Review of 'The King's Speech'

This was a film that was very well done and very solid as a result. I must confess that it is rather heartwarming to know that so many people are thoroughly enjoying watching the film at the cinema, when our screens have been so inundated with 3D movies of little substance and lots of visual tricks.

Well, once again I make my case for good writing acted thoroughly well. That combination is always going to work and when you consider that The King's Speech is such a contained narrative, with no subplot to speak, it can still get you emotively involved, without needing to mimic the motion of a roller-coaster.

Happy families!

The story is a simple one: King George V's son,  'Bertie', played by Colin Firth has a terrible stammer,  rendering him pretty much speechless when it comes to public speaking. The film opens to show him trying to deliver one such speech to Wembley Stadium, which is also being broadcast to the whole of the Empire. The real behind the scenes star is in fact his wife, Duchess of York (who then goes on to become Queen Elizabeth), played by Helen Bonham Carter superbly. She is the one constantly searching for someone who can help her husband and thus lands at Logue's clinic. All the scenes with her were amusing and played effortlessly, unlike Timothy Spall who had a go at doing Winston Churchill - badly. He somehow thought screwing his face up and gruffing up his voice, like some angry badger, would pass. Baffling.

The conflicts themselves aren't complicated on the surface but the film allows the sub-strata stuff to simmer underneath, so that more is said without words or over babbling by anyone. With that in mind, you begin to empathise with Firth's character who is thrust into a role of greatness that he doesn't want but gallantly steps up to, thanks to his brother relinquishing responsibility or care for anyone else. All of it is poetically depicted through the struggle for speech and the stammer representing an 'emotional' blockage thanks to a rather unpleasant childhood and being ridiculed, no doubt. The film is full of poignancy as a result, such as the scene when the new King George returns home, expecting to embrace his daughters, but they in turn curtesy to him, an act of brutal formality but sweet nonetheless.

There were lovely scenes of misty London, though I couldn't help wonder if that was employed so that any signs of modernity were blanketed out. Cinemtography brilliantly enhanced the feeling of stretched out expectations bearing down upon Bertie, with shots that tilted up or down. Sound design was also strong, such as when, in the opening scene, the stammering words from the duke just keep echoing endlessly around the stadium.  

Ultimately, it's a tale of triumph and friendship, with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush playing off one another wonderfully with a script that is just about right from every angle, without once overdoing it. Warm fuzzies. Also, Colin Firth dons a kilt at one point, what more could you want?

VERDICT: 8/10

Review of 'Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1' - the best adaptation yet

Fans of the book will be shocked to learn how many details I forgot about the story before going into watch this; and nay, I did not re-read it because I wanted to be surprised again and avoid the reaction of 'Oh, they left that bit out' etc etc. You get me.

I also read a few reviews and they're rather varied. My take on it? Please read on...

Ooh, Potter gets all intense, what with stubble now here to stay it seems.

For once, in the whole franchise of the films, I felt like this one was most 'filmic' in its content. I was anxious after what I thought was an epic fail by Yates on Half Blood Prince (please see previous review here). So I didn't have huge expectations to be fair. I was pleasantly surprised. This time, it was a character story, it was full of gravitas, it gave Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint a chance to up their acting game. It slowed the pace down, it gave the story a chance to breathe and wasn't preoccupied with a whirlwind of spectacle and leaching substance as a result. While moments from the book were missing (should have had the bit when the Dursleys leave and Dudley shows his sweet side), the film, for once, stayed very true to it - and readers, don't forget, the middle chunk of the book where Harry and chums are camping lasts a long time. It drags and for good reason. It's the right storytelling device (for some it might not be in terms of plot but for story, it is). Why? Because the tale requires the atmosphere to be heavy, intense and itchingly frustrating; just like our heroes, we want results to happen. But the epic battle between good and evil isn't so simple. And Dumbledore isn't there with all the answers; our chums are left out in the cold; this was a great way to display their naivety, their perseverance and build up those endurance skills while testing their friendship and faith in each other. The story demands these events for character development, otherwise the epic end of Harry Potter wouldn't stand up as wonderfully as it does; it's supposed to be a struggle. This is the maturing process, people! I think if you aren't a fan of the books, this sub-matter is most likely going to go over you. No offense.

For those concerned with pacing, there's great movement in the first twenty minutes (awesome scene with the 7 Harry Potters) and the last twenty minutes. But brace yourself for some decent 'slow' cinema in between. If you canna stand it (which was clear by the idiot in front of me who kept checking his mobile every five minutes, hence flashing the light on the screen at me) then please, for the sake of those who spent hours and money making this film so you could enjoy, exit stage left.