MovieChat Forums > The King's Speech (2010) Discussion > What Kind of Person Actually Likes a Mov...

What Kind of Person Actually Likes a Movie Like This?

posted 8 years ago by scottrc5391
37 replies | jump to latest

I held my tongue for six years, just hoping we'd see a general improvement in the quality of films. But improvement hasn't happened, so I thought I'd start with this film, which is where we hit rock bottom, to see if anyone could help me to understand the kind of people who are supporting this trash.
This one was pure Oscar fodder, as most "period pieces" are. As such, it was created for people who think they're smarter than they actually are and want the self-satisfaction that comes from being able to "appreciate" such a "masterpiece". There was British humor sprinkled throughout, none of which was actually funny, and yet the American audience I sat with all chuckled in unison, as if to announce to each other that they were smart enough to laugh at such highbrow humor (though you could tell none of them actually thought anything was funny). I knew immediately that I was not a part of this "club". Let's not get too political, but does the fact that such a pretentious film is popular reflect a decadence in society?
How can I jump immediately to the conclusion that the film was pretentious?
Well, first and foremost, the premise was ridiculous. A king with a speech impediment. Let me repeat that: a KING... who stutters. If there was ever a worse subject for a movie, I haven't found it. I don't care if it was a true story or not. Why don't we also make a movie about a spoiled girl who got a Mercedes instead of a Bentley at her sweet sixteen party? OK, so maybe I missed the point and we weren't supposed to feel any real sympathy with this king. So what was the point then? Enlighten me.

[–] mariakelly-04164 8 years ago

The type of person who knows what it's like to have society try to make a lefthanded person use their right hand, that's who.

Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

Another "first-world problem" right there.

[–] syafiqjabar 8 years ago

Uh, no. The left-hand right-hand thing is also rooted in the beliefs and superstitions of various cultures so it's something you see all over the world.

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

I'm sure there are a lot of superstitions within communities in the third world. I'm not an expert, but somehow I don't think being left-handed is a death sentence within the vast majority of them, and most people are too preoccupied with obtaining food, water, and shelter to care. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it IS (i.e., tribes exile left-handed people and leave them to die). So what would be your point then? Left-handed people in industrialized countries may be inconvenienced but they don't face anything close to this level of hardship. Something that is a problem in one place may not be in another. Therefore, it is still appropriate to call left-handedness within an industrialized country a "first world problem," with about the same level of seriousness as say, poor cell phone reception.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

A person like me. I liked it.

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - Grouch

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

No, see you missed the whole point. I know people liked it. I am seeking some information that might help me form a mental image of the typical person that likes this movie. The "profile" I have so far is (look away if hypersensitive to non-politically correct language): white, middle-class (low level white-collar worker who has a meaningless, paper-pusher position that fill them with self-loathing), eats at Panera Bread, sips specialty coffees while pretending to write a script on a MacBook in Starbucks, drives a hybrid, and disgustingly uses terms like "white privilege" (because it is a form of "activism" that only requires that they pretend to feel guilty on occasion when it is socially beneficial to them). In short, a someone who is completely fake. Now your turn.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

IMHO, you are over-thinking this. One need not be a "certain type" to enjoy a movie, a book, a sporting event, etc. People are who they are and can enjoy or participate in anything they wish.

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - Grouch

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

No but statistics would show a clear trend. You may hate stereotypes but you can't argue with statistics. For instance, I'd say that there if you were to take a random sample of people who had seen both The King's Speech and Rambo (2008) and asked them to rate both movies, you could observe a correlation. If you had the ratings for this film on one axis and Rambo on the other, you'd likely find a negative linear correlation where people who gave one a very high ranking gave the other a very low ranking, and relatively few people hated both or liked both equally. I am making no claim as to which film is the better of the two, only that they appear to be completely different and therefore appeal to completely different people. Some people are too pretentious to watch anything with "explosions and digital effects" you know, and some people are too dumb to be able to appreciate anything without these things.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

OK. 

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - Grouch

[–] TheTripleA 8 years ago

What a pretentious dweeb you are.

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

The best way to know you're right about something is when people resort to ad hominem attacks, particularly when they can't even come up with their own insults ("pretentious").

[–] syafiqjabar 8 years ago

*Looks at the OP*

[–] tdbasilfawlty 8 years ago

"Resort to ad hominem"

Your entire OP was one large ad hominem you infantile little pube. You seem totally insufferable.

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

No, the people who like this movie are "insufferable". Say, you wouldn't happen to be British would you?

[–] joystar5879 8 years ago

What about someone who has benefitted from modern day variations of Lionel Logue's techniques? The breathing exercises still work. So do the exercises for stress relief and knowledge of the triggers that will set off an attack.

No one knows what caused the King's stammer, but we know now, that he did the worst possible thing for it: He SMOKED...in a time when smoking was considered relaxing, and even healthy.

I liked the film, because I knew the story, and had benefitted from the Logue technique. I also enjoyed all the actors in the film. Lastly, I know what it's like to suffer from an asthmatic stammer, and the film meant something to me.

BTW, "scottrc5391", YOU wouldn't be British, would you? I sincerely hope not, because YOU are the "Insufferable" one🇬🇧🇺🇸

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

OK, I will add stutterers to the list of people who liked this movie. We all have our challenges and I can respect that.
As for British people, I have nothing against them, but it is a little bewildering how some will react with such vitriol as if personally insulted when someone dares to criticize any of their films (take the previous poster as an example). As an American, I will tell you that in terms of sheer volume, Hollywood has pumped out more crap than all of the other countries combined, so prolific are we, and it's only getting worse. I am patriotic, but that does not extend to defending films of inferior quality merely because they were produced by American studios or on American soil. So if you want to criticize an American film, please do so. We need more people to speak out against the terrible current state of film-making in this country (which, whether I/we like it or not, has been influenced by the [to me] inexplicable success of The King's Speech).

[–] Suzume-san 8 years ago

Random selection from my DVD shelf -

Kill Bill
Ladies in Lavender
Guardians of the Galaxy
Jurassic Park
Ghost Dog
Sense and Sensibility
13 Assassins
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Pulp Fiction
Battlestar Galactica
Shakespeare in Love
Dances with Wolves
and everything Kurosawa ever made.

Don't put people in boxes.

[–] sLyG 8 years ago

Now I know one sample in a "statistic" is hardly representative, but I couldn't resist chipping in with my 'two pence'. You see, I have watched both films in equal enthralment and my rating happens to be the same. I am both highly pretentious and exceedingly dumb, although you may find that it takes true wisdom to admit that.

I am neither white, middle-class, middle-aged or any other half-baked socioeconomic segment. Merely a "regular" viewer (if any such faction exists) that took great pleasure in watching a superhuman soldier overcome his conditions, just as I did when I saw a muted king, humanised and vulnerable, confront his limitations. It is comforting to find that the veneer of royalty does little to shield even the most elevated amongst us. But prevail we do nevertheless.

[–] Suzume-san 8 years ago

A person who isn't you?

[–] SeemsSensible 8 years ago

I sort of fell down a British monarchy rabbit hole. I watched Young Victoria recently, and after that, the Netflix series The Crown. (My take: Young Victoria was OK; I really liked The Crown.) Then I started The King's Speech, which I'd never seen. Let me just say that I am not high-minded, I'm pretty sure, but I didn't find it compelling enough to watch in one sitting. I watched it over the course of a couple weeks, in four parts.

My main puzzlement: This won the Oscar for Best Picture? That I don't get. Yes, Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth are good; Firth does a good job with the speech impediment. I just didn't find it extraordinary in any way. (I know I'm not answering your question, i.e., what kind of person likes it; I'm just chiming in.)

One minor thing I found off-putting was the difference between Guy Pearce and Colin Firth's ages. In real life, King George VI was one year younger than King Edward VIII; Colin Firth is seven years older than Guy Pearce and looks it. When Pearce showed up in the movie as David/Edward, I thought, He's supposed to be the older brother; he looks every bit the seven years younger that he is.

[–] anchorman360 8 years ago

I was gonna make a similar post. I can't believe this won best picture over inception, the fighter, true grit, 127 hours, the social network, and the kids are all right. Not to mention the town and shutter island not even being nominated.

[–] syafiqjabar 8 years ago

The movie might not have deserved that Oscar, but a story about a respected man in a position of power humbled by an affliction is a classic one.

[–] Tamwise 8 years ago

I genuinely enjoyed every minute of this film. I am generally reasonably anti-Monarchy and all of that ridiculousness, but they are such a beguiling bunch and King George VI's reign was during an era I'm particularly interested in. Basically I'm just a very boring person, and I love history. I suppose I have to concede that I tick a couple of your boxes (white, lower middle class). Oh and, I have never seen a Rocky film ;).

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

Ah, a history buff. Understandable. And you liked it despite being anti-monarchy? The fact that I am opposed to hereditary monarchy (especially the kind Britain has devolved to) basically killed it for me. I just don't find this "King" interesting enough to watch. Oh, I don't really care for Rocky either! Formulaic story of underdog who triumphs by sheer force of will and mind-over-matter - NEXT!

[–] Tamwise 8 years ago

The farcical nature of the monarchy is part of the appeal! It's so quirky and ridiculous that it's entertaining, most of their traditions are mind-boggling and the fact that it's all actually taken seriously is pretty hilarious to me. I forgot that there was one thing I didn't like about the film actually, their Churchill, that portrayal seemed like a bit of a piss-take.

[–] scottrc5391 8 years ago

Part of the appeal eh? I never thought of it that way!
I did notice that there have been some criticisms regarding inaccurate portrayals - I'm not an expert on the matter so won't weigh in on that one.

[–] TrapLordRonSwanson 8 years ago

Dialogue-driven movies are my favorite. I like movies with great acting and great dialogue. You don't necessarily need much of a plot to be a great film. Other examples of this:

Frost/Nixon
Glengarry Glen Ross
Charlie Wilson's War
There Will Be Blood
Moneyball

Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life!