"The King's Speech", a very conventional message

The King's Speech

Best movie of the year? Well, I couldn't find a better argument to demonstrate how low is the quality of cinema nowadays that the “King’s Speech” obtaining 4 of the “biggest” awards at the latest Oscar's ceremony, arguably  (really?) the most important recognisement a movie could achieve.

Not saying the movie is bad. It is entertaining, and pleasant, fundamentally because of the chemistry between Colin Firth (King George VI) and Geoffrey Rush (Lionel Logue, his speech therapist). The scenes in which they are together are the only ones remarkable, where something genuine goes on. Both actors are the pillars of the film, although in the case of Firth I would say his best interpretation, one that could seriously deserve an Oscar, can be seen in “A Single Man”.

But aside from that, the “King’s Speech” is quite mediocre. There are many sides that are hidden or that the director avoids to treat. It’s quite disappointing to see how George's brother abdicates from the throne just because of “love” when among the reasons, there was one very transcendent and not very admirable, and linked with that, the almost inexistent role prime ministers Baldwin and Chamberlain (or Churchill) have. In general, the lack of history in the film, when surely the most attractive thing about George’s period (Hitler's rising in Europe, the start of Second World War) weren’t his speeches, but the times when these speeches have to be delivered, is frustrating.

The script is predictable and conservative (jokes about saying "shit, fuck, etc." or "funny" situations based on the fact the Royal family is at Logue's house doing normal things, something that made me recall films like "Notting Hill") and it has that tone of a commercial biopic where the hero succeeds and becomes a "better man". Let’s be honest, the movie is a conventional hagiography. Nice and pleasant, but very far from a film that deserves to be recognised, or simply remembered.

SCORE: 5,25/10