Zing!

Saw this Tuesday, by myself as my wife and cousin elected to see The Roommate (which they found predictable and lacking a sufficient body count for their taste). It was strange going into the movie conscious of the awards it's already won and the nominations for the forthcoming Academy Awards. I tried not to "grade" the movie while viewing it in that light, but of course some part of the brain is always looking for the moment that triggers the epiphany, "That's why this has won/is nominated for [award]!" One of the downsides of seeing nominated movies late in awards season.

I really did enjoy it, and the way that it made the film not about George VI as King during WWII, or about a royal scandal, but distilled it to being about a man struggling to overcome his own weakness. It's not relevant how peripheral he was to the war effort for Britons; what matters is his own personal struggle. We're rooting for him to overcome his stammering just the same as if he had been a boxer committed to winning the championship belt in a hopeless contest.

Geoffrey Rush stole the show, of course, providing nearly all of the comedic moments and eliciting quite a lot of laughter from my audience. I thought his performance here was reminiscent of Harry Pendel in The Tailor of Panama (even his boldly striped suit called to mind that 1999 film), only this time he got to play the guy with a backbone.

I think what impressed me most about Colin Firth was that he didn't merely stammer; he visibly fought himself over each line he had in the entire film. I, of course, knew he was an actor fighting to create the illusion of an impediment but I suspect many viewers were simply taken in by the performance and weren't as mindful of this as I was. Is it Best Actor in a Leading Role worthy? Not for me to say, but I don't think the other four nominees should feel any shame in losing to him if that's the way it goes.

I've now seen all five nominees for Best Cinematography, and I have to say I'm not sure I really noticed anything special here--aside from the fact that Firth was deliberately kept out of the center of the frame. The production design was nice, but I personally am more impressed by the movies that have to invent rather than recreate. Lastly, I concur with those who enjoyed this but feel it's not on the same level of artistry as Black Swan (my pick for Best Picture).

I think Rush winning best supporting actor could be the big upset for Oscar night. I think Bale deserves it, and is favored, but Rush carried The Kings Speech which appears to be favored overall at this point. The performance was not as technically impressive as Firth, but it takes real skill to pull off what Rush did.

The script, acting and production design were all top notch. I was not as impressed with the music, cinematography or directing of the movie, though.

Wow good call. You are absolutely right.

Finally saw this last night. I really enjoyed it - sharp writing, lots of humor mixed with true emotion. I thought the cinematography was impressive considering I expected the film to feel much stuffier and have a bleaker look than it did. There were some creative camera angles used as well. I don't think it's the best of 2010, but I do think Firth would be a good choice for Best Actor. I haven't seen Bale in The Fighter, but I thought Rush was fantastic.

On the whole, I liked the use of various angels, lenses and the framing but I've heard others who were put off by it saying that it "tries too hard to be an art film." When I saw it, I sat in the front row since my wife wasn't with me, so some of the effect of the various lenses, etc. was lost on me.

The only problem I had with the way it was framed was that there was a lot of space between each character in most shots. Not normally a problem, except that the production design was so intricate and busy that at times I felt overwhelmed by the screen. I wasn't fully conscious of this until the scene where the two of them take a walk in the park and the openness of scattered trees let me breathe more easily. Most of the rest of the film takes place indoors, though, and it was back to having the entire screen filled with either person or set.

well now its official, Harvey Scissorhands is back
Does Harvey really expect it to do more business now with the PG-13 cut?

Hey, it worked for The Passion of the Christ!

...To the tune of $508 thousand.

In that specific case, the PG-13 unrated cut (Gibson never submitted it to the MPAA) was after the film's theatrical release.

In this case, the PG-13 cut will be replacing the R cut during its theatrical release. In this case, I hope Social Network wins Best Picture this Sunday just to tell the Weinsteins to go suck a fuck for this stupid decision.

Putting it out concurrently with the R-rated version is one thing (still a stupid thing), but to think that substituting it for the director's originally intended work is acceptable is incredibly moronic.

As long as the DVD/BLU version is the R rated version only, i'll be happy

I'm going to bet it won't be, they will probably include both cuts to further appeal (i.e. get money from) to the family in the home market.

I suppose once you've decided it's fine to take liberties with history, you may as well compromise art as well. If I get this straight, the idea is that by announcing this now, they don't have to worry about undermining Hooper in the face of Academy voters, who have already returned their ballots.

The only way I can see how this really pays off is if a lot of history teachers lobby for field trips to the theater to see the PG-13 release. (Let's face it: families will have more conventional choices of movies to take the kids to see by the time this censored version starts screening.) If they do, this could work out financially quite nicely and by the time the DVD and Blu-ray appear on shelves, most of us will be contented that the censored cut has become a footnote waiting to be forgotten.

Given how much time was scheduled between the Oscars and the DVD/Blu-ray release I have to wonder if this wasn't always a consideration of theirs. Typically, Oscar contenders are scheduled to hit the shelves sooner after the awards are handed out, to capitalize on the attention. That's an awful lot of time between 27 February and 19 April, even for a movie that had its wide release opening here on 24 December.

"Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudge! Fudgity Fudge!"

I am amazed that cursing alone warrants an R rating.

I liked this movie when I first saw it. But after reading about the whitewash of the true history, and this latest Weinstein bullshit, the film has really become tainted in my eyes.

I still appreciate the quality of the acting performances and the moviemaking. But the context bothers me too much now.

"The King's Speech is an ugly distortion of history."
Ugly side of royals glossed over by The King's Speech
"The King's Speech is riddled with gross falsifications of history."
The King's Speech Revisited

I did not know any of the real history when I watched the movie.

Here it is in a nutshell if you don't want to read through the links:

King Edward VIII is portrayed in the movie as a spoiled, selfish jerk.
But the movie makes no mention of the fact that he was a total supporter of the Nazis and a staunch admirer of Adolf Hitler
He and his lover Wallis Simpson honeymooned in the Reich



The movie shows Winston Churchill supporting and encouraging Bertie (King George VI).
The truth is Churchill supported Edward VIII, right up until his abdication.
Yes, even when Edward VIII aligned himself with the fascists, Churchill wanted him to stay king.

The movie shows Bertie as a committed anti-fascist. The truth is, before the war, King George VI wanted to appease the Nazis and promoted appeasement to the public as much as he could.

When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich having basically sold out Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, Bertie greeted Chamberlain as a hero.

Bertie didn't even want Churchill as prime minister, he wanted E.F. Wood, Lord Halifax, who was a big appeaser

I don't expect movies based on history to be 100 per cent accurate.

But The King's Speech is more than just creative license. It is a whitewash

Damn...really changes what I thought of the guy. I was thinking about reading up on him...and still may do so in the future but damn. Talk about missing out on some VERY key details there. Especially when it comes to WWII.

The sad part is that so many people will walk out of the theater taking this as the gospel truth about these events and people. Having my degree in history, I'm particularly sensitive to how irresponsible this kind of storytelling is. Way to go, Bertie. You just became a paragon of freedom because one of your subjects was sympathetic to your speech impediment.

Just saw this tonight. It was much, much better than the well-made period piece I expected, even while being completely predictable. I disagree quite strongly with the assertion that Rush carried the film.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Rush carried the film, but I do believe he stole the show. He lit up every scene he had, and gave the film a lot of its charm. It may not even be my favorite Rush performance, but I have a hard time imagining myself enjoying the film quite the same with someone else in the role.

Looking back, it also makes me think how much Timothy Spall sucked as Churchill. It's funny how some comedies/non 'serious' films have their historic actors kick ass, whereas 'realistic' movies have caricatures in their roles. And by that I mean that Churchill from Inglorious Basterds was a lot better, despite having only one scene in the movie. Maybe that was an advantage, but it was still leagues better.

And maybe it's just me but it's scary to see Helena Bonham Carter in such a compassionate role. I kept feeling as if she was biding her time, just waiting to kill everybody.

Very good description.

I think after seeing Brendan Gleeson as Churchill in the HBO miniseries has just about killed it for any other actor.

Also, Timothy Spall is a huge joke. He really only portrays lowly ugly British characters, so him playing one of Britain's greatest leaders comes off like Seth Rogan playing Thomas Jefferson.