A reluctant English king with a confounding stammer and a self-described speech therapist with unorthodox but successful methods in pre-World War II Europe form a very unlikely relationship in "The King's Speech."
The period piece focusing on the ascension of King George VI (Colin Firth), from a duke to head of a country on the brink of war, as he battles his pronounced speech impediment with the help of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a struggling actor with a gift for helping others overcome vocal challenges.
I can't question the acting in this film. Great job, especially by the two principal characters, and Bertie's wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). But I'm not quite sure what makes this the film of the year in Oscar competition. Because it's a British period piece, something Oscar traditionally loves? Perhaps it's all the Euro actors. If that's the case, Harry Potter should be up for the award too, three actors in this film (Carter, Gambon and Timothy Spall who plays Winston Churchill) appear in the young wizard picture as well.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie. Great story, zero action. C'mon, it's pre-World War II, could you drop a bomb or something? How about a single gun shot? No? Perhaps a horse rider using a riding crop? The closest thing we get to action is a scene near the end of the movie, prior to the big speech, where warning sirens are sounding outside Westminster Abbey and people are running in the streets.
Same thing with "The Social Network," good story, good acting based on actual events, more action than "The King's Speech," but for me, I'll take "The Fighter" for pic of the year - and it's based on actual events as well.