Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

midge56 At the end of the film, the host comes on to explain the harsh treatment of the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor) & Wallis. He said they made it to reflect changing attitudes against the Windsors. That tells us, they deliberately fabricated their portrayal to make them more hateful instead of the king who wanted the woman he loved. Facts don't change with attitudes. Apparently movies change facts to create attitudes. (As an example of a similar situation, Charles divorced & married Camilla who was also divorced).Here is an example of this movie being falsely hyped to make us hate David & Wallis. When they first introduce Wallis in this film, the camera is at waist height pointing up at her chin where a giant black mole has been placed. This makes her look like the wicked witch of the east. I defy you to find a photo of the real Wallis with a giant black mole like that. If she had one, it was so small & covered up, it wasn't visible on any photo. So, this giant mole & zoom was a rotten trick to make her abhorrent to us. I suspect the involvement of the Queen mother on this movie before she died. She helped them with the story at some point in the past or in a biography and they trashed David & Wallis due to her extreme hatred of them.It was the Queen mother & Queen Mary who retaliated against David & Wallis to cut them out of everything. Titles, money, appointments, palaces, you name it. They were spiteful. Not Bertie, but he was weak & couldn't say no to his wife & mother. Even forbidding Royal family or servants & employees to attend the wedding. Including his other brothers & his security man. Bertie could cut off their money, palace rooms & jobs if his wife insisted.Use your common sense, if David showed up to ask Bertie for money & titles, he certainly wouldn't have called Bertie's wife names in the process. That wouldn't have gotten him very far. Nor did he have a cocky attitude as he was portrayed.I didn't know about the bow tie aversion & his association with the windsor knot. I know the knot very well & taught every male I knew how to tie it. It is the only way to create a perfect knot. They used bow ties on his movie character to make David look like a honky tonk jerk.There is a much better movie called Wallis & Edward which shows how she tried to extricate herself & begged him not to abdicate but he threatened to kill himself if she left him. He was totally besotted with her & wouldn't let her go. Once he abdicated, she couldn't abandon him. She was trapped trying to make up for his sacrifice.I didn't know about the way Bertie's father snapped at him & Bertie's stammer. His teachers also slapped his hands to force him to write with his right hand. He was left handed. I can see why he stammered but it got old very fast in the film.I also didn't care for the dumb bumblebee proposal scene; even if is was true. Or the "I don't like your face" scene. Or the shooting scene. It was the cigarettes which killed him. Not the job. Many Royals in their family died from throat cancer from tobacco use.But, if you can overlook the phony Edward & wallis scenes and assume this was the Queen mothers edited nasty version of events, the movie is still watchable. If Edward had just married Wallis civilly like Charles, without asking anyone, there were other Kings who did (George IV), the entire parliament wouldn't have quit. Churchill would have remained to form a gov't. It only takes one or two. Just like Melbourne when Victoria wouldn't remove her ladies. The gov't survived. When you ask someone for permission, you are giving them power over you. Do it without asking. It's your life.

Kevin Dennis (ksdennis) The film is missing some of Elizabeth's most famous remarks, even though they are alluded to, such as (and these are facsimiles): "I can now look the east end in the face." and "They {the Princesses} won't leave without me. I won't leave without the King. And the King will never leave." etc.It flies through history as a series of vignettes, arguably not necessarily the most important ones. It explains little about the psychology of the major characters, especially George VI's stutter, how instrumental his wife was helping him during his reign, her deep antipathy for Wallis, and Wallis's lack of understanding of her surroundings, England and the court. Wallis is portrayed with a complete lack of sympathy. ("Edward and Mrs. Simpson" this isn't!)The movie seems to contain glaring inaccuracies. If a royal highness by marriage, Wallis couldn't have passed this title on to any subsequent husband and, surely, the King would know this. The title was withheld - against custom and precedent - for many other reasons which are not explored at all. This is unfortunate.Nevertheless, the performances are wonderful, especially James Wilby as George VI; Juliet Aubrey as Elizabeth;, Alan Bates as George V; Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary; and Charles Edwards as an Edward VIII with a complete lack of appreciation that with great advantages from birth come great obligations.For the knowledgeable viewer, it's like looking through bits of a sentimental picture book. It's comfort food: sentimental, warm, and lacking in much nutritional value. Remember, however, the subjects (George VI and Queen Elizabeth) were, and remain, tremendously popular and this view may be very much a reflection of its time. And, having no idea of what really went on behind the walls of the royal residences, it is fun to have the illusion of being able to look.

Philby-3 You're right folks, this really was below par. I now know why it went straight to cable. Yet it wasn't for lack of acting talent. James Wilby was excellent as the shy and fearful Bertie, thrust onto the throne by his brother David's abdication, and Juliet Aubrey was fine as Elizabeth. Alan Bates harrumphs splendidly as George V and Eileen Atkins, although too old for the role, carries off Queen Mary in a sympathetic manner. Charles Edwards as Edward VIII (`David') has plenty of presence and Paul Brook is superb as private secretary Tommy Lascelles. So what went wrong?The scriptwriters clearly set out not to offend anybody living, and while Elizabeth the Queen mother died in 2001 her daughter is very much alive and occupying a position of some importance. They were so careful in fact that Prince Philip, always good for some boorish misunderstanding, does not even appear. Neither does his conniving uncle Dickie Mountbatten, though he is mentioned in the dialogue. The enmity between Elizabeth and Wallis Simpson is merely hinted at. But the real problem is the failure to identify the strong elements in the story, the courtship/ wedding, the abdication and the war and write around them, instead of putting the whole thing together as a sort of photo album. Maybe as another commenter says, the mini-series format would have been better, though it might have just created a longer mess. If you really want to know about the history of the early Windsors, you are going to have to read some books. Edward VIII wrote his account in `A King's Story' published in the early 1950s. He blames Baldwin for forcing him out but makes it clear that he had little difficulty in choosing between love and duty. Poor old Bertie had no such choice and was saddled with the extra burden of being King during wartime. His father describes himself and Edward as `ordinary men' and Bertie, like most of the hereditary aristocrats of Britain was deeply ordinary (and interested mainly in country pursuits). The most remarkable thing about Bertie was the way he overcame his stutter (especially over `B' words). It would have been interesting to know how this was done, but though the stutter gets some attention we are hustled out of the (Australian) therapist's rooms just as the treatment starts. So, more or less a waste of space. There's been plenty of attention given to `David' before, but this show fails to give a new perspective to the historical events it so lightly covers. A great pity the Queen Mum never wrote her memoirs – now that would have been interesting.

eye3 I call myself an amateur historian and a frustrated writer but this slapdash nonsense makes me look like Shelby Foote, Robert Towne and Mario Puzo rolled into one. This attempt at rewriting history is merely revisionist pantomime.The hack dialogue sounds like it was lifted from lines found by Google.com and was compiled in a free-for-all chatsite by college freshmen. The producers may as well have cast the wardrobe coathangers to wear the costumes for all the good the lead actors could do with it. With luck none of them will be remembered for this unless, after clocking a BAFTA or an Oscar, some television hack/archaeologist pulls this from the forgotten dust-coated shelf it so richly deserves.The only interesting casting was with big-name veteran actors in supporting roles. Alan Bates radiates as King George V; he almost outshines Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary. Together they're about the only believable parts in the whole production. Robert Hardy takes a switch by playing FDR for a change instead of his usual turn as Churchill; it would have been interesting to see him play the part in a full-fledge leading role. David Ryall turns in a fine portrayal as Churchill for the half-dozen lines he's allowed; ditto for him.It makes you respect the actor's life with its hoops, its humiliations and its fickle fortunes.