The King's Speech 
follows Here is my attempt, in spite of the incredibly loud drainage machine right next to me (thanks to the burst pipe) and the resulting little something to endure heat Yield of Tom Hooper's "The King's Speech" to write. nominated for twelve Academy Awards, including in the categories Best Film, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor ... in fact for just about everything. And some prices, the film is surely going to take home - quite rightly.
tells the story of Albert, the Duke of York, who suffers from early childhood stuttering under heavy, public appearances for him what he has now completed once the son of King makes a misery. Countless doctors could not cure him and as a last resort, he asks his wife Elizabeth to visit the speech therapist Lionel Logue. With his unconventional methods, he actually manages to reduce stuttering Alberts. But then abdicated his older brother David, who had become after the death of the father of the new King of England to marry his mistress, a twice divorced American. Albert must now support as George VI with his people talk, for the 2nd World war is imminent ...
A great film! So simple it can be summed up - every Oscar nomination is totally deserved. In "The King's Speech" is a really good, fun, sometimes exciting actor's film. The great cast carries the movie, without them it would not work.
Colin Firth as Albert is great. The inner turmoil as he expressed the satisfaction of the man who wants to be in no case king who had an unhappy childhood, suffering from his stuttering and has almost given up hope. His interaction with the always wonderful Geoffrey Rush as Logue is perfect and really entertaining. The chemistry is good. The best scenes of the film are then also, in which Firth and Rush are represented together, just because the war of words between them include a wonderfully dry sense of humor.
Even Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth (later Queen Mother) is totally convincing - it is nice and soft, but you can feel nevertheless a degree of certainty in their actions, that makes them believable as the great support of her husband. It stands unconditionally behind him and support him as best they can. Also very good, sometimes even filled with a wink, the supporting roles. As a big fan of the BBC adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice" with Colin Firth, I was delighted, not only to Mr. Collins (David Bamber) in a small supporting role to be seen as sleazy theater director, but above all, Jennifer Ehle, the here Logues wife Myrtle and then plays the Elizabeth Bennett was. Granted, you have to look twice to recognize it, but it makes the meeting between Albert and Myrtle doubly funny. * G *
Guy Pearce as David (Edward VIII) and Eve Best as his mistress Wallis Simpson are now really unappealing and thus also well besetzt.Etwas strange it was, however, already, to see Timothy Spall as Churchill. I can not help Spall will remain for me forever the rat Pettigrew in "Harry Potter" ...
Surprisingly, I found, as humvorvoll "The King's Speech" is. In particular, the above-mentioned war of words between Albert and Logue are hilarious, but it always shines through in other scenes of dry humor that makes one smile. Particularly well received is the scene in which Albert asks Logue, all swear words that come to him scream out. The nasty F word is very often used, which brought the film in the U.S., an R-rating. It really is logical. Why should young people may also see a film in which is such a bad word said more than three times? This could traumatize the rest of her life. Who cares there's the story that has to be overcome with the help of friendship and trust with personal difficulties and weaknesses. Then I'd rather "Transformers 2", which are at least identification figures!
Um, yes. You may notice that I find this absolutely ridiculous decision by the MPAA.
further in the text. Not only the actors are great, too the music fits very well in the events and supported the scenes. Very good camera work, realistic costumes, great features, average full effect ... what more could you want? Well, you want to necessarily criticize anything, it could be argued perhaps that the historical facts have been turned slightly to increase the drama (as Albert did in 1927 thanks Logues using a stutter-free speech in Canberra), but eventually it's still a film and a bit of drama is one of them. ;)
It was interesting to observe the audience. Both ideas, we have lowered the average age considerably - I've never seen so many people over 50 in the cinema. This led but also to the fact that there were very nice cinema. No giggling teenagers, mobile phone no gimmicks, no loud Tütenknistern. Why can not always be so?
Conclusion: Be sure to go inside! Great actors and good staging captivate the audience until the last minute - and all without grandstanding!
