Watch Wallis & Edward For Free

hyped garbage

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I was disappointed in this film and pleased that I rented it before I bought it. I caught the goof where Winston Churchill addresses the Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" at the Jubilee ball, which for me was a red flag that the writers were not familiar with royal protocol and therefore probably anti-Roaylists. I was also disappointed when the investigations into Wallis Simpson were discussed (it was appropriate to investigate her past if she was the lover of the Prince of Wales) that at that point, nor anywhere else in the film, did they bring up the pro-Nazi connections between Wallis Simpson and the German elite. This is not speculation but historical fact: I have seen the photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as state guests in Germany greeted by Nazi elite. The rest may be rumor, but this was not and it was absent. Rather than portray Wallis Simpson as a social climbing adulteress, they portray her as a loving wife introduced to the Court of St. James by her husband and wooed by the Prince of Wales. No explanation is given why a Baltimore businessman would be a guest at a royal function. However, when Wallis accepts an invitation to spend a quiet weekend alone with the Prince of Wales, she willingly enters what is obviously a set up for seduction. Then later in the film, she is portrayed as shocked when her husband confesses a long time affair and asks for a divorce. Later,Edward defends her in her two divorces as being the victim. How is a woman who has committed adultery the victim in a divorce ending a wedding of convenience as hinted at several times in the script? This was not an unbiased film portraying the facts of the Wallis Simpson affair, but a romanticized fiction of a true love story of two people (although both are committing adultery as a man courting a married woman). If "The King's Speech" is a better researched, historically more accurate film, then Edward was an irresponsible, self centered, self indulgent man with little respect for the institution of the royal family. In "Wallis and Simpson", Edward is portrayed as a kind, loving, honest man who wanted to modernize the institution of monarchy. I can not believe that one is fiction and the other accurate while at the same time that the true character of Edward lay somewhere in between. Even if you feel that "The King's Speech" was unfair to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, they were both guilty of adultery and by law Edward VIII could not marry Wallis Simpson and be king. Yet, the script of this film misleads us into thinking that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mother) were cold and calculating in trying to separate Edward VIII from the love of his life. When Edward tells Wallis that she is the Duchess of Windsor, but not an HRH, Wallis makes a quip that she is sure that Queen Mary and Elizabeth had something to do with it. How would an American divorcée married to the former king be entitled to the the title HRH? Princess Diana lost this formal address when she and Charles divorced, though she remained Princess Diana, the Princess of Wales. In all, there were so many of these omissions, errors and glosses over character flaws that I believe that the writers wanted a love story with a sad ending rather than a historical film depicting the affair that brought Britain to crisis in 1936. My final opinion that this made for television Canadian film is what is seems: a soap opera love story and not a historical film. I will stick to "The King's Speech" as a historical, researched film depicting the Wallis Simpson affair and the abdication of Edward VIII to marry a woman that British law precluded as acceptable wife for the king.

This would have been OK if only they had chosen a more suitable actor for Edward. Stephen Campbell Moore is 14 years too young for the role of Edward as he was in 1936. He comes across as the nice boy next door who made everyone proud by winning a scholarship. He does not seem at all like a playboy prince of doubtful brainpower. Campbell Moore's Edward would have been intelligent and dutiful and would never have given up the throne for an American divorcée. This comes over very strongly in the scene where his father, George V, tells him "You disgust me". Not even the most crusty old Victorian could have said that to clean-cut Campbell Moore. Ms Richardson is good as Wallis, except that she is rather better looking than the original. Actually, I preferred the old version with Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris.

As biopic films go, this one has taken a lot of liberties in order to produce an entertainment that will be appreciated by people that didn't know many of the details which surrounded the abdication of the heir of the English throne in the 1930s. Written by Sarah Williams and directed by without much excitement by Dave Moore, we are given an account of what went on behind the scenes in one of the most remarkable stories of the last century.Edward, who would have been the king of England after the death of his father, has to do some reckoning about whether to give up the reins to the empire in order to marry the woman who conquered his heart. This was one of the most romantic episodes involving a royal house in Europe in the last century. Duty, honor, something that is a natural for the monarchy of that country, was a burden Edward was not ready to accept because it excluded the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson, who he fell in love with and put him at odds with his family and the English establishment, something unheard of in those days.The result was his abdication and a life without his family, who protocol dictated to stay away from him after the scandal. Edward and Wallis lived the jet set life of the few privileged people of the times after he resigned the right to be crowned king. The film only deals with the events that led to that break.Joely Richardson shows an uncanny resemblance to Wallis Simpson, a woman with her own style who made headlines and who appeared to have lived a fulfilled life next to the man who gave up everything for her. Stephen Campbell Moore is seen as Edward. Mr. Campbell Moore makes a good impression as this somewhat rash young man who couldn't care anything about the power his position would have meant for him. He was an unselfish man who threw everything away for love.Mr. Moore got interesting performances from the supporting cast, especially Richard Johnson, as Stanley Baldwin, the man who opposed the marriage from the start. David Calder is seen as Winston Churchill, who proved to be a true friend to the troubled monarch. The excellent Margaret Tyzak, who has little to do, appears as a proud Queen Mary.This film, although far from accurate, shows a page of history from the not too distant past in which we are shown a different situation of the royal family of England, something that in today's standards wouldn't have occurred at all.

It is impossible to fault this made for TV film - the principals make an attractive couple; the period is well evoked; the settings are suitably glamorous and the supporting cast is particularly strong.There is a deft touch running throughout: the abdication crisis could have been played in a grinding and maudlin manner but it is handled summarily and almost underplayed.What particularly convinced was the abdication speech, in the context of the film this "historic given" rang absolutely true. Quite an achievement.However, it is still a made for TV biopic - the historic characters are necessarily painted a little bland and it is inescapably "light entertainment". There is much humour and subtle-digging at the royal family - but not without affection. Altogether, this film is far better than one could have reasonably expected and far more enjoyable too.There is some hint towards the end of the narrative, of the sadness of the life of exile that the Windsors led, but that is a whole other movie. There are clear resonances in the movie of Camilla and Charles - I think this is deliberate for the contemporary audience but not overstated. Some of the historical context was a revelation: Churchill considered forming a King's party to champion the cause of Edward and Mrs. Simpson i.e. by no means was the whole county in favour of abdication.When all is said and done, the story is a real life tragedy out of the Shakespearian mold, and one worthy of the retelling. My mother was at a girls' school at the time - and the whole class listened to the abdication speech in tears. The hold of the story at the time was intense as that other Shakespearian tragedy in our times of Diana.