Hope Santa's lump of coal keeps you warm during this joyous holiday season. I'll go see it...Kings Rule!!!

Ugh why do I even bother.

this is crappy review. It's about the author. It's not about the movie at all

Charles, I'm glad to see that you are as bewildered as I am by the subject of this film. The King's speech impediment? Really? It's good to see at least one critic not automatically heaping praise on this shameless piece of elitist Oscar-bait.

If there are any moviegoers using The Stranger, and specifically this critic, as a compass for which film to see in the near future, please be aware that this is no review. Just the fact that Mr. Mudede admitted to missing the first ten minutes is particularly telling - I don't even want to discuss the other stuff. "The King's Speech" is an enthralling and well-written film, and I for one am going to see it a second time.

Marxist monarchs include King Lenin, King Stalin, King Mao, King Castro and King Pol Pot. Marxists don't object to kings per se, only to the antiquated title. The distinction between a divine and a dialectical mandate is surely trivial.

Marxist monarchs include King Lenin, King Stalin, King Mao, King Castro and King Pol Pot. Marxists don't object to kings per se, only to the the antiquated title. The distinction between a divine and a dialectical mandate is surely trivial.

I say: Go to see this film, Mudede and his HUBRIS be damned.

George VI was vital to Britain at a time when the nation needed him.

How important will history judge the rest of YOU to have been, one wonders ...

Also, I am a lifelong stammerer and to hear of a film wherein my speech PROBLEM (Yes, it's a handicap, don't pussyfoot around it and call it it by any other cutesy-poo name) is so prominently featured, is really quite the erstwhile blessing indeed.

YES, it IS important that King George VI did what he did, and overcame what he HAD to in order to lead his nation into a huge war and out the other side.

Again, how in the bloody Hell will history judge YOU, Mr. Mudede? And, have you dealt with stammerers? And, why does the subject of British royalty appear to so IRK you?
And, perhaps even more telling ... why are you all too kind in rendering more positive judgements upon films that deal with Blacks, and are made by Black folks than richer White people?

Does RACE still matter in today's society? I say, very much so. And, one will never get beyond it mattering, seems to me.

What's with all the racism, people?

The subject matter bothers you more than the film's construction, I'd wager. I don't blame you: George succeeded his older brother, who'd rather marry someone he fancied rather than rule, harbored resentment to the point of fancying cigarettes more than ruling. His daughter Elizabeth can thank George VI's love of tobacco for her 58-years-and-counting reign. Entitlement and addiction over responsibility: monarchs aren't immune, and they aren't, at heart, any better than the rest of us.

This is my issue with Marxist critics: they can't get away from their ideology long enough to notice anything that doesn't serve it.

Once upon a time, there was a kingdom called England. It had a king. He was a human being, in a position which put him under intense public scrutiny, and he had an embarrassing speech impediment.

Whether or not you think it's a good idea to have a king, all of this is historical fact. You can't change it.

So, I guess as an adherent of an ideology that disapproves of kings, you have a choice: you can either focus on your dislike of the fact that government systems of which you disapprove existed (and continue to exist) and ignore everything else, or you can accept that these systems exist and that you don't like them, and also treat the people within them as human beings.

I don't particularly care about most sports, but I can still appreciate the human struggle of athletes faced with insurmountable odds and enjoy movies about them.

Regardless of how you feel about monarchy, if you're an adult with the basic skills necessary to be a movie critic, you should be able to get past that and focus on what the movie is actually about. In this case, it's about a guy in the public eye with an embarrassing speech defect and his struggle to overcome it, as well as his fraught relationship with his speech therapist.

In other words, it's about people. If you can't review a movie on the terms of what it's actually about, you shouldn't be reviewing it.

Throwing a temper tantrum ("I'm a Marxist! I was forced to see a movie about a king! THE INJUSTICE!!!!") and reviewing it solely in regard to whether it fits with your political beliefs just demonstrates that you should not be a movie critic.

Wonder what you get when you send a good writer to review this film?

Charles, I haven't seen the film yet but many other stutterers have and are thrilled that there is at a last a respectful movie portrayal of stuttering. Make no mistake about it, most stutterers are downtrodden (you wanted a movie about the downtrodden?) and terrified of public exposure (the exposure of king!) This is a movie about a disorder shared by 1% of the world's population, that leads all too often to depression and under-achievement in both rich and poor. An understanding and sympathetic movie treatment will make a big difference to many of them, maybe even helping some out of poverty! That would have warmed Marx's heart.

The fact that you get paid for this horse shit is madness.

Yes yes yes...Charles I do get you, however this film is actually rather enjoyable, and it seems point out just how useless the 'aristocracy' - certainly not a meritocracy is. It is a glimpse into a different time - I would see it again. Enjoy....

There are all kinds of stories to be told. Maybe they don't all carry the same import to each person. But I've always thought the critic's job is to judge on HOW the story is told, the skill of the actors, the way the plot unfolds - it's not ALL about the "social worth" of the film. This basically told me nothing about the movie. I already knew it was about a king's speech impediment, and I probably wouldn't have it on the top of my list as a result of that. But if I knew whether it was a well-done movie or a poorly done movie, at least I'd know to avoid it or maybe give it a try.

The less you comment on Charles' articles, the sooner they fire him.

I thought it was a great film, one of the best I've seen in a while. And I don't care for Kings either.

In 5 years we'll read a "review" titled "Charles Mudede really, really hates public schools" and a final sentence that reads "so that's what you get when you send a libertarian to a movie about education."

It's the narcissism, Charles. Don't blame the Marxism.

Man, with the lack of understanding of sarcasm in some of these comments I'd think I was reading a column by "The Uptight Seattleite" in that other Seattle Weekly paper.

Any critic who arrives late to a viewing and then proceeds to review the movie has no respect for the role of the critic and does not deserve to be paid attention to, or paid at all.

Grow up, Charles. It's things like this that make 'The Stranger' remind me of a college newspaper.

@20: Mudede will never get fired as long as he's the editor's cum dumpster.

Despite your low regard for the royal family, your opinion nevertheless detracts from the fact that "The King's Speech" is a superb biographical movie. It should also be remarked that George and Elizabeth had incredible spine.

The Queen Mother deservedly earned longstanding devotion from the Blitz Generation for her and George VI's refusal to flee the country to Canada during WWII.

She famously said "The girls won't leave without me, I won't leave without the King and the King will never leave". She also famously said, after Buckingham Palace was bombed during the Blitz, "Finally. Now I can look the East End in the face." The East End was the most devastated by aerial bombing during the war.

No one should be dissuaded from seeing the film based on Mudede's misanthropic criticism.

Not to mention the irony - no, hypocrisy - of a Marxist movie critic who earns money working for a capitalist venture called The Stranger. The irony is that he gets paid (I assume) for this kind of moronic writing.

Not to mention the irony - no, hypocrisy - of a Marxist movie critic who earns money working for a capitalist venture called The Stranger. The irony is that he gets paid (I assume) for this kind of moronic writing.

Dear Stranger,

I would like to review movies for your newspaper. I think I would be really good at it. For one thing, I really like movies. And I'm a hard worker. I even took some film theory classes in college so that I could understand them intellectually. I believe it's important to try to understand what a director is trying to convey in his or her film, even if the film does not appeal to me aesthetically (i.e. almost any film by Godard), or ideologically (i.e. films about Kings or Marxists). I think your newspaper needs some good film reviewers. To be frank, some of your writers are quite amateurish, and don't seem to be interested in film at all! One fellow even admitted to showing up late for a film because he wasn't at all interested in the subject matter! Now what kind of film reviewer is that? Quite frankly, I think you should let him go, and hire someone who cares about film to write for your paper - someone like me! Please let me know how I can apply.

How the fuck did this even get printed? Missed the first 10 minutes of the movie?? So you basically failed to do your job properly, and are still managing to take yourself seriously as a judge of how well the director of A King's Speech did his job?

ANYwayyyy .... Kevin Smith reviewed this movie on Smodcast Plus One and said it was his favourite of the year and had him crying in the first 10 minutes.

You know, the 10 minutes you missed ... idiot.

@14 Your matter-of-fact tone made me laugh all the way through my reading of your comment. The Stranger should can this jag-wagon and hire you.

Charles, you are a douchebag. You are the kind of guy that makes the rest of us left wingers cringe.

P.S. The movie was great. It will be up for best picture, I'm sure.

Mr.Mudede...couldn't disagree more! Not every film needs to be a political/social diatribe on Marxist vs. capitalist values....lighten up, man. Review the movie you saw man, not the one you want to make.

Whattttt?....I couldn't disagree more, Mr. Mudede. Not every work of art needs to be a socio-political diatribe about Marxist vs. capitalist values.

I just saw this and it rocked. I knew that if a moron like Charles Mudede hated it so passionately, it must be really good. I'll continue to refer to his reviews!

Charles, perhaps your talents lie elsewhere.

The balance of a person dealing with performance anxiety, and a severe family and societal demand on his ability to perform seems to me as a great gesso upon which one can create some great art.

Costumes, sets, writing, and acting were superb.
While the subject matter may leave a bit to be desired for the average movie goer to relate to,
there was plenty to enjoy.

I would be surprised if it di dnot garner Oscar nominations for costume, set, writing, and lead & supporting actors.

I am not remotely a Marxist critic, but I also found the plot of the film trite and the writing a bit weak. It was no "Madness of King George"/"Madness of George III," shall we say. BUT I would contend that Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush have some brilliant performances in spite of it, and lift it to a higher level.

I wonder, though, Mr. Mudede, is it ultimately the run-of-the-mill "oh the poor royals" message of the film, or the lack of artistry that offends you most? In your estimation, do Alan Bennett's "Madness of George III" or, say, Shakespeare's Henry V equally irredeemable?

As a non-Seattleite, I am only a sporadic reader of this paper and the blogs it contains. However, even in my limited readings of Charles Mudede's work (by the way, is his last name pronounced mew-deed or moo-day-day?), I have been struck by how self-involved, obsessive, and just plain odd the man is. All this could be excused if he were a great (or even good) writer, but I'm afraid that's not really the case either.

I hate to call for a man's firing; as a non-resident, I don't suppose I even have the right, really. But I'd like to suggest that he take some writing and journalism courses, and strive to look outside his own, strange little worldview.

Dear Stranger:
Why do you keep this man on the payroll? Is it just for the at-least-once-weekly parade of what-the-fuckery? I try to read Mudede's articles, honestly I do, but every time I click a link in the "most commented" section and I read halfway through and start getting the urge to bash my head in with something heavy until the pain stops, it's almost assured that if I scroll up, I will see "Charles Mudede" in the byline.
And this piece is actually pretty tame, by his standards!

I have the same experience as the cheese girl. I will be reading an article and then slowly realize I'm really, really, not enjoying what's going on and, despite my general dispassion for the subject, I have a growing knot of confusion and frustration in my stomach.

Then I check the byline and it is invariably by Charles Mudede. I'm not saying he should be fired or anything-- getting fired really sucks-- but maybe try harder, or something?

(I also thought his article about being a dad was poisonous. It tried to hide what appeared to be basic-level internet trolling inside a cocoon of "hard realism", that most brittle and thin of shells.)

The king is a human being, that is the point of this film. Regardless of the realities of the British empire this man had this awesome leadership role thrust upon him at perhaps the most frightening moment in modern history. He was looked to by millions as a source of inspiration and pride and was forced to overcome his human failings and weaknesses, in order to have even a slight chance of at least not letting down utterly not just a nation but an empire... it's a great human story, it's not about Marxism, but any Marxist worth his salt would see that this film is not about monarchy either. it's about a mortal man like any other and that of all things should resonate with a Marxist... to your merit, Mudede, you pretty much admit to not giving the film half a chance and so i suggest you watch it again. look closely for the human story, you can't miss it.

What's the point of this article? Do you live in a shack? Do you spend all your waking hours fighting poverty and opression? I stopped reading after he referred to himself as "Marxist". I hate that elitist pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

I thought I just had to turn on Glenn Beck for ideological drivel, but apparently the left provides plenty of its own.
I hope Mudede doesn't actually get paid for this "work." This had to be the most pathetic review of a film in my memory.

Mudede, or should we call you Muddled, your review is a total waste of space, why did you even bother, PATHETIC.

The Stranger should have sent Charles to review Ip Man II, that would have made for an awesome review.