The King's Speech

When I say "British war drama that won an Oscar for Best Picture", you, reader, have no doubt conjured up an idea of what that movie is in your head. Well-acted, a superb cast, but a bit dry, and somewhat pedestrian. Congratulations, you just imagined The King's Speech. I'm not trying to say this is a bad movie, don't get me wrong. Put Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush in a movie acting off each other, and you've got a movie worth watching just for the acting. And as much as it romanticizes the role of the English monarchy and the surrounding customs, it's also nice to see them treat the royal family like real people. King George VI is portrayed, prior to and even into the beginning of his reign, as a neurotic, self-conscious mess, so traumatized by his abusive upbringing that he's developed a terrible stammer. Likewise, King Edward VIII is shown as more freewheeling, to the point of having no use or respect for tradition, which is fine in principle but terrible for a man next in line for the throne, especially at the onset of World War 2. I was engaged with the movie, and chuckled at some of the dry humor. But it's also a painfully unambitious movie, happy to sit in the groove of a thousand other biopics of someone overcoming adversity. It's nice (even if factually incorrect) that George VI isn't some master orator by the end of the movie, but beyond that, it's a cycle of try-doubt-fail-try again-doubt-fail-try again. You've seen it before. I've seen it before. We've all seen it before. A formula done well is good, but it's also still a formula, and The King's Speech is nothing but formula. If it tried anything at all that was new or different, pass or fail, I'd be more appreciative, but, as it stands, it doesn't get much more standard-issue than this. I enjoyed it, mostly for the acting, but the story itself and the presentation hardly lend itself to an amazing movie. A good one, probably not Best Picture-worthy in my opinion, but it's the kind of movie that Oscar loves, so I get why it won.