberman and Manohla Dargis all liked it. Not exactly people I'd include among the Leonard Maltins of the world.

[baby doll]

Stephanie Zacharek, J. Hoberman and Manohla Dargis all liked it. Not exactly people I'd include among the Leonard Maltins of the world.Both Dargis and Hoberman were pretty modest in their praise for the film.

[Qrazy]

I think the real issue here isn't so much my opinion of the film as it is my opinion of mainstream reviewers like Ebert, Maltin, and Travers. Mara said she felt the film was over-praised, but when you look at who praised it and why, you can't reasonably expect anything more from the film than diverting hokum--which is apparently what said reviewers (and the majority of filmgoers) go to the cinema looking for. However, even on that level, I felt the film failed to deliver. (By way of contrast, Hereafter is hokum of the highest order.)

*shrug*

Personally I don't really care what any reviewers (mainstream or otherwise) have to say about anything.

Film theorists and analysts on the other hand... that's more interesting.

[Mysterious Dude]

Did anyone listen to the actual audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opkMyKGx7TQ) of the pre-war speech made by George VI? It's pretty bad.
Reminds me of Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech to the Japanese people. He doesn't sound like a leader. He sounds like an ordinary man.

Based on that picture, I can totally believe that Prince Charles is descended from him. And speaking of Prince Charles and ordinary men, I was delighted to learn that the Prince of Wales recently discovered his true calling:

http://theorganicgardeningsecrets.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/princecharles.jpg

[Irish]

Seriously though, I'm sick of fucking mediocrity. Doesn't anybody else get tired of this shit?

I'd pay cash money to sit behind you during a showing of Transformers: Dark of the Moonies or whatever the hell it was.

On point: King's Speech isn't worth talking about, much less anyone getting upset over.

[Spinal]

On point: King's Speech isn't worth talking about, much less anyone getting upset over.

Indeed. I was very amused when I searched for the thread last night and discovered that the most recent Oscar winner had generated a massive half-page of discussion.

[transmogrifier]

And in light of the critical drubbing it received, I decided--what the hell--I'll give it four stars as a sort of provocation.

I like it. I'm going to adopt that method of grading from now on:

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull 96/100
Dogtooth 7/100

Beats having to think about your own personal reaction.

[Ezee E]

Beats having to think about your own personal reaction.

:lol:

[baby doll]

I like it. I'm going to adopt that method of grading from now on:

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull 96/100
Dogtooth 7/100

Beats having to think about your own personal reaction.Let's not have this turn into another discussion about ratings, suffice to say that had the film been better received, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to double-down on it by giving the film four stars, and would've likely given it a mere three and a half star rating. In any case, all ratings are arbitrary and stupid.

[transmogrifier]

In any case, all ratings are arbitrary and stupid.

Well, in certain hands.

[StanleyK]

I expected this film to be bad, so I was pleasantly surprised that it turned out to be really just mediocre. I actually didn't mind the wacky camera angles (although I have no idea what purpose they accomplish), what I did mind was the editing, which somehow felt sloppier than the meager average of point-and-shoot filmmaking. I'm not a big fan of underdog stories, and it's particularly hard to be invested when the underdog is the fucking King of England, but he did feel like a fairly well-rounded human being, at least (nobody else did though). Nothing too exciting, but an amiable enough two hours.

[[ETM]]

http://i.imgur.com/Havt0.gif

[Qrazy]

This was bleh. I never want to see another story about someone overcoming something ever again. From now on I only watch films about people who have everything and lose it all... and then die.