Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

tavm Just watched this with my mom on Netflix disc. It was quite a fascinating document of a woman named Daisy (Laura Linney) and her relationship with her fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Bill Murray). Besides that, there's also a visit from England's King George VI and his wife Elizabeth to deal with. I'll stop there and just say that this was quite a nice drama with some good humorous moments-mainly involving the king and queen and their concerns about the picnic they have to attend especially about eating American hot dogs. Besides Murray and Linney and the people who portrayed the royal couple, I also liked Olivia Williams as Eleanor Roosevelt. So on that note, I recommend Hyde Park on Hudson.

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.

merridew-2 The problem with "Hyde Park on Hudson" is that the filmmakers never decided on the story they wanted to tell.Is this the story of "The President and the King" -- how FDR and King George VI formed the "special relationship" that still exists today? How, as war loomed large in Europe, FDR brought his unique leadership qualities and political skill to bear to both (a) inject much needed confidence into a British monarch riddled with self-doubt, and (b) humanize the British crown for the American people in order to lay the groundwork for the essential, though initially unpopular, alliance to come?Or is this the story of "FDR and His Women" -- how a President serving at one of the most stressful times in our history, but whose wife provided him with no personal solace, formed and maintained the secret relationships he considered necessary to recharge his batteries and keep going?The filmmakers never choose, and "Hyde Park on Hudson" suffers greatly as a result. They take a little from column A and a little from column B, mix them together, and wind up with two halves that don't add up to a whole.And then there is the other problem: Why weren't the very few scenes purporting to show the front of the FDR home at Hyde Park shot in front of the FDR home at Hyde Park? "Sunrise at Campobello" was shot there, so why not "Hyde Park on Hudson"? The building has a very distinctive exterior. The folks most likely to want to see this movie probably know what it looks like -- and weren't happy. I know I wasn't. You mean you couldn't film even those very few exterior scenes at the FDR home? Then reproduce it through computer imaging. Do something. It's as if, instead of the exterior of the White House in "American President," someone had used the Woolworth Building.

David H How would I choose to describe "Hyde Park on Hudson" in one word? Easy. I would say horrendous. Horrendous acting, which very much surprised me being an overall fan of Bill Murray. I feel he reached to clasp the true essence of FDR... but failed. Horrendous storyline, I mean, how could an hour and a half visit by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (who were far better played by the amazing Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter in "The Kings Speech") be the least bit interesting? Horrendous characters, none were the least bit likable, and this movie butchered figures like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, who both had bad qualities. Along with many other horrendous features of this film, I conclude to say the following: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!