Review: The King's Speech

 

Plot: In 1930s England King Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates the throne to  his brother George VI (Colin Firth).  However, King George suffers from a terrible stammer that prevents him from being a strong public speaker. As WWII looms King George needs to exhibit strong leadership to the British Empire, especially over his weekly radio speeches. With the assistance of speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and the support of his loving wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), King George overcomes his physical and emotional setbacks to inspire millions.

Review: Bland, tepid, and mind-numbingly boring, The King's Speech is a tired and plodding exploration of subject matter that inspires little if any passion from its audience.

      While The King's Speech contains several strong acting performances, especially Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, it suffers from a pacing that moves at a snail's crawl. In fact that is putting it mildly. A snail would tell director Tom Hooper to hurry the hell up.

      On the surface, The King's Speech has all the ingredients for a successful story: physical and emotional impairments, country in the time of war, life long friendships, etc. But instead of a blue ribbon cake we are left with Rachel's pudding/meat dessert from that one episode of "Friends."

Maybe it's because I couldn't muster much sympathy for a historical figure who lived a life of privilege, but for whatever reason this story didn't captivate me like everyone said it would. My main problem is that David Seidler's screenplay and story is the same tired old dry as toast English drama we've seen before. It might as well be Howard's End or The English Patient and the film contains the emotional resonance of a hollow drum.

      The truth of the matter is that this film was nothing but pure Oscar bait in my opinion. Yes I know that the "best" films tend to come out at the end of the year, but some are just blatant formulaic films that are DESIGNED to garner Oscar nominations. And director Tom Hooper ran that playbook to a T for The King's Speech. So much so that I'm completely gobsmacked that he received an Academy Award nomination, let alone won!

      I'll freely admit that some (and I stress SOME) of my prejudice stems from the fact that this film beat out The Social Network for both Best Picture and Best Director. What a joke. The King's Speech is a common film that could have been told in any era. It's one specific man in one specific instance in time. The Social Network was a film about something that literally REVOLUTIONIZED THE WAY HUMANS COMMUNICATE. I'll leave it you.  What do YOU think is the more compelling story?  And as for the director issue? Just wow. Tom Hooper can't carry David Fincher's Twitter account in my opinion.

      Now this isn't to say that The King's Speech doesn't have its merits. As I said the acting is solid, it's funny in some parts, and the costume and set design is impeccable. Additionally, Alexandre Desplat's score is well done.

Where The King's Speech suffers is in it's boring subject matter, horrid pacing, and underwhelming directing. In the end I just wish The King's Speech would have stayed silent.

My rating:  5/10