Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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.

TheLittleSongbird Now I really liked Bertie and Elizabeth on the whole. It is sumptuously filmed, with beautiful photography, costumes and scenery, and the music is beautiful. And the casting is wonderful, James Wilby is surprisingly good as Bertie while Juliet Aubrey is charming as Queen Elizabeth. Alan Bates is a wonderful George V and Eileen Atkins gives another solid turn as Mary, while Charles Edwards was good as Edward VIII(David).Though David Ryall seems underused and Robert Hardy is wasted(my opinion) as Roosevelt, somehow I didn't feel he was right for the role, and both actors were given little to do. The pacing is good as is the direction and there are some charming and witty moments in the script.However, some characters aren't developed with care as much as the other characters, David is quite flat character-wise and Wallis is like a witch here. Also the story has some glaring inaccuracies as well as some moments and people that are either underdeveloped, mentioned and then forgotten or not even mentioned. In spite of the good pacing in general, there are one or two scenes that are too tedious and overlong.Overall, worth seeing for some good acting, music and visuals, however for those looking for a history lesson or a completely true story they are perhaps better off reading a book on the subject. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.