Colin Firth gave a mesmerizing performance as King George VI in “The King’s Speech,” a film rife with great performances and an entertaining story.

But despite all of the things that made “The King’s Speech” a really good movie, it was not a great film nor deserving of the Best Picture win at the Oscars last Sunday.

Let’s first talk about Tom Hooper winning best director. This came as a bigger shock than the Best Picture win, which was expected, because David Fincher was predicted to win for “The Social Network.”

“The King’s Speech” was a film buoyed by great performances, admittedly tied directly to the director’s ability to capture the actors at their best moments, but as far as assortment of shots and cinematic style, Hooper was not even in the same world as the other directors.

Fincher also got the best possible performances out of his actors, including an Oscar-nominated turn from normally tepid Jesse Eisenberg as the aggressive go-getter Mark Zuckerberg, but Fincher’s film also had a distinct style. Furthermore, though the screenplay was masterfully written by Aaron Sorkin, the film is indelibly Fincher’s with computer programmers surrounded by darkness.

Darren Aronofsky also made a film that could only be his, much different stylistically than any other film, yet the “Black Swan” director and the director of “The Fighter” David O. Russell also went home empty-handed.

Hooper’s film was not only formulaic in structure, George VI is like Rocky but with a stammer, but the direction is formulaic.

Every cut is textbook, nothing like Danny Boyle in “127 Hours” who takes risks at every opportunity, every shot is measured and obvious, behind the stammering man during his speech in front of thousands of people and the overall look of the film is very similar to the other recent historical depiction of royalty: Stephen Frears’ “The Queen.”

But beyond the lack of originality in the director’s chair, the Academy should have looked at what makes a film truly great. It seems that everyone agrees that for a film to make an impact it needs to have a point, a message, and a goal.

“The King’s Speech” told the age-old story that if you try hard enough eventually you’ll succeed, given the right help. It is uplifting, no doubt, but any viewer could get the same feeling from “127 Hours,” a more harrowing and heart-wrenching tale of the triumph of the human spirit, or even the “Transformer” movies.

“The Social Network” was not only a movie of tremendous originality in direction, its central themes critiqued a society in which people friend each other in superficial manners and display the same social characteristics as our least sociable citizens. It’s complex and thought-provoking, two things that “The King’s Speech” is not.

“Inception,” overlooked in every category that had nothing to do with special effects and sound, was also incredibly original and intense. The Academy does tend to look down its nose at higher-grossing films, but it was unquestionably deserving of greater recognition, as this publication rated it as the best film of 2010.

“Black Swan” took a ballet and interpreted it differently for the screen; an idea that could have lead to something silly, but the film was thrilling and engrossing. 

People like to believe that “The King’s Speech” won because the Oscars are attracted to the old-fashioned period film that reminds people of more dignified times. That may be true, but the selection of “The King’s Speech” as the Best Picture of the year was flat-out wrong.

“The King’s Speech” was an entertaining way to spend two hours, the interchange between Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth was humorous and the scene with Colin Firth dancing around while exclaiming expletives was what made him deserve the Oscar that he won, but as a film it simply is not as great as some of the other options available.

“The Social Network,”  “127 Hours,”  “The Fighter,”  “Black Swan” and “Inception” all had the one thing that “The King’s Speech” desperately lacked: Originality. Can a film truly be great if you feel like you have seen it before in a slightly different incarnation?

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is tasked with selecting the undisputed best film of the year, a clearly impossible task, but this year they weren’t even in the right ballpark. They were playing cricket instead.

This year will be looked back upon like 1998, when “Shakespeare in Love” beat out “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture. Although “The King’s Speech” may be the cute choice for now, “The Social Network” will be viewed as the true best film of the year.

We just have to wait for that distinction rather than it having it win the award that it rightfully deserved.