This film is overrated and is a pretty boring one.

Rating: 4/10 (7 January 2011)

When researching this film did anyone consider that maybe a story about a king whose love for an American divorcée that leads to abdication might have been more interesting than a stutter story? Yes, thanks to the Lionel Logue character there was some interest in curing the stammering, but this played more like a play or newsreel documentary something you might see directed on the history channel.
There was little believability or appreciation of the events leading up to King George's ascension due to questionable casting and bad story telling. I suppose Guy Piece could be older than Colin Firth and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill might have worked if you never seen him in the Harry Potter films.
Actually, Guy Piece would have better suited for the 'Bertie' character and would have made more sense as the younger person with adolescent children. Geoffrey Rush is a fine actor, but would have been more believable cast as a grandfather to his on-film children.
There was really no connection or buy-in that made it important to the audience which of King George V's heirs became king. Edward VIII was shallowly developed and is whom maybe the film should have been about in the first place. His relationship with Wallis Simpson and the struggle he had when he became king could have made for a more compelling story and was sloppily glossed over.
Despite okay performances from Rush and Firth, this was sub-standard production from an entertainment standpoint that was capped off by an anticlimactic ending. The big triumph was sitting in a dark room with your buddy telling you what to say?
Recommendation: bring no-doze instead of popcorn to this well-acted at times, low entertainment value, overrated, boring film.