Watch Bertie and Elizabeth For Free

Overrated and overhyped

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Although some of the reviewers find the film lacking, I was overjoyed to see a somewhat different point of view from the Wallis versions. I caught two this week. While I have no historical perspective of either side, those films and this make for a somewhat balanced perspective of the tragic and comedic episode in the lives of the brothers, David and Bertie.The Bertie I meet here is absolutely charming, with a supportive wife, and rather bright daughters. And the Wallis Simpson here is absolutely loathsome. It is here and here alone her possible shallowness and spite are raised against (Queen) Elizabeth, the Royals in general, and fleshes out her own self importance not seen elsewhere. She appears unlikeable, unsupportable and unattractive in all ways.Clearly, history will be forthcoming when more of the Windsor family have left the stage, but this wee film made possible to uncover some of the distinct differences between the two Kings and brothers. Bertie, George VI, comes off rather well, all things considered and David (Edward VIII) comes out smelling like Henry VIII without his massive fangs.Another reviewer seemed to object to the introduction of Queen Wilhelmina and President Roosevelt, but I for one as a former resident, loved seeing the engaging Dutch Queen's presence as an escaped Royal because up until now I was rather ashamed she had abandoned ship. And it didn't hurt but rather help to get a peek into a possible personal conversation between the King and the American President about war and politics. I rather wonder if Edward VIII would have stuck it out with his Duchess during air- raids and bombs, and as neither of them seemed likely to have children together, they wouldn't have to face the choices Bertie and Elizabeth faced.The film moves slowly, but it enabled me to catch my breath and reflect on the possibilities of this being history not fiction or a film. I felt proud of this formerly stuttering King, his understanding and down to earth Queen and the English people. Perhaps I am sentimental, or even foolish to think they behaved thus, and naive to get caught up, tears in my eyes, as the plot unfolded, but if I am I say I feel satisfied with this tiny entry into this particular part of English history even without all the dirty laundry that accompanied the era, the abdicated and the vileness of broken promises. Perhaps one day we'll see a more fleshed out Bertie and Elizabeth or the truth about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, but until then I'm rather satisfied with this one.

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. :-)

Apparently, not too many people are watching PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" anymore, and most likely aren't that interested in Britain's royal family. The scandalous affair between England's King Edward VIII (Charles Edwards) and Wallis Simpson (Amber Sealey; a very ambitious, American woman) isn't exactly hot gossip today. Although British royals had become quite snooty by then - and Edward VIII was a modern man - the movie didn't really bring-out that the "Elizabeth" (Juliet Aubrey) in it was a commoner, no doubt from a prominently wealthy family. Edward DID remind his brother (who had become King George VI) of that fact, and the scandals in their ancient family certainly were more notorious than a monarch marrying a common, divorced woman. One of those scandals was the changing of the family-name to "Windsor" from their German name during WW I. My comparison of the two actors was, George VI - the younger brother of Edward VIII - looked older ! Here is a perfect example of how close siblings become completely estranged.......We are all aware the young "Elizabeth" in this movie is still on England's throne........veddy proper monarch (which makes me wonder how she is portrayed in the 2006 movie "The Queen"). History has recorded that Edward VIII (The Duke of Windsor) was given an allowance of 25,000 lbs-per-year, spending much of his time in The Bahamas, where Princess Margaret did a lot of her paryting - and it was a LOT of partying....she knew, as we have seen, Elizabeth II wasn't/isn't about to give-up the throne till she croaks. Since there was little chance of her ascending the throne, Margaret lived-it-up. Most popular of the long line of "royals" (although she was a commoner) was Elizabeth "The Queen Mum" (until 2002) was quite a character. This movie does not show enough of how light-hearted and fun-loving she was. Another pique to me was the movie did not mention that Queen Whilimina (of The Netherlands) was the world's wealthiest woman during the time she had her "court-in-exile" in England, escaping Hitler's hordes.An interesting fact that perhaps few people in the world today know is that Buckingham Palace - the seat of British royalty - was once a "townhouse" in London. It was purchased in 1761 for George III's wife - the same one the U.S. revolted against. Queen Victoria was the first British monarch really to live there (1837), and did much of the re-building to make it the grand palace it is today. It is not a museum, although it is crammed with priceless objet d'artes, but is a working palace - all 775 rooms of it. The rooms shown in this movie are not nearly rich enough.......I love all the intrigue in movies like "Bertie and Elizabeth". George V (Alan Bates) lived in much greater splendor than his successor. Today's Queen Elizabeth II has reverted to granduer, which we poor folk can hardly imagine. However, a great lesson can be learned from the fact that modern, American families can't be happy in their "palaces", because all of those creature-comforts really can't buy happiness. I guess it takes a special kind of "family" - how ironic Princess Di (another commoner) was the most beloved over all those royals.I would recommend it would be worthwhile for anyone to do some research, find this TV-movie and enjoy its historical message, which is even British film-makers (director Giles Foster, scripter Nigel Williams) can't even show us how the royals live - that's why I rate it with an 8.....

In the UK this was ITV1's big attraction for Jubilee night and came on a couple of hours after nearly 2m people had crammed the Mall to sing patriotic songs in front of the Queen.This is the story of her parents' marriage and reign. I got the impression it may have been on the shelf for a few years, awaiting the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in March 2002, who was of course the Elizabeth of the title.Covering a thirty year period 1922 to 1952 this fairly gallops through history and that is one of its faults. It would have been better as a mini-series over six hours rather than the two hours it was.There is a fascinating story here, especially the less usual view of the 1936 Abdication Crisis from those like Bertie and Elizabeth who had to pick up the pieces. The late Queen Mother's deep and long lasting consequent hatred of Mrs Simpson is barely hinted at.Unfortunately we were up against some fairly wooden acting and dreadfully superficial treatment of the known facts. I presume this was made with some American money hence the scenes with FDR (Robert Hardy and a large slice of ham) and the constant grating reference to the 'King of England' and 'English democracy' even by the monarchs portrayed themselves. No British monarch would ever thus describe themselves - they are monarchs of the United Kingdom.Small incidents such as the Dutch Queen calling early in the morning to ask for fighter squadrons to fend off the German invasion of the Netehrlands and her subsequent arival loom large whilst the King's drawn out death from lung cancer, concealed from him and the people of the UK and Commonwealth for several years is glossed over. And the Queen Mother most famous remark after Buckingham Place was targetted by the Luftwaffe 'I'm glad we've been bombed, it means I can look the East End in the face' just doesn't appear.Cockneys are portrayed all 'Cor love a duck' and Mrs Simpson as virtually a witch, when really she was probably out of her depth in a society she could not understand.Alan Bates does give a good turn as George V and the bloke who played Edward VIII gave a good sly performance of a weak and superficial man.Otherwise a wasted opportunity I'm afraid.