I've always believed a 'Boxing' movie is the best Oscar bait. If I wanted a Oscar, that's what I would make. Look at the past decade, they have done alright.
Escape to the Movies: The Kings Speech
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
To be perfectly honest, I totally disagree with this review. I thought this was one of the best films this year, along with Black Swan, 127 Hours, Inception and - yes - The Social Network.
Well presented, though. You don't have to agree with the opinion of the reviewer to appreciate the review, I guess.
Well presented, though. You don't have to agree with the opinion of the reviewer to appreciate the review, I guess.
This review is fucking garbage. I don't even know why I watched it. I came home after watching this movie, and was really quite happy for once. I've been watching crappy movies for a few months now with nothing to really fill the void and after seeing this, I felt revitalized.
The acting was top tier. The plot was weak and predictable, but it was salvaged completely by the acting abilities of the "British guys". I felt engrossed, engaged, and even though I had an idea of what would happen before it did, it still felt genuinely suspenseful during its unforlding.
This is the first review from Bob I have seen since that Book of Eli thing he had a while back, and maybe I chose a bad movie to watch a review by him on, because Scott Pilgrim was a special effects extravaganza of mediocre, while The Social Network was basically a 2 hour movie that had absolutely nothing to do with how Facebook was actually created.
Oh but that doesn't matter, those movies appeal to your geek culture elitism, so they deserve Oscars. My ass they do. Michael Cerra has a long way to go before he can even exhibit an ounce of talent that Rush does on the big screen.
The acting was top tier. The plot was weak and predictable, but it was salvaged completely by the acting abilities of the "British guys". I felt engrossed, engaged, and even though I had an idea of what would happen before it did, it still felt genuinely suspenseful during its unforlding.
This is the first review from Bob I have seen since that Book of Eli thing he had a while back, and maybe I chose a bad movie to watch a review by him on, because Scott Pilgrim was a special effects extravaganza of mediocre, while The Social Network was basically a 2 hour movie that had absolutely nothing to do with how Facebook was actually created.
Oh but that doesn't matter, those movies appeal to your geek culture elitism, so they deserve Oscars. My ass they do. Michael Cerra has a long way to go before he can even exhibit an ounce of talent that Rush does on the big screen.
*Writes down formula*
All of you just wait, ten years from now I'll be making a movie about the British firebombing of Dresden or something.
I'll throw in plenty of British people talking and I'll have an Oscar to play with by the end of it all.
All of you just wait, ten years from now I'll be making a movie about the British firebombing of Dresden or something.
I'll throw in plenty of British people talking and I'll have an Oscar to play with by the end of it all.
When I was watching King's Speech I was laughing at the many charming jokes and capers, I found the characters endearing and likable despite my views on the monarchy and royalty, I learned something about historical events that I did not know before and I truly appreciated for the first time how debilitating stammers can be for people (king's as well) all the while with a smile on my face the whole way through. I came out the cinema feeling happy and elated and carried on the rest of my day in this jolly mood.
Whether this movie was arguably formulaic, conventional, predictable or "oscar bait" really had no bearing on my enjoyment of the film then or now. Whilst such words had never formed in my mind in relation to this movie before all I can say after hearing them is 'so what'? I'm no film critic but I appreciated the film was well written, shot and performed (as did Moviebob) and that the cast and crew were well deserving of their praise. Does every piece of cinema have to be breaking new ground or doing something revolutionary or different? Is it not enough that a film that is perhaps a very traditional take on a true story simply be extremely well executed and of a high quality? Or, should it be challenging an established tradition or convention with something 'new' and 'fresh'?
To be honest I don't really know the answer, if there is any definitive answer to begin with; all I know is I highly enjoyed 'The King's Speech' and would gladly watch it again and again and that is enough.
And the best thing of all, the film actually got an applause from the audience (me included). Now in Britain, applause for films are uncommon to say the least, we Brits are a little more shall we say subdued about our enthusiasm's in public places but this is one of the few times any film I've watched has received a warm round of applause and that should be testament enough to its quality (and no, I wasn't in a theater with the royal family either, just your average Joe's in a rather small town on the west coast)
Whether this movie was arguably formulaic, conventional, predictable or "oscar bait" really had no bearing on my enjoyment of the film then or now. Whilst such words had never formed in my mind in relation to this movie before all I can say after hearing them is 'so what'? I'm no film critic but I appreciated the film was well written, shot and performed (as did Moviebob) and that the cast and crew were well deserving of their praise. Does every piece of cinema have to be breaking new ground or doing something revolutionary or different? Is it not enough that a film that is perhaps a very traditional take on a true story simply be extremely well executed and of a high quality? Or, should it be challenging an established tradition or convention with something 'new' and 'fresh'?
To be honest I don't really know the answer, if there is any definitive answer to begin with; all I know is I highly enjoyed 'The King's Speech' and would gladly watch it again and again and that is enough.
And the best thing of all, the film actually got an applause from the audience (me included). Now in Britain, applause for films are uncommon to say the least, we Brits are a little more shall we say subdued about our enthusiasm's in public places but this is one of the few times any film I've watched has received a warm round of applause and that should be testament enough to its quality (and no, I wasn't in a theater with the royal family either, just your average Joe's in a rather small town on the west coast)
Well, considering the academy awards are won by voting from inside the industry, I'd imagine that what Oscar really like is films with a large production staff.
*ding*
As for no horror, sci fi or fantasy, that's for a reason. The reason being funding from outside sources, who know nothing about art, and therefore play safe with their money and put it on "respectable". This is why the art buying scene is always stuck at least 10 years behind. This is also why fat cats and businesses are still buying Rothko paintings, and referring to them as "contemporary".
*ding*
As for no horror, sci fi or fantasy, that's for a reason. The reason being funding from outside sources, who know nothing about art, and therefore play safe with their money and put it on "respectable". This is why the art buying scene is always stuck at least 10 years behind. This is also why fat cats and businesses are still buying Rothko paintings, and referring to them as "contemporary".
So bob, at what point are you actually going to, oh I don't know, review the movie? All I got out of this is that you're pissed off that you're personal favorite movies of the year just aren't Oscar worthy and you have to lash out about it.
Really, this was better suited for The Big Picture than Escape to the Movies. Hell, you barely talked about the movie unless it was to point out how it ties into your rant about the Oscars.
For the record, I don't much care for the Oscars, Golden Globes, or any awards show for that matter (and don't even get me started on Spikes VGA crap fest), but unlike you, I just don't give a damn about them and enjoy movies I like.
Really, this was better suited for The Big Picture than Escape to the Movies. Hell, you barely talked about the movie unless it was to point out how it ties into your rant about the Oscars.
For the record, I don't much care for the Oscars, Golden Globes, or any awards show for that matter (and don't even get me started on Spikes VGA crap fest), but unlike you, I just don't give a damn about them and enjoy movies I like.
I'm detecting a long slither of bile veiled in humour throughout that review. I agree that this film is not original in structure but not that it doesn't deserve an Oscar. The Oscars always have films which are accessible to anyone and therefore generally not very disruptive. That means you have to judge the film purely on the quality of characters and filming. And the King's Speech does both flawlessly. I'm always interested in what have to to say because usually your opinions differ from mine but not by so much that I can downright ignore them. And that means I can actually evaluate my opinions through evaluating yours. But when your reviews attack something as baselessly as that I just want to face palm.
Missed horrendous pun opportunity:Hungry Donner said:
'Inedible yeast extract put on sandwiches? CheckmIte!'
had to be said. Sorry this comes months after the event, I only just watched the King's Speech (it was awesome despite the swearing bits being censored - stupid aeroplanes) and wanted to watch the review again. Also, silence: yeast extracts are delicious.
The pun, it burns!tweedpol said:
The aviation business must love Geoffrey Rush, the last time I saw an in-flight movie it was Shine. Quite a few scenes on that had to be cut.tweedpol said:
Again, Bob, we just don't agree here.
For one thing, the theme that you so eloquently explained is called a motif. A lot of movies have these motifs, which translate as things that are common throughout, no matter how many there tend to be. Plus, not all of these big films have the same motif that you're stereotyping them in. Let me explain.
It's like in books where you look at one book, and there's a dark setting and a sort of anti-hero. You look at another one, and it looks like it has the same thing. Same goes for another. Those two things...they're motifs. They're common throughout the specific kind of films because they're what define them as such. Does it make them dull and repetitive? Perhaps, but only if you've seen those kind of films time and time again. So, with the "poor man helping a rich man with a problem" and the "they get together in this problem, they fight and break apart, and then get back together again" things are motifs. And these motifs are VERY common.
Now, let's look at a few Best Picture Oscar winners. Now, I just looked back at the video just to get this straight. Not all of these movies are about overcoming something, Bob. For example, there's "The Hurt Locker" about a group of soldiers in the Middle East trying to stay alive while one of their number has to disarm bombs, "Slumdog Millionaire" about a young man who won on Who Wants to be a Millionaire because he could reference each question with a moment in his life, and "No Country for Old Men" which has to do with a man who finds drug money and runs away with it in order to stay alive and away from a serial killer who's out to get said money. And the WWII bit...again, you're stereotyping. If that was the case, why didn't "Inglourious Basterds" win the Oscar for Best Picture?
And seeing as though "The King's Speech" takes place in this era, you jump on this and think it common throughout most of the Best Picture winners. That, too, could be a motif, but it definitely isn't common throughout the winners here...or the majority, at least. I could say more, but I'll stop there.
For one thing, the theme that you so eloquently explained is called a motif. A lot of movies have these motifs, which translate as things that are common throughout, no matter how many there tend to be. Plus, not all of these big films have the same motif that you're stereotyping them in. Let me explain.
It's like in books where you look at one book, and there's a dark setting and a sort of anti-hero. You look at another one, and it looks like it has the same thing. Same goes for another. Those two things...they're motifs. They're common throughout the specific kind of films because they're what define them as such. Does it make them dull and repetitive? Perhaps, but only if you've seen those kind of films time and time again. So, with the "poor man helping a rich man with a problem" and the "they get together in this problem, they fight and break apart, and then get back together again" things are motifs. And these motifs are VERY common.
Now, let's look at a few Best Picture Oscar winners. Now, I just looked back at the video just to get this straight. Not all of these movies are about overcoming something, Bob. For example, there's "The Hurt Locker" about a group of soldiers in the Middle East trying to stay alive while one of their number has to disarm bombs, "Slumdog Millionaire" about a young man who won on Who Wants to be a Millionaire because he could reference each question with a moment in his life, and "No Country for Old Men" which has to do with a man who finds drug money and runs away with it in order to stay alive and away from a serial killer who's out to get said money. And the WWII bit...again, you're stereotyping. If that was the case, why didn't "Inglourious Basterds" win the Oscar for Best Picture?
And seeing as though "The King's Speech" takes place in this era, you jump on this and think it common throughout most of the Best Picture winners. That, too, could be a motif, but it definitely isn't common throughout the winners here...or the majority, at least. I could say more, but I'll stop there.
I really enjoyed watching this review take the piss out of this "movie".
(Predominately because my girlfriend really wanted to drag my ass to go see it)
I relished the perspective given regarding the Oscar awards, and the fact that the voter base is terribly biased and/or lacks diversity.
(Predominately because my girlfriend really wanted to drag my ass to go see it)
I relished the perspective given regarding the Oscar awards, and the fact that the voter base is terribly biased and/or lacks diversity.
I take back every statement I ever made about this film and its status at this year's Oscars. In fact, after actually watching the film, this review is a bit frustrating. With the exception of the scene where Bertie decides that his mentor is being treasonous due to his own insecurities, nothing about this film is by-the-numbers in its execution. The framing, direction, and performances could have been utterly safe and formulaic, but instead a lot of risks were taken, and it resulting in a film that was ultimately not only satisfying, but very deep and emotional. I don't know if it deserved best picture, but you couldn't fabricate such a film without a dedication to artistry. The Weinstein brothers suck, but they don't actually MAKE the films.
I honestly liked this movie a lot. The setting didn't really matter very much to me or the fact that the lead is upper class. It was just a feel-good movie with some fantastic acting. I actually liked it more than The Social Network (enjoyed that movie too though). Inception was my favorite movie that year even though it did have a fairly major plot hole.
Also, sorry about the necropost...
Also, sorry about the necropost...
The King's Speech is an excellent film. I am disappointed you have put it down to such a cynical point of view, Bob.