The King's Speech

The Unbearable Lightness of Royal Being, or the first film that allowed me to understand the power and meaning of the monarchy. Tom Hooper may be accused of "academic coldness" by some sensitive folk, but in my opinion, he directs in an economical style that allows the actors' charisma to shine through, placing The King's Speech amongst the ranks of engagingly chatty films like Howard's Frost/Nixon or Fincher's The Social Network. (23/01/2011)

A cultured speech therapy drama about the power of the voice and the imaginary status of a king. A wonderfully blissful play of static semi-details, mannerist textures and refined interiors, against which the chaotic wallpaper of Dr. Logue proudly stands out, who understands that the king is king above all when his subjects believe him. And in the 1930s, they can trust his voice above all. It's all a typical Rocky template about an outsider who climbed to the top, even though no one believed in him. Even with its sensitively stylizing representation of history, it is the equivalent of the excellent drama Frost/Nixon. An acting concert, from Colin Firth's stressed-out creation to Helen Bonham Carter's light-legged ballet. Maybe over-modified, but I like it... more than a handsome, gelled Fincher mop of hair. (20/01/2011)

It can start subtly and escalate very gradually, but King's Speech deeply touched me and when it comes to admiration for acting performances, it literally surpassed them. And just like the main character is a timid speaker and a future famous ruler, the movie is on one hand a sweet little film and on the other a spectacle that almost everyone can love and celebrate. (06/02/2011)

A typically British, perfectionistic, and old-fashioned film, which, although it has a number of undeniable merits starting with excellent casting, appropriate performances, and conservative but flawless direction, somehow did not enthuse me and captivate me. It deals with aristocratic "better" people bound by strict social rules, etiquette, and responsibility, not for themselves, but for the reputation and status of their family. These people have sympathy for the plebeians down below and feel responsibility for them about as much as a medieval feudal lord felt responsibility for his subjects. By the way, they reduce people to one group and even though they talk a great deal about that group, they are extremely careful not to get themselves dirty with the people below and actually do not even know them. Overall impression: 80%. (18/04/2011)

Serious themes of an interesting era in the chronicle of humanity, the beauty of Victorian England (exteriors/interiors, aesthetics), and a lead cast of two. These are the three main assets in this formally meticulously done film, which lacks pull and a good dose of emotion. The sparkle is not enough. If Tom Hooper wasn't just a good craftsman, but a progressive innovator who could put his own distinctive spin on things (and there was a ton of room for that here), this would be downright great. Academics have lost their minds over something that isn’t nearly that great. (30/10/2015)