Actually I thought the film made it too dramatic an improvement. From being hardly able to get a sentence out with just minutes to go (and only 40 minutes with Logue before the speech), he read it almost perfectly after a few hesitations at the beginning. It was a bit too “Hollywood pat ending”, but that’s a minor quibble.
Yes, it was weird. Combined with her awful attempt at an Australian accent, it made for a very strange effect.
And it’s obviously not representative of the real Mrs Logue. The article to which I linked in post 26 notes that she studied elocution with her husband, and joined him in his public recitals.
Thankfully, Cuncator, Ehle’s character didn’t have much to say; it could’ve blown a large portion of the film for a lot of people…
I’ve never understood the great difficulty in acquiring an Australian accent - or why an Antipodean isn’t simply cast in the role. There’s enough of them to choose from, I would think.
Just saw this movie tonight, and i agree with you here. I loved the film, and thought that Firth and Rush were both outstanding, but the first half of the movie was considerably stronger than the second.
Logue’s workspace, with the couch set against that fabulous wall, was really great, and many of the interior shots were beautifully done. I also thought that Helena Bonham Carter did a pretty great job.
I wonder if the producers just couldn’t resist the thrill of reuniting the definitive Elizabeth Bennett with Mr Darcy.
And yet it was an odd mix of nice furniture and run-down, grimy-looking rooms. I thought the set designer might’ve been trying to hint that Logue was down on his luck, with nice stuff from his earlier career but now arranged in less-than-pleasant surroundings.
This movie finally opened near me this weekend and I saw it. I had driven an hour to see it last weekend and it sold out as I stood in line.
I thought it was fabulous, especially Colin Firth’s performance. Rush and Bonham Carter were great too. Come to think of it, Guy Pearce as David/Edward VIII also was good - I wanted to slap him so hard.
I love the fear and humiliation that Firth displayed in his eyes and face as he prepared for each speech, and the relationship between him and Elizabeth. Great movie. Firth absolutely gets my Oscar vote for Best Actor of the year (you know, if I had a vote).
Odd, someone took me to see the movie for my birthday, and we both loved it. I cried. The only distraction was that I kept wondering why I recognized Geoffrey Rush (known to me at the time as whoever’s playing the therapist), and why the vague memory seemed at odds with a straight dramatic role.
A third of the way through, I remembered him being in Mystery Men, and stopped wondering. Then I got home and looked him up. :smack:
Excellent movie.
Yes I was pretty so-so about the movie and I have trouble saying why but this is part of it. It seemed to me to be a series of fantastic set piece scenes between two absolutely top form actors with a great script (and I enjoyed that) but I suspect to be a really great movie overall for me it would have to have been about an hour longer or even more. The pace is frenetic and the background, which would have added gravitas to both the King and Logue and the events in question was largely missing. It’s like a highlights reel.
Another major enthusiastic thumbs up to this one. And for those who’ve seen it I must add Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit bloody bugger wanker willie tits Doo-dah Doo-dah!!!
In addition to Firth and Rush and Pearce and Bonham-Carter who were all deservedly praised, I liked Michael “Dumbledore” Gambon as an exquisitely regal even in mind-addled illness King George V. (The first appearance of Wallis Simpson made me think “Bebe Neuwirth?” but it’s not; I’m not sure of the historical accuracy other than the fact the abdication and marriage really happened, but if Eddie 8 was really that p-whipped then the rumors about Wallis’s Shanghai past must have been true.)
Couldn’t some of his 11th hour struggles be attributed to stage fright?
ETA: Oh, I also saw this movie for my birthday and loved it. 
The two leads were magic together. I took my action-loving boyfriend to this, and he was surprised by how much he enjoyed it.
I think Lionel (Rush’s character for those who haven’t seen it) is what makes the movie so great. It’s almost impossible to relate to somebody born into the world of privilege and titles and manners and luxury and entitlement and obligation that is royalty. While we know intellectually that their lives can be complex and even miserable there’s a part of us that feels “Damn but I wish we could trade problems- I’d love a job where I had dozens of residences, got paid tons of money, and my main job duty was to smile and wave”. However, because Lionel is a common-man (albeit an uncommon common man) and Australian for a little extra outsider-insider, and one who refuses to be treated as anything other than an equal, it gives you a window into the humanity and vulnerability of the royals.
I don’t think it’s enough of a spoiler to need tags that his speech therapist is in many way’s a general therapist. It’s almost like Analyze This with royalty. Briliant way to give a commoner’s insight into a family that’s as intrinsically weird as the Addams Family (though at least the Addams family is warm and can be likable to outsiders).
Everything I’ve read about King Edward VIII suggests that Mrs. Simpson really did have him wrapped around her little finger.
An idea to just what extent the nation owned the royal family: per prevalent anecdote that has at least some evidence* King George V’s death was hastened by a lethal overdose of morphine administered before midnight so that the morning papers would have time to print the news of his death. While it may not be true, the fact it COULD be and has been given credence by some gives an idea of to what extent they’re national possessions.
The most heartbreaking part of Bertie’s character to me was telling of his nightly audience as a childwith his parents. That said I have read George V was more relaxed with his grandchildren; Princess Margaret recalled in an interview once that their grandfather used to make faces at and wave to her and the future QE2 through binoculars.
Has there been any comment from the current royal family on their opinion of the movie?
*There’s little doubt he was euthanized- he was on his deathbed and even the queen approved of anything that would end his suffering- but it’s the “so the papers could print his death” part that’s up for debate.
No, and I very much doubt we’ll get any. Certainly the Queen doesn’t comment on anything.
Last night I watched the Daily Show from last week where Jon had Colin Firth on. He said that the writer (David Seidler I guess) stammered as a child and got the idea for the story decades ago. He wrote to the Queen Mother and she asked that the story not be told until she was dead. Unfortunately then she turned around and lived to be 102.
Cute story, if it’s true.
Saw the film last night and loved it. Firth and Rush brilliant with excellent support from Bonham Carter and Pearce.
Timothy Spall as Churchill grated, partly because he was trying too hard to do a Churchill impression and partly because it was a major distortion of history. Churchill was no friend of Bertie and Elizabeth during the Abdication crisis. Churchill was very much in the King’s (Edward VIII/David) camp and either helped with or totally wrote the Abdication radio broadcast. George VI (Bertie) didn’t forgive or forget quickly and was very reluctant to appoint Churchill as Prime Minister in 1940. Their relationship improved enormously during the war but was bleak during the period of the film. Had the distinct feeling that Churchill was chucked in as the one contemporary politician audiences would have heard of and naturally he had to be one of the good guys!
Anybody else struck by the overlap in casting with Harry Potter? I had a vision of Helena Bonham Carter, Timothy Spall, and Micheal Gambon rushing from one set to another hastily shedding wizard robes for court dress 
I really want to see it, but in English, so it’s on my “DVDs to be ordered as soon as possible” list. May still go to the theater when it’s on at the one near my house, though.
I actually think that in some eras - and in this era - the British royal family was actually fairly likeable. Bertie certainly was in the film. Elizabeth was loved by several generations of British. David (Edward) was an ass, but as he was well known as an ass - every family has them. And part of the dysfunction is that everyone recognized that he was not cut out to be King. But you get whomever was born first - unless they do you the favor of dying or abdicating for an American divorcee. And I suspect raising a prince or a princess is a little like raising a child movie star - its actually somewhat amazing that their isn’t a lot MORE dysfunction in European royal offspring.
Not necessarily likable and approachable. They are royalty after all…there is a millennium of “not approachable” behind them.