Possible spoilers but it's not really a movie that would matter if you're spoiled for it, it's all history anyway.

I saw this yesterday evening after hearing good things about it. So I'll admit my expectations were high. The film fulfilled those expectations admirably.

Honestly, the story is not incredible but I think that's why it's really good. It's not trying to be more than it's not, it's just trying to perfect what it's got. The story could easily have more social/historical commentary but it's not about that. It's not about WWII looming on the horizon, it's not about the abjudication crisis, it's not about the method of appeasement towards Hitler; though these contextual elements form a small background to the film, and slightly heighten the drama.

The film's about a prince, first of all, who later becomes a king. He has a speech impediment (a stammer) and hence he doesn't feel like he's up to the role of 'kinging', especially with the growing use of radio and television and photography and the background of the war. It's not a big story, I mean effectively it's like those after school specials about socially awkward kids who overcome their social faux pas. But it has a sense of grandeur because it's the King, because he is somewhat a hope of the nation.

This film could easily have been an average period drama if it wasn't for the acting though. Colin Firth as Bertie or King George VI...oscar bait, possibly? Really amazing performance, and a difficult one. Some critics have said he comes across too forced in his stammering, but I think he really puts across how awkward it is to watch a stammering person. It's really a film where you cringe all the time and cannot uncringe. Geoffrey Rush is great too as an non-deferential eccentric, he gets lots of good lines, but I don't think his acting is as great as Firth's, if only because Rush gets the more likeable character. Helena Bonham Carter is fine, but her role is quite limited; there's a lovely moment at the beginning where she introduces herself as a common person and then is shocked by how ordinary people are treated. Guy Pearce is also good as King George VI's older brother, King Edward VIII (but called David in the film...the royal family picks from their long names which one they call themselves), and possibly could be seen as the bad guy. His character is seen in history as a bad guy, putting his selfish interests before the nation's, but he's more sympathetic in the film; which isn't about him anyway. And well he does bully his younger brother B-b-b-bertie but what are siblings for?

And the dialogue is spectacular. Really witty, understated, sarcastic stuff. Very quintessentially British, I'm not sure how much of it would translate to an American audience. Which I think was a concern for the film producers, over whether Americans will 'get it'. It largely depends on your sense of humour I suppose. It's close to Blackadder, possibly, but not really. It's just a kind of self-depreciating sarcastic humour, with a bit of light ridiculousness in it. The film doesn't take itself very seriously, even in its serious sections, there's always some kind of lightheartedness about it. Which is good for a period drama I think, sometimes they can get really stuffy and pompous, but The King's Speech never feels like that.

I hear it's been rated R in America, which is weird because it's a 12A here. I don't know what pushed it to an R rating, possibly the swearing? There's two massively funny moments which just involve an explosion of swearing, so that might be it.

Anyway, if you do get a chance to see it, you should. I really enjoyed it, much more than I thought I would. I'm definitely not a period-piece type of person, and I really don't give a damn about the monarchy, but I think it has mainstream appeal because it really is just a story about a guy who works hard and overcomes his difficulty (with a little help). So yeah, great film, great performances, and I'd highly recommend it!