BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

lhalan This story of a ruptured line of monarchs seems like a very touching love story where the woman is portrayed as a sacrificing and sincere partner. However, most historical material speaks of a different Wallis Simpson--one who was eternally ambitious and actually never recovered from her inability to serve as Queen. In fact, in her own words, "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance." They did not have the eternal love-flame of romance and it is believed that tolerance on both their parts was a key element in the marriage. History and reality aside, the movie presented a decent story line on its face. Wallis Simpson was no innocent flower. Edward may or may not have regretted his abdication--even to himself--but he became known more for suspected Nazi sympathizing during World War II than any other cause of noble intention. What is probably the best result of the royal mess is that the many interpretations of the love affair and marriage became a magnet for rich and poor alike.

BILLYBOY-10 I read where this dramatization was suppose to be mostly from Wallis' perspective and as such it succeeds. Once she discovered she had dug herself a great big hole she tried like heqq to get out,but alas, she couldn't because her stupid boy-friend, the King of England was in it with her, and her fear of being alone, plus her exile to France thus virtual isolation from him prevented her from knocking some sense into his tiny little brain.Well, good for England and the world in the long run, because if she had been allowed to marry and he remain king, it would have been a disaster for England and the world, since, although quite charismatic and popular, as a monarch he was woefully inadequate.This story is fluffy and gives us a simple picture of the events that took place, but it's somewhat laughable in parts where the dialog (this is 1935-1936) resorts to her saying things like "..flavor of the month.." and describing her feelings toward him to include their intimacy and "..all that other stuff.." It also fails to mention that the primary reason (beyond simple politics)is that he could not marry her was because, as the leader and the defender of the Church of England, he was forbidden to marry a divorced woman and by now she was twice divorced. Edward (David) loved her, she obviously was great in the physical romance department whereas he was privately mimicked, by those who knew, to be inadequate there as well. So, the whirlwind took hold and before she knew it, or could put a stop to it, she got caught in a trap and like the old Elvis Presley song, and there was no way out.So he abdicated, married her and for 35 years they because the most useless couple on earth. Google them and look for the picture of them outside the châteaux in France where they were just married. They are the two most unhappy looking bride and groom you will ever set eyes upon.In short, historically, Edward (David) was stupid, Wallis trapped herself and the whole thing was an unmitigated disaster except for the blessing that the world was rid of this silly little man who would have been an awful monarch.

pawebster 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.

jotix100 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.