Simon Dillon reviews the film

Recently The King's Speech has been the centre of a censorship debate. One pivotal moment in the film, where Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), speech therapist to Bertie aka future monarch George VI (Colin Firth), encourages him to swear and he unleashes a stream of obscenities, caused the film to be slapped with a 15 rating in the UK. This was then appealed and the certificate dropped to 12A, apparently based on the fact that the speech was not aggressively directed and took place within a speech therapy context. Stephen Woolley, producer of Made in Dagenham, was infuriated, as he also made a similar appeal regarding his film, and the appeal was denied. He claimed that because Made in Dagenham was about working class women campaigning for equal pay, his request was refused. Yet because The King's Speech is aimed at a middle class audience and is considered a respectable heritage picture, the BBFC relented, even though the film has exactly the same amount of f-words as Made in Dagenham. Incidentally, in the US The King's Speech was given an R rating (the equivalent of a 15 or 18 in the UK), and a similar appeal was refused.

I am inclined to agree with Stephen Woolley. There is a double standard at work in the UK. Both films should either be 12A or 15. Stephen Woolley and Bob and Harvey Weinstein (the producers of The King's Speech) have worked in the industry for years and know perfectly well that if they included that amount of bad language in their films that they would end up with a 15 certificate. I know there have been arguments that The King's Speech would be inspirational to younger teenagers who struggle with speech impediments, but frankly the same argument could be made regarding Made in Dagenham, which also falls into the inspirational/educational category regarding the struggle for women to obtain equal pay. If the producers were really concerned about that issue, they would have found a way to make the films without including the f-words. To be honest I don't think either film has obvious appeal to younger audiences, so it doesn't really matter what certificate they are. But they should both have the same certificate.

With that out of the way, onto the film itself, which is good but frankly overrated and dangerously close to the "worthy-but-dull" tag so often associated with pictures that have big Oscar hype. To be fair, the performances are excellent. Colin Firth in particular contributes an Oscar-baiting turn full of the vulnerability and anger so loved by Academy voters with a penchant for performances depicting people with disabilities. Geoffrey Rush is as good as ever, portraying Logue as a failed actor who uses his occupation to perform. There's also fine support from Guy Pierce as Firth's abdicating elder brother Edward VIII and Derek Jacobi's conniving Archbishop of Canterbury. Michael Gambon's George V is convincingly shown as something of a frustrated bully, especially towards Bertie, and Helena Bonham Carter is good as the loyal and supportive Queen Elizabeth (ie the late Queen Mother, not Elizabeth II).

David Seidler's screenplay is witty and engaging, and Tom Hooper directs the piece perfectly competently, often using close ups of the microphones Bertie fears to menacing effect. In fact, there is nothing really wrong with the way the film is put together at all. But The King's Speech just doesn't feel like the remarkable piece of work everyone is raving about. For me, it is little more than a well made TV movie with an interesting true story of how Bertie overcame his stutter to deliver important speeches to his people during the dark years of World War II. Hitler's rise casts a shadow over the whole film, but rather than add dramatic effect it seems to choke the story with its historical significance.

As I am a sucker for royal drama (I loved The Queen), I came to The King's Speech really wanting to like it. But whilst this Rocky-with-speeches-instead-of-boxing is a solid enough piece of drama, for me it isn't the Best Picture Winner it could well turn out to be.