Carl the Critic: Reviews "The King's Speech"
Carl the Critic: Reviews "The King's Speech"
Expectation/Experience: [Last year, November] Oh Colin Firth, you how could you possibly top "A Single Man," your performance in that film was top notch and if it weren't for "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges) I would say you had the Oscar TM for best actor of 2010. And now you are in this movie about English Duke who has a stuttering problem, (BOREING!) and by the by I've seen pictures of King George the VI and you look nothing like him! How can you ever pull off anything close to an Oscar TM worthy performance? Obviously Jesse Eisenberg is going to win, at least HE looks like Mark Zuckerberg, in fact Eisenberg and Zuckerberg almost rhyme, it was like it was meant to be. And even if he is great (which I doubt it will top "A Single Man,") will it be the only good part? Or will it be like "The Queen," with Helen Mirren, a movie that was okay, but only had a great actress to make it that much better.
[Last Year, December 26] ... I am speechless, that was the greatest acting I have ever seen in years. Who is this "Single Man" I once loved (like a brother). Colin Firth in "The King's Speech" was by far his best performance to date. In fact why am I only talking about his acting? The entire film itself was a work of Cinematic achievement. from the Direction (although I think David Fincher is still going to win for "The Social Network") to the other great actors and actresses. I had forgotten that they were actors, because they all seemed like they were the actual people.
[Present Day] I thought that I might want to critique this movie for your enjoyment and information. I am going to give you my personal and professional opinion on the movie and why you should go see it, but now I'll start with the STORY.
STORY: Okay, so as we all know during the 1930's was the reign of King George the V, and King George had two sons Edward and Albert. The story mainly focus's on Albert, the Duke of York who can't give a public speech to save his life. When he tries to seek professional help he finds himself with a mouth full of marbles and an annoying Doctor. But when all hope seems lost, his wife Elizabeth goes to a man with a high reputation named Lionel Logue. Although reluctant at first, Alfred meets with the man, and feels that his methods are unorthodox, and wierd. Lionel puts headphones over Albert's ears as he is tells him to read the famous "To Be or Not To Be," speech from Hamlet, meanwhile recording Albert's voice so he can convince him that he can indeed speak and that his problems come from Albert's own inner self. After the death of King George V, and Edward marriage to an American woman, Albert now must take the thrown, but instead of being called King Albert (because apparently that is just a terrible name for a King [Just kidding]) he is given the name King George VI, after his father. But with the coming of conflict with NAZI Germany, King George VI now has to be ready to give a speech so great, the whole world will hear him. Can he do it? Can Lionel help the King of England? Or will- Wait, why am I asking you? Watch the movie and find out but before you do read the CRITIQUE below.
CRITIQUE: Not much to say really, I mean the movie was really good, BUT just because I said that doesn't mean it is flawless. The story is structured spirally, meaning that first there's a good thing, then a bad thing, then another good thing, and then a bad thing, but then another good thing and then another bad thing, and so on and so forth, which isn't horrible (after all it is the structure that Alfred Hitchcock used) but the repeating of the good and bad events felt a bit long at some parts, like when Alfred was with his father, and his father was doing some Chinese parenting and screamed at his son, trying to get him to speak into the microphone. It's not like it was a bad scene but If I hadn't seen it 10 minutes earlier when the Doctor was doing the same thing I would have felt differently. Like I said before, above in my expectations, the actors (although gave great and believable performances) looked absolutely nothing like the people they portrayed. Usually in movies based on true stories, the actors certainly need to at least resemble the characters they portray. What if Marin Lawrence was picked to play Ray Charles in "Ray" instead of Jamie Foxx? How different (and horrifying) would that be? I'm just saying, that fact kinda grinds my gears (but I still enjoyed their performances, and besides it's not the outside but the spirit of the character that counts, which I think Colin Firth and everyone else did well. Plus it helps that the wardrobe matched the characters.)
Music was another thing I had a problem with, why give a nomination to music that was not that impressive. The music sounds like any other music that was composed in the classical and baroque era and I remind you that was when music was at it's best. It was not clear where the originality was in the music it was like he took every great composer from those eras and combined them into his own creation. True it flowed well with the movie, but I'm just saying an Oscar TM for this music would be like giving "Gnomeo and Juliet" for best original music.
Do you think there should be different types of R rating? No? Me neither, I was just wondering, because this film is rated R for smoking, and language, but the smoking was not that big of a deal, and the naughty language didn't come until an hour into the film. I've seen PG movies that had cursed more than this movie ("All the President's Men" for one), and until an hour into the movie I really realized why it was rated R. I think the point I am trying to make is that if you hear a movie is rated R, some of the movies that cross your mind are "Blues Brothers," "Animal House," Every Quinton Tarantino movie, and "Revenge of the Nerds," all movies that deserve such a rating because of extreme content, but this film, was not that extremely vulgar, and when the swearing did occur, it was hilarious. I'm just saying I felt that the R rating was not really necessary.
Well that was my the harshest I could be with that critique, but of course don't take it 100% seriously, because it is still a great movie, that deserved the praise it received. So how do I rate it OVERALL?
OVERALL: Well there is a lot to consider here, I mean you have great acting, an inspirational story, outstanding art direction, and four Oscar TM (which I don't know why it would influence your decision to see it but just in case I added it for you to enjoy, and you're welcome). I give this film a 9.7 out of 10, for all the good things about it and more.
More by this Author
Carl the Critic reviews "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" and tells you why it is better than the first film.
You are probably wondering, "Gee, I wonder what it's about?". Well Carl the Critic has the answer, this is his review for "We Bought a Zoo".
Carl the Critic talks about some of the key elements of science fiction movies including story/structure, characters, ideology, and many more. Films in this discussion include: "2001: A Space Odyssey",...