A touch over-hyped but a high-calibre film across the board – accessible, enjoyable and engaging

Rating: Null/10 (23 January 2011)

There was a section in The Times this morning that stated that, two weeks after release, 1 out of every 20 people in the UK had seen this film. My first attempt to see it (at an off-peak showing) failed as it was sold out, partly as a result of the film having almost nothing but positive things about it and if the Oscars do not give it a couple then the Bafta's will almost certainly make sure it has a few awards on its poster when it comes to time to sell the DVD. So it was a little hard for me to come to this film with an open mind, since every bus shelter, magazine and poster is busy telling me how amazing it is. I came to it with a bit of cynicism though, since it is awards season and at this time of year we do see plenty of "worthy" films that everyone praises but ultimately don't deliver in the longer term.
This cynicism wasn't helped by the film appearing to have what it takes to appeal to as many viewers as possible and also be classic awards-friendly material. This cynicism didn't last very long though because it had been forgotten to be replaced by how engaged and rather charmed I was by this film. The basic plot sees Duke of York struggling to overcome his stammer – with a long line of failed attempts and discarded doctors. Eventually he ends up at the door of unorthodox doctor Lionel Logue – an Australian of all things – and, while progress appears possible if the Duke can let go, events conspire to make progress even more important than ever. It tells this story with a surprising amount of humour and drama, making it accessible and modern, without totally moving away from being reasonably true to the characters and the time.
It doesn't have quite the complexity that I had hoped from the hype but it is engaging throughout and all that it does works well. Moments of insight (fictional or not I don't know) into the King come infrequently but they are very well done when they come, while the comedy is appropriate and is written and delivered within the story so that it never feels separate from it. Seidler's script is certainly "good" and he does well to capture this piece of history but I don't think that the film represents a brilliant piece of writing as some have said. Hooper's direction is good and I particularly liked some of his shot framing – characters off-centre from solo shots, good use of the tremendous sets etc. However where the film deserves praise without doubt is in the performances.
Firth is a definite Bafta winner and looks very good for the Oscar and not just because of who he plays but how he plays it. He is engaging, sympathetic and he convinces in his stammer and his character. It is not a novelty act and he does feel like a real person. Most importantly he plays very well with Rush, who himself is great here – getting the pitch just right to bring a light and warm touch to the shared scenes. Bonham-Carter is enjoyable in support and of course, being a British film we have plenty of faces doing solid turns (Jacobi, Gambon, Spall etc). Pearce is a nice find and he provides a solid turn as well.
Overall The King's Speech is not the greatest film ever made and those claiming such have perhaps been caught up in the hype as much as those currently placing it high up the IMDb top 250 list! However it is a very good film as it provides an engaging narrative that is personal while also being clear in its national importance. It does this in an accessible and engaging manner with humour and drama used well – everything is of a high calibre here and it produces a total produce that is as well. The performances make it work as well as it does and the film is charming, enjoyable and very British. A tad over-hyped at the moment but still a film worthy of the attention given to it.