ianlouisiana And an opportunity to see the great Miss Eileen Atkins at her most sardonic as that old klepto Queen Mary whose penchant for stealing knickknacks from posh stores and country houses was kept from us plebs for half a century after her death. The late Mr D.Ryall,that most versatile of character actors,adds Winston Churchill to his not inconsiderable gallery of top class performances,a characterisation Mr T.Spall could have benefited by studying before attempting his impersonation in "The King's Speech",surely one of the least deserving Oscar - laden pictures in that award's somewhat eclectic history. "Bertie and Elizabeth" has no pretensions towards documentary - like veracity.It is meant to be entertainment centred around the lives of King George the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and succeeds at that level. It's cheap and cheerful,like a jar of jam bought from "Lidl" rather than "Harrods".Jam is jam,right? The Duke of Windsor doesn't come out of this too well and Mrs Simpson gets her usual character - assassination at the hands of the Brits who once saw Edward,Prince of Wales as their Prince Charming and have never forgiven the Yank who stole him from them,regardless of the fact that he was vain,weak and feckless and would have made a terrible king. All the usual clichés about the blitz are given an airing with jolly cockneys abounding and exchanging unlikely quips with Elizabeth as they gaily stand outside their ruined hovels after a visit from the Luftwaffe. But if you don't take it seriously,it's a lot of fun.

climbingivy Bertie and Elizabeth was a lot of fun to watch.The settings and location scenery was gorgeous.This movie had beautiful cinema photography and a rich quality to it.The actor who played Bertie was amazing.I have never seen him in a show or movie before.Alan bates as King George V was truly a revelation.If this is truly the way George the V was towards his sons it is no wonder that Bertie stammered all over the place and that David just did not really care about his role in the scheme of things.Of course as usual the queen mother did not stick up for her children she just made matters worse.It seems as if the royals in the House Of Windsor have a lot to learn about being parents.That is true even today.Look at Prince Philip,Queen Elizabeth and Charles.They are major failures who don't know how to treat people decently.I did not like the aspect of the film that made fun of David and Wallis as if they were devils.A film needs to be made to show that Charles and Camilla destroyed Diana and the entire modern monarchy.

Imhotep77 I just watched this movie on PBS and didn't know it actually came out in '02. It is an enjoyable enough piece of Masterpiece Theatre-ish production about the English royals. Not overly familiar with the events and characters the film portrays, I was reasonably entertained. I do, however, have some problems with the casting, especially of James Wilby. I've seen his star turns in Maurice and A Tales of Two Cities and I do think he is a mighty fine actor. Unfortunately, I can't get over the distraction that, at the time of the production, he was 44 and he simply couldn't play a man in his 20s. Bertie first met Elizabeth when he was 25 and married her at 28. The scene when Elizabeth accepts his proposal and Bertie jumps up and down joyously is a good indication of what I'm talking about. It is painful and rather embarrassing to watch James acting like a gen-xer when he obviously looks much, much older. Ditto the scene when the brothers were rough housing in the garden party. I hate to say this, but he is not aging gracefully. Less distracting is the age difference between Juliet Aubrey who plays Elizabeth but still you wonder if the characters are in their thirties in the early scenes. Charles Edwards who plays Edward 8th has the reverse problem. The actor was 33 at the time and when his character goes back to meet with Bertie at the end of WW2, Edward should be around 50, yet he hasn't aged a day and he always looks younger than James Wilby no matter what time period they are in. I was just very bothered by this casting problem, another than that, it is an okay telepic.

irish23 If you want historical accuracy, look elsewhere. Fact, distortion, omission, and plain fiction are so interwoven in this picture that I almost wanted to see a disclaimer at the start of the film.However! If you can chuck all that aside and just focus on the film itself, it's a charming, sweet, no-brainer movie with uplifting moments tossed in.The portrayal of the struggles between David and Bertie, who'd always been close, after the arrival of Wallis, is the most "poison pill" version I've seen. David is portrayed as a flat-out cad, while Wallis is a scheming, grasping "rhymes-with-'itch.'" The devastation of Bertie and the poise of Elizabeth are in sharp contrast to the "bad couple."This is just one example of how the writers used elements to highlight the tremendous tension between public and private royal life in the 20th century, and how personal feelings *must* be sacrificed to duty. Obviously, this dynamic still plays out in the 21st century.What shines through above all in this picture is the love between Bertie and Elizabeth. As such, it is a charming romance film with some lovely costumes and sets, and some moving historical references thrown in. The steadfastness of B & E's relationship, and how it allowed both of them to survive some of the most crushing episodes of their lives, is inspiring to watch. And then one wants to grab a book to find out what *really* happened. :-)