>The bigger context stuff were where the film stumbled.
But this movie isn't about "the bigger context stuff."
>exactly was that dude doing a comical Churchill impression? >Why was Churchill even in this movie? Did the king's ability >to give a speech really save the Empire from Nazi Germany?
But the speech wasn't really designed to "save the Empire." It was both a warning and a call to action for the country. I don't see where it was said at any point by any character that the speech was going to save England from Nazi Germany.
The movie's not about the effect of the speech, it's about the fact that he had enough confidence to deliver the speech in the first place. It's a personal story within the context of historical world events. And said world events don't all have to be given equal time, because they're not the actual focus of the story.
>Some of the most interesting stuff (how exactly did the civil >government force Edward off the throne) is glossed over.
That's because it's not the story of how Edward got forced off the throne. It's King George VI's story, and while what happened to Edward is a key part of it, it's not about the machinations of British government or royalty.
>Also, not a fan of the photography. Some nice lighting here >and there but altogether far too many super-wide-angle lenses >shoved up in actor's faces. Odd. And then there was that WTF >high angle wide lens shot of the family packing.
>Not really sure why this leaps out from the standard >masterpiece theatre pack of Mrs. Brown, Tea With Mussolini, >and other Judi Dench type vehicles.
Probably because it's more witty and down-to-Earth than any of those pictures.
_______________________________________________________________________ The New Shit