JackCerf You have to get past two things in this movie. First, although the historians say that the movie took too much dramatic license, the intimacies of FDR's relationship with his distant cousin Daisy Suckely don't really matter. Second, the movie is predominantly about FDR's relationship with the women closest to him -- his highly political wife, Eleanor, his loyal, adoring secretary, Missy LeHand, his adoring and domineering mother, and the safe, quiet, likewise adoring Daisy. Bill Murray, as FDR, floats through a sea of estrogen, sometimes doing an effortless backstroke, sometimes barely keeping his head above the storm waves. Except for two tete a tete meetings with the young King George VI, there is not one scene in which the President of the United States is shown saying anything of substance to another man. That's not surprising, because the principal source for the story is the letters and journal that Daisy kept secret until after her death at age 99. With one major exception, it's all her point of view.The reason to watch is Bill Murray's marvelous FDR. He looks nothing like the man, of course, but he perfectly captures the FDR manner of insouciance, amiability and insincerity masking unshakable determination. Its a technical performance on a level with Cate Blanchett's impersonation of Katherine Hepburn in The Aviator.The high point is the two private meetings between FDR and George VI, which Daisy could have known of only at second hand from FDR, if at all. The young king is shown as not only uncertain of himself but somewhat overwhelmed by his queen, who is herself insecure but with a much stronger will. The tone, set by Murray's FDR, is of the two men finally getting some peace and quiet away from female demands and importunities. He uses his mobility, or rather his lack of it, to make a point about will and determination to a younger man suffering from his own disability. I know this is historical fiction, but if this isn't the way it was, it's nice to think so.

Thaneevuth Jankrajang A lot of praises were given to Bill Murray and his acting as President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I do not see that. While not hurting in any way, he was not convinced as a president with power and responsibility. This light-hearted film would not be so interesting if FDR was not a part of it. So the failure to makes him adequately presidential and FDR-like did hurt the film's believability to the degree of discard. No actor and actress had hurt the film either. The story went on as it was supposed to be. Beginning and end. Nothing was left to remember or to revisit. Now if the FDR's character was made to be closer to his real-life forceful personalities, the love story would have been well-remembered and imprinted. Even the caption right before the end credit could have brought tears to our eyes. The second failure of this film is the inability to link Daisy's role in the life of FDR and the now historic visit by Great Britain's royal couple. Two stories were presented quite emotionally separate and I think it is indeed a missed opportunity. The royal presence, in its glory and awkwardness, could have been used to shine a light on Daisy a common lady loved and in love with the US president. More details must be inserted to combine Franklin the man as well as a president in love. Missy's strange sacrifice should have been stressed further as we would understand much more of FDR lust or love. And the mother? Told in several ways to depict her as controlling and yet understanding, but, strangely so, she was not a part in FDR and his woman-inducing life. Same as Eleanor Roosevelt's character, though skilfully depicted by Olivia Williams, failing at revealing more depth. As far as films about FDR is concerned, my vote is higher for the works like "Warm Springs" or "Into The Storm".

FlushingCaps Hyde Park on Hudson attempts to tell two stories concerning Franklin Roosevelt's visits to Hyde Park, where he shared a house with his mother, and had a separate cottage set up for visits with lady friends, and where he had as overnight guests in 1939, England's King George and Elizabeth, the Queen Consort.Bill Murray does a fine job presenting a Roosevelt that was witty and clever, yet scheming and manipulative as well. Laura Linney as Daisy seems to be the real star, narrating and telling about her relationship with the President, who is a distant cousin. The film begins with her narrating how she was asked, out of the blue, to come see him—she lived nearby, and how he started showing her his stamp collection, then took her for car rides in his specially designed car that had hand controls for everything so FDR could drive himself.They roar through the countryside. We see flowers and hills and, with the title being Hyde Park on Hudson, we look in vain for the Hudson River. It isn't there because the entire movie was filmed in England. I learn from other IMDb sources that the Roosevelt homes portrayed look nothing like the real life buildings either. That's O.K., Bill Murray didn't look too much like FDR anyhow.After seeing a hint that Daisy's relationship was perhaps turning physical with the president, the storyline leaves this to focus on the visit, four years after Daisy started meeting with her cousin, of the royal couple of the United Kingdom.In real life, they met the president in Washington and journeyed with him to Hyde Park, where they stayed overnight and tried to get him to commit to helping Britain in the coming war. Of course, the president committed to nothing, and Europe was at war for well over 2 years before we joined. One wonders, had our presidential elections been in 1938 and 1942, if Roosevelt would have gotten us involved shortly after the 1939 invasion of Poland. His reelection of 1940 was surely the main reason why he wasn't about to get us into a war right before that happened.In the film, the royal couple provide many of the small laughs, as they discuss differences in American and English customs, particularly the planned menu of hot dogs at the picnic. Elizabeth seemed so aghast at this delicacy, you would think she believe they were actually made of dog meat. They see FDR with another of his mistresses, outside the house from their upstairs window, and they just smile and wave.At the "picnic" we see Murray carried across the grounds to his table, which is, more or less, on the porch, not the grass. My trouble here was that this was in full view of well over a hundred people at tables spread all across the lawn. I know he was carried to places at times, but my understanding was that whenever there were people around who weren't in his inner circle, he arranged to avoid having them see that he needed to be carried like a small boy.Because he had learned Daisy was offended at not being invited to the big dinner the night before, he made sure to invite her to sit right beside him at the picnic. The film even shows Daisy putting mustard on the king's hot dog. I have learned that in real life, she couldn't have put the mustard on for the king because she was sitting two tables away from them.The film definitely picked up when the royal guests arrive. Before that, we had the tedious scenes of FDR showing his stamps to Daisy and chatting about nothing as he drove her around. I thought the first 25 minutes or so were quite boring.But since the scenes with the royal couple were not at all close to reality, and nothing was really accomplished other than the vague renewal of friendship between the two nations, I cannot see why this film was made.From various sources, the portrayal of King George and Elizabeth was not very close to their personalities in any way. The king was just 13 years younger than our president, yet FDR kept treating him as though he were old enough to be his father. It seemed like a ploy to make it seem like it was our president whose wise counsel enabled King George to be bold enough to achieve all that he did in his reign as king.The entire Daisy story was an utter bore. Apparently the diaries she left behind, published as a book and studied by historians, do not claim any kind of sexual relationship with FDR, as is suggested by the film. Her character in the film is totally uninteresting. We learn nothing about her life away from her visits with the president, other than that she lives with an aunt and takes care of her. Her big dramatic scene comes when she learns that the president has, at least one, other mistress. We are given to feel sorry for her because she feels hurt to learn that the married man with whom she is having an affair, has another woman he's seeing? Critics claim the movie's two stories made it unfocused. I agree. We saw no political maneuvering of FDR, no dealing with his work while at Hyde Park. We got no glimpses of his plans for reelection, or what he thought needed to happen for us to become involved in the war. If we weren't to learn about real historical events, and weren't really seeing characters portrayed realistically, what was the point?

SnoopyStyle It's 1939 at a pivotal time of WWII. England is alone in the world confronting Hitler. They desperately need help from America, and the Royals arrive for a charm offensive. On their first stop, they visit FDR at his summer retreat in upstate NY.Bill Murray is FDR, Laura Linney is cousin Daisy, and the Royals are played by Samuel West and Olivia Colman. There is little tension in the main storyline of FDR and his affair. And there's really no mystery. If this was only about them, this would be a horribly boring movie.The most compelling part of the story is the Royal visit. They're funny but you can also feel the intense drama playing out. The desperation and the culture clash leads to some of the best moments of this movie. I wish that they had concentrated more on that instead. A presidential affair is just so much less compelling.