You won't be disappointed!

What a waste of my time!!!

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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.

This television film shows a lot promise despite the historical inaccuracies. It's problem is the fast paced progression through history that provides little opportunity for character exploration and more in depth look at how George VI become one of the best loved and most respected of English Kings. Otherwise, the performances are quite good and the writing in certain scenes is first rate. It's worth a look despite it's obvious flaws.American Audiences might find the portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor a bit harsh after years of romantic conditioning but as Russell Baker notes in the segment that is shown after the film on the DVD it represents a more accurate picture of how those in the UK came to view Edward VIII.

I first became acquainted with this little docu-drama at some grocery store DVD stand and saw an ad for it on television many years ago. It seemed interesting but was never something I looked into until recently.I checked out the reviews here first, and while I'm not quite finished watching it yet, I do say I have to agree with the majority; I am not well-versed in this particular part of history, but it does sound like there's probably plenty of inaccuracies, everything is rather glossed over, and oftentimes manages to be less compelling and more bland.Which is not to say I do not like this film, because I do. It has a few admirable successes: all of the leads are superbly well acted, I do genuinely care about what is going on and occasionally get excited, the cinematography is quite good and I think the period set and costume pieces are lovely. In that respect, it's done its job.However, possibly as a result of being a commissioned piece, the bleeding-heart patriotism and jingoism gets extremely tedious in places, particularly WWII, but in other places as well. I think the mini-series format might have been a better choice since it would have allowed for greater exploration of complex events, but given how the material was being handled, I doubt it would have changed things overly much or made a much more complex portrayal of the characters present.While I'm definitely not going to run out and buy this on DVD - it's cute, but it's hardly worth that - it did make me more interested in the subject, so if I get some spare time I'd like to research that. So it is good for that, but judging it on its own merits, it is a little disappointing.

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.