Worth it for Colin Firth

Rating: 7/10 (6 May 2015)

Several years have passed since The King's Speech was released to critical acclaim and it's become clear how even winning Oscars can damage a film's reputation. Like Ordinary People which became known as 'the film that robbed Scorsese of his Oscar for Raging Bull', The King's Speech has generally become known as the undeserving winner that robbed The Social Network of more Oscar glory. I don't mean to make this review all about the Oscars, but it's interesting to see how they automatically fan the flames in the audience when comparing films. A fan of film X might feel compelled to dislike film Y if it wins the Oscar over film X and that's what happened with The King's Speech. Though generally a well-liked film, many felt it didn't deserve so much Oscar glory and it damaged the film's reputation as many emphasized how it wasn't good enough to deserve all that Oscar glory. That's my opinion in a nutshell: a basic, well-worn idea for a film that was executed with some aplomb.
Prince Albert is one of King George V's sons. There's only one problem: he stammers which might not appear to be a big deal, until you realize he's living in the Twenties and the primary medium used for communication is radio, not to mention the trouble he faces every time the public eye is trained on him. He's also ridiculed within his family for his stammer, by his brother Edward. Eventually his wife suggests he see Logue, a speech therapist. This starts off an intriguing relationship between Albert and Logue, the latter of which is a genuine help to Albert despite the differences in opinions and personalities. The film then alternates between the events that led to Albert's eventual ascending of the throne and how the relationship between Albert and Logue led to Albert being cured of his stammer, culminating in his radio address in 1939 when war was declared with Nazi Germany.
The main problem with the film is that, like I said earlier, it's just not that good. All the elements for success are here: the acting is formidable, the scenes featuring just George and Logan are easily the most engaging parts of the film and the issue of Albert's stammer is handled very well (linking it to childhood trauma), with sympathy and empathy. But it all feels a bit too clichéd and predictable at times. There's a moment where George has a falling out with Logue, simply because he has no formal qualifications. I know this is a big deal in terms of public appearance, but it feels shoehorned into the plot to inject some drama into the film lest things proceed too smoothly. Crucially, it feels like a twist out of a typical rom-com where the lovers, who we know will eventually be together, first have to discover how the other is not who he/she thought he/she was (like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or something). You know your drama is bad, when your plot is caught within the familiar trappings of rom-coms. Also, the subplot regarding Logue's theatre antics feel forced and uninteresting.
Something else I didn't understand was the amount of hype the film received. Like Toy Story 3 (the review for which I wrote very recently), it felt like people were tripping over themselves, ranting about how it made them cry buckets and, just like Toy Story 3, The King's Speech left me a bit unfulfilled on that front as well. While scenes like George telling about his childhood traumas (which in turn inflicted him with his stammer) are nicely understated and the eponymous speech itself is pretty effectively coupled with the 2nd movement from Beethoven's 7th, I'd be lying if I said handkerchiefs were required In the end, it's just a good film (there's nothing inherently wrong with that) with a reputation as 'overrated' that ironically stems primarily from its Oscar glory.