Britlaw1
Joined Dec 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
Britlaw1's rating
Stephen Poliakoff wrote and directed this which was shown over two weekends recently here in the UK. It was certainly a sumptuous production, I've rarely seen a costume drama more lavishly dressed.
It is broadly about the period 1908 to about 1920 seen through the eyes of the little known Prince John, youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary. Possibly autistic or with milder learning difficulties and known to be epileptic, this play shows his child's eye views of his grandfather the King (Edward VII) and the visit of the Tzar to the UK, following on to his own father's succession, through the Irish crisis and on to the the First World War. His father becomes King and he is packed off to the country, as his shortcomings emerge, with his faithful nurse Lala with only occasional visits from the aloof Queen Mary his mother, who just cannot understand him or his needs. His brother George, very bright and determined, is used as a foil to explain a lot of action as is the King's Secretary, Lord Stamfordham.
Miranda Richardson is superb as Queen Mary, catching her regality and vunerability in one, though Tom Hollander did less well as the King, he was a little young, the King being in his late forties/early fifties during this time, and Michael Gambon, a Poliakoff favourite (and the new Dumbledore apparently) does little more than a cameo as Edward VII. Gina McKee excels as Lala, determined to make Johnnie's parents just even notice him.
The King and Queen are here portrayed much younger than the geriatrics they are usually seen as in Abdication dramas. Great stuff!
And what became of them all, well you'll have to watch but Prince George became the Duke of Kent and was killed in an RAF aircrash in 1942, George V died in 1936 and Queen Mary died in 1953, the year Johnnie's niece, Elizabeth was crowned.
It is broadly about the period 1908 to about 1920 seen through the eyes of the little known Prince John, youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary. Possibly autistic or with milder learning difficulties and known to be epileptic, this play shows his child's eye views of his grandfather the King (Edward VII) and the visit of the Tzar to the UK, following on to his own father's succession, through the Irish crisis and on to the the First World War. His father becomes King and he is packed off to the country, as his shortcomings emerge, with his faithful nurse Lala with only occasional visits from the aloof Queen Mary his mother, who just cannot understand him or his needs. His brother George, very bright and determined, is used as a foil to explain a lot of action as is the King's Secretary, Lord Stamfordham.
Miranda Richardson is superb as Queen Mary, catching her regality and vunerability in one, though Tom Hollander did less well as the King, he was a little young, the King being in his late forties/early fifties during this time, and Michael Gambon, a Poliakoff favourite (and the new Dumbledore apparently) does little more than a cameo as Edward VII. Gina McKee excels as Lala, determined to make Johnnie's parents just even notice him.
The King and Queen are here portrayed much younger than the geriatrics they are usually seen as in Abdication dramas. Great stuff!
And what became of them all, well you'll have to watch but Prince George became the Duke of Kent and was killed in an RAF aircrash in 1942, George V died in 1936 and Queen Mary died in 1953, the year Johnnie's niece, Elizabeth was crowned.
I twice fell asleep briefly in this film, which could have had an hour chopped out of it and it would have still been boring.
This is what happens when a famous director gets to make exactly the film he wants, sure it looked expensive and had high production values but Leo is too weak to carry the part, and for a cross between King Oedipus and a Jacobean revenge tragedy, there was all the blood and none of the revenge. Daniel Day-Lewis was playing perilously close to a pantomime villain (hell, he even had the swirly moustaches). In the (surprisingly packed) cinema I saw this in there was even a bit of laughter in inappropriate parts too, which I hadn't heard since seeing 'Pearl Harbour' two years ago.
I'm afraid Scorcese cannot film a taut scene, there are endless minutes of scene setting and good (some even excellent) actors wasted in bit parts. A complete turkey in my eyes I'm afraid and I'm usually a generous reviewer.
This is what happens when a famous director gets to make exactly the film he wants, sure it looked expensive and had high production values but Leo is too weak to carry the part, and for a cross between King Oedipus and a Jacobean revenge tragedy, there was all the blood and none of the revenge. Daniel Day-Lewis was playing perilously close to a pantomime villain (hell, he even had the swirly moustaches). In the (surprisingly packed) cinema I saw this in there was even a bit of laughter in inappropriate parts too, which I hadn't heard since seeing 'Pearl Harbour' two years ago.
I'm afraid Scorcese cannot film a taut scene, there are endless minutes of scene setting and good (some even excellent) actors wasted in bit parts. A complete turkey in my eyes I'm afraid and I'm usually a generous reviewer.
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.
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.