The King's Speech reviews

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:17 am

Not talking about the British accent. I'm referring to the voice he's using in the film, which does not sound like his own...So, just like say Matt Damon could do a Southern accent. Sure he's American, but he's Bostonian. But if you feel the need to make fun of me, then there's no point in discussing it further..



Edited By OscarGuy on 1285327079
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:27 am

Damien wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:chore. sure. but his performance has an accent and an impediment. Oscar voters will lap it up.

Well, since Colin Firth is British, it's not really an accent.

Lol

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:52 pm

OscarGuy wrote:chore. sure. but his performance has an accent and an impediment. Oscar voters will lap it up.

Well, since Colin Firth is British, it's not really an accent.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:49 pm

chore. sure. but his performance has an accent and an impediment. Oscar voters will lap it up.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5763
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:41 pm

anonymous wrote:The trailer.

Based on this, I think Colin Firth is an early front-runner.

Ugh, really? Looks like an absolute chore to sit through.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5067
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:35 pm

The trailer.

Based on this, I think Colin Firth is an early front-runner.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:46 pm

The reason True Grit is being discussed is indeed the Coens issue. Also, there's a serious lack of major contenders out there (or at least it appears at this juncture), it gets more credit. Let's also remember that A Serious Man, which was critically acclaimed but hardly Oscar voters' kind of movie, yet with 10 nominees, it made it in with little trouble. Now, if this were a 5-nominee year (we won't have one of those for a long while), I would be dubious as to its chances, but with 10, I'd say you have to consider True Grit a contender.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6254
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:05 pm

I'd agree Bridges is a very long shot for back to back, unless his performance makes voters see god.

I'm puzzled in general why so many people have True Grit -- a project about which my enthusiasm is very tepid -- as such a strong contender. I guess some of it is simple Coen worship. But, like Magilla, I just can't get excited about a remake, however differently it's supposed to be crafted. I would note most of those truly anticipatory about the film are too young to have experienced the John Wayne version in real time. That film was hardly a classic, but, as Wayne's Oscar vehicle, it's rather iconic for those of us above age 50 -- and we're more representative of the voting demographic than the Oscar bloggers, who might have only seen the '69 version in passing, if at all.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15383
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:04 am

Reza wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:3. He's the only potential nominee in his category among my picks who is over 40.

So you don't think Jeff Bridges (True Grit) or Robert Duvall (Get Low) have any chance?

I haven't seen Duvall's film but Sabin's take is pretty much the impression I have of it sight unseen.

Bridges could surprise as he often does, but even if it's a great performance, as Oscar Guy says , he won last year. Back-to-back wins are awfully hard to come by. Besides he's reprising a role another actor has already won an Oscar for. That's never happened. Granted the original True Grit was not John Wayne's greatest film but it is the only one he won an Oscar for. The year he won Peter O'Toole was nominated for Goodbye, Mr. Chips, a splendid performance but not the iconic one that Robert Donat won an Oscar for thirty years earlier.

The only one getting early buzz from the remake is the young actress playing the girl.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12427
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:13 am

Jeff Bridges already won. If he hadn't last year, he might be a force this year. A nomination I could see, but a win is probably out of the question.

As for Duvall, his film has may a tiny $4 M at the box office since it's release over a month ago. On top of that, it has done decently well with critics, I don't think it did well enough to be remembered very well four months from now.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7224
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:30 am

@Reza on Sep. 05 2010,12:51

So you don't think Jeff Bridges (True Grit) or Robert Duvall (Get Low) have any chance?

Speaking for myself, Robert Duvall has zero chance for Get Low. It's a terrible film, boring, boring, boring. Miscalculated from the beginning. He has a killer monologue near the end but I don't see much traction. If Duvall gets in, what a lame sauce year this has been.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:51 am

Big Magilla wrote:3. He's the only potential nominee in his category among my picks who is over 40.

So you don't think Jeff Bridges (True Grit) or Robert Duvall (Get Low) have any chance?

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7636
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Postby Reza » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:21 pm

I wonder if the Queen has been shown this film about her dad and if she approves?

This is going to be Firth's year and well deserved, although a second win for Rush would be quite obscene.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6254
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:34 pm

HR finally weighs up. Thumb way up. With Weinstein backing him, Firth is in as a nominee at least.


The King's Speech -- Film Review
By Kirk Honeycutt, September 04, 2010 07:46 ET
"The King's Speech"
Bottom Line: A riveting, intimate account at how a British king triumphed over a speech impediment with the help of an unorthodox speech coach.
Lately, British filmmakers have zeroed in on personal moments and back stories that go a long way in not only humanizing their royal family but also creating a much greater awareness of the trials and difficulties faced by those in such "exalted" positions. It perhaps started with "The Queen," continued with "Young Victoria" and now achieves the most intimate glimpse inside the royal camp to date with "The King's Speech."

Each of these films features a mesmerizing central performance. Although "Speech" requires shared billing, with no disrespect to Geoffrey Rush's spot-on work here, Colin Firth, following up on his Oscar-nominated role in "A Single Man," now can claim a place among Britain's finest film actors with his performance as the man who became King George VI.

The film is a sure winner in the British Isles and many former colonies. How its most rebellious and historically challenged colony will react when the Weinstein Co. releases the film domestically Nov. 24 is hard to gauge. Perhaps only decent box office can be anticipated.

The thing about Bertie, as George V's second son was called by the family, is that he never is going to be king. A good thing too because he suffers from a terrible stammer and what nowadays would be called low self-esteem. Then history conspires against him.

But this is getting ahead of the story, ably written by David Seidler and directed by Tom Hooper. While dad (Michael Gambon) remains on his throne and his elder brother, David (Guy Pearce), gadding about as an international playboy, Bertie (Firth) has to give a speech. He looks like he is about to attend his own execution, and words stick in his throat so badly that what comes out is unintelligible.

His wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), seeks out speech therapists but only disaster results. Then she stumbles onto Lionel Logue (Rush).

The movie establishes him as an eccentric, lower-class and somewhat ignoble version of Henry Higgins. He and his family live in a large, oddly wallpapered flat that contains only a fraction of the furniture necessary to fill it. What's worse, he's Australian and a failed ham actor specializing in eloquent though thoroughly bad Shakespeare. Yet even when he realizes a royal is summoning him, he insists that it's "his castle, his rules": The royal must take his lessons in Lionel's home.

Thus the movie sets up an "Odd Couple" dynamic that, like the famous Neil Simon play/movie/TV series, measures out comedy and drama in nearly even doses. Bertie and Lionel -- the therapist insists on a first-name basis -- discover common ground, quarrel bitterly, share a drink, make a breakthrough, then break off all contact. At the root of Bertie's problem, it gradually emerges, is a wretched childhood, no matter how rich and glorious it might seem to outsiders.

Now comes history's little trick. Brother David eventually becomes Edward VIII; you know, the irresponsible sap who decides he'd rather marry a well-traveled, twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson, than be king of England. Following his brother's abdication, Bertie becomes George VI, which means a lot of speech giving -- especially on the eve of World War II.

The movie lets everything build to George VI's first wartime speech. In the early days of the wireless -- long before television, of course -- this means a king can stand alone in a room with only a microphone and speech coach to get him through those three minutes (egged on by Beethoven's mighty Seventh Symphony). It's an understandably moving moment, but the film has nicely paved the way with long therapy sessions, conversations and comic fights between its couple.

A king is made into a commoner and a commoner -- no, worse, an Aussie -- is made into a pro that for all his lack of pedigree can rule enunciation, diction and language.

Who knows how close any of this comes to historical fact; the filmmakers' main source appears to be the Logue family. It doesn't really matter, though, because something about all this feels right, as do the characters.

Firth doesn't just make a British king vulnerable and insecure, he shows the fierce courage and stamina beneath the insecurities that will see him through his kingship. It's not just marvelous acting, it's an actor who understands the flesh-and-blood reality of the moment and not its history. It's an actor who admires his character not in spite of his flaws but because of them.

Rush is absolutely wonderful, and Hooper shoots him with all sorts of angles, lighting and strange positions that makes him look like an alien landed in 1930s London. Nothing much impresses him, and he is supremely confident in his own expertise, even when challenged by a star pupil and his coterie of advisers. He won't yield an inch.

Carter is a revelation here despite a long career as a leading lady. She makes Bertie's wife into not just a warm and caring soul but a witty and attractive woman who understands her husband much better than he does himself.

There are many supporting performances, but many, alas, are waxwork. Perhaps the worst belongs to the usually reliable Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill.

The production is a strong one. No one can do this sort of thing like the Brits. Oops, composer Alexandre Desplat is French. Oh well, in this instance let's make him an honorary Australian.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15383
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:48 pm

I have had the film, director, screenplay, actor, supporting actor and supporting actress in my predictions with Firth the presumptive favorite in his category for three reasons:

1. The role.
2. The fact that he came so close last year.
3. He's the only potential nominee in his category among my picks who is over 40.


Return to “2010”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest