Straight-Forward-Kitsch (why not?)

Rating: 5/10 (18 September 2011)

The labelling 'kitsch' may be too critical. But this film has no reluctance whatsoever to indulge in melodramatic stereo-types (e.g. it's use of music, of historical characters (e.g. Churchill), the narrative structure of the hero who overcomes his impairs with the help of an adviser and so forth).
Having said that - the film partially manages to engage the viewer.
Even though its classical narrative structure makes the film totally predictable.
But overall I don't like the film because:
1) it is so obviously a Oscar vehicle
2) it pretends to be some kind of historical piece - but it's obviously royal kitsch. The story could been taken from any average royals-magazine (it has to be said though, that screenplays can employ trash-story-lines and make wonderful films out of it - but here it isn't the case).
3) it is only engaging in the beginning. Towards the middle the conflict between the king and its adviser turns out to be rather constructed/ artificial - to create some kind of suspense.
4) with 8.3 points it is terribly overrated (though the acting is marvelous)