If you want an honest kings speech report you just found one. I must admit to a letdown after all the hype, even though it is pleasing that so many population find this piece -which is dependent upon words, brains and character instead of mindless spectacle- so satisfying. My question was looking this as a essentially cinematic sense as opposed to a Television movie.
The static quality of some of the scenes -usually set in Geoffrey Rush's rooms- and the puny quantity of main characters, reveals the source of this piece as a stage work albeit fleshed out just a bit for the cinema. This absence of on screen operation does make the film drag in a few places although normally covered up by the bravura performances of the leads.
The script isn't so good as many would have you believe and has a number of implausibilities and historical errors. Churchill for example practically demolished his vocation by siding with the old king not with the one portrayed here. definite foremost historical events are at best shaded in as opposed to explained in depth. It is also to be doubted how accustomed Geoffrey Rush would be with his king in 1930's England with its rigid class system.
