The Lost Prince (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Touching and gentle drama that is all too real

[superjoanie · 9/10 · 31 January 2003]

BBC1's 'The Lost Prince' is one of the best television dramas that the channel has shown for a long time. The story of King George V's youngest son, Johnnie, the programme explores the boy's learning difficulties and his autism-related problems, as well as the horrors of war as seen through the eyes of the Royal family.

Those are the facts, but the drama is so much more than a re-telling of a royal story. Moments of poignancy, such as Johnnie's frank but heartbreaking honesty with his parents, are touching without becoming schmaltzy or obvious, and the harsh burden of the First World War on the British keeps the drama well within reality.

Good performances all around, particularly from Miranda Richardson as Queen Mary and Tom Hollander as King George, who invoke sympathy from their seemingly impassive facades. Bill Nighy is excellent as the King's adviser, Stamfordham, and the children - especially Rollo Weeks -are more than capable of carrying such a difficult and weighty subject.

Poliakoff does it again

[Britlaw1 · 8/10 · 2 February 2003]

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.

the Queen's forgotten uncle

[didi-5 · 8/10 · 14 March 2005]

This short drama focused on the epileptic Prince John, son of George V and Queen Mary, and brother to the present Queen Elizabeth's father, George VI.

We see the story of John from the perspectives of himself and of his nurse, Lalla (the emotionless Gina McKee). As he becomes more out of control and an embarrassment to his family, the little boy becomes more special to the viewer. Johnny is a crank but a lovable one.

Daniel Williams and Matthew Thomas both make an impact as Prince John at different ages, while Tom Hollander and Miranda Richardson are excellent as his repressed and bewildered parents. There's also key roles of interest for Bill Nighy (Stamfordham), Frank Finlay (the PM, Herbert Asquith), and David Barrass (Kaiser Bill).

Aside from the problems accorded by John's illness and confinement, we also see how events unfold in Russia for George V's cousins, the ill-fated Romanov family.

'The Lost Prince' is another winner for writer/director Stephen Poliakoff, and well worth your time. Enjoyable whether you know the story or the intricacies of the Royal family, or not.

Touching movie that plays like a post-card version of your high school history classes

[Eric-1226 · 15 October 2003]

(Aired over two nights this week on the Canadian station, CBUT, which we get here in Seattle...)

Superbly photographed and exquisitely acted, this movie primarily focuses on England's Prince John, youngest son of George V and Queen Mary who, in his tragically short life, suffered not only from periodic epileptic seizures but was also handicapped by what appeared to be some form of retarded mental development.

The creators of this film were kindly and charitable in not showing the boy's ailments in too negative a light. Enough was shown though to give the viewer to understand that the poor lad had problems - so much so that his immediate family and caretakers felt that he clearly wasn't cut out for royal service. As a result he was whisked away to a sort of royal "nether-world" out in the English countryside, away from public view, where hopefully he would not become an object of curiosity, scorn, ridicule, etc.

Sad though the plight of the boy was, you couldn't help but feel that he and his dysfunctional condition was a metaphor for the plight of the entire royal or aristocratic system which held sway over most all of Europe at the time. The boy's ailments and weaknesses eventually lead to his downfall, and all of this plays out simultaneously with the royal families of Europe (most of whom are shown being connected through marriage or bloodline) attempting to cope – quite ineffectually – with the onslaught of the tragedy of World War One.

The film includes several scenes of interaction between the British royal family and the Russian royal family (the Czar and Czarina and their wonderful kids). They are closely related, which makes their death (or shall we say murder, at the hands of the Bolsheviks, which is graphically depicted) all the more chilling, tragic and thought provoking.

There is so much to contemplate in this movie that I'd rather not sit here and prattle on about it, but instead would rather simply recommend that people go rent a copy and just watch it. It may not be for everyone, as it is a bit long and covers many facets of early 20th century history that will glide right over your head if you weren't paying attention in history class. But even if you ignore entirely the historical aspects of the movie, it is nonetheless a very touching picture: sad, compelling, and ultimately life-affirming, with wonderful performances and beautifully photographed images that will stick in your mind for a long time to come.

Beautiful Period Drama

[Alex-372 · 10/10 · 1 February 2003]

The Lost Prince is a beautiful costume drama from Stephen Poliakoff, about the young brother of prince George, who nobody wanted to talk about and who was most likely autistic and most definitely epileptic, diseases respectively unknown and misunderstood at the time.

This story is roughly told through his eyes, and describes in beautiful detail the transition of Europe from a continent ruled by related monarchs (many of them Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), until the end of this system during and after WWI. As important historical events manage to find their way into palace life (the suffragette movement, the rise of ordinary people as politicians, the telephone and the motor car), they more often seem like foreign intrusions into the world of the palace.

As this is seen through the eyes of the little boy, there is very little value judgement as to whether this system was a right or just one, and at the end you are struck with the horror of the murder of the tsarist family and their beautiful daughters, but we never see the reign of terror they themselves and their secret police visited upon Russia.

There is a very funny incident when the tsarina during a visit to what she sees as her poor cousins estates, refuses to walk any further, because she has the "wrong shoes" for walking in the grass. Later, she remarks how "close" the houses of "other people" are and you can't help conclude she was simply afraid of being killed by the proletariat. :-)

Very well acted by Miranda Richardson (Blackadder), Michael Gambon, Tom Hollander, Gina McKee as the governess Lalla but especially by the two child actors who play Johnny. They look like great kids rather than brats.

Highly recommended if you can catch this on the BBC or HBO.

A beautiful piece of work.

[kos5 · 10/10 · 14 November 2004]

The Lost Prince is one of those wonderful pieces that you rarely see. Beautiful, touching, moving, and heartbreaking are only a few words to describe it. It was informative also because I had never before known of the epileptic Prince John. I fell in love with Johnny the first time I saw him.

The acting was fantastic. I loved Lalla. Gina Mckee did an excellent job in portraying her. Miranda Richardson(Queen Mary) also did a wonderful bit of acting as the seemingly heartless Queen. I was reduced to tears at the end.

If you've never heard of the wonderful little Prince, or you'd just like to watch a different perspective on the Royal family, see the The Lost Prince, you'll be glad you did.

Absorbing, well cast drama

[Caps Fan · 7/10 · 10 October 2005]

Don't bother looking up Prince John in any major reference works. There won't be much, if anything. A pity - I would have liked to check up on how accurate this is!

Not that it matters much. In part one, we see the epileptic (and possibly autistic) John consigned to a life in the country so that his Royal relatives will not be embarrassed by his suffering an attack in public. In part two, he fades rather into the background as Britain deals with the effects and consequences of World War One.

Sound gloomy? Don't you believe it. In the first part, the viewer experiences exhilaration as we see John actually make progress in spite of everything. The scene where he pretends to conduct the band at a state event is particularly uplifting. Even the far darker part two has its moments.

An excellent cast helps a lot. Miranda Richardson shines as the emotionally constipated Queen Mary while Matthew Thomas creates a plausible and likable John. The relationship between him and his older brother George (Rollo Weeks) is engrossing and credible. Gina McKee is rock solid as John's devoted nurse.

As always with BBC dramas, the production values are excellent. Costumes and sets are well used, though the music is distinctly unmemorable and the pace pedestrian.

In the end, maybe the story is a little thin to support a drama of this length. But if that doesn't bother you, this is a rewarding and surprisingly positive viewing experience.

Rating: 7/10.

Gorgeous presentation

[countryway_48864 · 10/10 · 12 January 2006]

This is a truly wonderful production with brilliant, almost surreal touches that lift this drama about the crowd.

I would love to know if any of Prince John's drawings survived. They had, or at least the ones used for the film had a Chagal-like quality that was both very graceful and artistic and filled with insite as to the inner character of the subjects. "The Tsar Swimming" and "Fat Mary" are two example. His father wearing a crown far too big for his head is a masterpiece.

I also wonder if Prince John wasn't a savant. His drawings were exceptional and far ahead of his time and his musical ability was,(if the film properly portrayed this talent)quite remarkable.

What is wonderful about this film is the sense that John despite everything managed to form his own little community on his "Estate", surrounded by people who really did love him. I also have the feeling that he was quite a happy child most of the time.

His parents were no worse than other Royal parents and a great deal better than most.

Special mention should be made of the marvelous Bibi Anderson who played Queen Alexandra so perfectly. At the funeral she even managed to look almost exactly like the Dowager Queen.

Someone mentioned that they didn't believe that the Tsar and the Tsarina would have acted as coldly toward their relations when visiting at Cowes. Unfortunately, that's just how they acted. They did believe that they were seated higher at the table of the Rulers of the World than their cousins in England who had to make-do with smaller versions of their own vast palaces in St. Petersburg. After all the Tsar was the last Absolute Monarch in the world. He even had to approve of every marriage and every divorce. No decision could be made unless he gave his approval. His cousin George had to actually deal with a rabble of advisors and that intrusive Parliment.

The scenes of the Tsar swimming were especially out of touch with reality, just as the Tsar was out of touch with the reality of his situation.

The Russian Grand Duchesses were so dream-like in their lovely summer laces and huge flower-like hats. All of John's imagined scenerios were touched with this combination of wistfullness and joy.

I mention these things because they haven't been mentioned before and they are what I will bring with me forever. Those haunting images of the children running on the beach, the flower-hats in the flower-garden and John peeking through the rails of the balcony at the beautiful lady at the banquet who smiles and waves back at him...a small and precious moment to be treasured.

See this film and fall in love with a child that refuses to be "Lost".

In his own world

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 31 May 2019]

The Lost Prince is an unusual project for writer and director Stephen Poliakoff.

Young Prince John was the tragic youngest son of George V and Queen Mary. He was the uncle of the present Queen Elizabeth. Legend has it that because of his epileptic fits and his learning disabilities, he might had also been autistic, he was supposedly shunted away from the public by his regal parents.

Miranda Richardson is certainly cold and aloof as Johnny's mother. While Tom Hollander as King George has his attention diverted with war in Europe and revolution in Russia. Poliakoff cannot resist delving in his own Russian heritage weaving the plight of the Russian royal family into this saga.

Two actors play young Johnny who finds that only his nanny Lalla (Gina McKee) is willing to devote time and attention to him. The film also explores Johnny's relationship with his older brother Prince George who even at a tender age is being prepared by his father to spend his life serving his country whether he likes it or not.

Poliakoff certainly did do a lot of research for his story, although he acknowledges that there was not much documentary evidence to go on. Even then parts of the story is fictionalised for dramatic purposes. There was certainly a greater age gap between Prince George and Prince John for example.

The Lost Prince is a handsomely mounted period drama. However it is not always an exciting story, certainly in its first part. It is the reason why Poliakoff has to pep up the story with anti German sentiments hitting the royal family so they have to consider the name change to Windsor. It is not even certain if Prince John was even an outcast although his fits did mean he stayed elsewhere in the Sandringham House estate.

Outstanding

[jeffkauf · 10/10 · 24 October 2004]

This production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Western history told via a very personal and touching biography. Director, Stephen Poliakoff has done what is rare: the combination of otherwise cold dates, places and faces brought to the level of high art. As far as casting is concerned, again quite outstanding. Every role seems as though it were created for the talented actor that inhabited it. Special kudos to Miranda Richardson as Queen Mary, Gina McKee as Prince John's nanny Lala and Bill Nighy as Stamfordham: King George's private secretary. Lastly, congratulations to Adrian Johnston for a lovely and most appropriate musical score.

The Lost Prince

[intrex-sci-1 · 7/10 · 27 December 2005]

This should have been a 10, but my three demerit points are for disappointment which can best be described as follows: This is a beautiful production with well thought out highly expensive details and location sets. The acting is superb and the English appropriate for royals and servants. It is therefore sad to observe the several errors and anachronisms of language, persons, events and time that prevent this production from becoming a historical masterpiece. Instead, we appear to have revisionist British History of its time. Much as I would like to list the dozen or so flagrant errors, I fear to do so in case one or all may be considered spoilers and thereby exempt me from further discourse. However I think I am safe in pointing out that Johnnie and George(who was really called Bertie) were brothers with an age difference of ten years and not two that the movie appears to indicate. At the end of the period portrayed (Jan 1919), George was a 23 year old Naval Lieutenant and not the 16 year old callow youth we see in the uniform of a midshipman. If asked, I would be pleased to write a complete critique on this movie which is the type of historical drama that we need more of in an age when good productions are few and far between.

Great Story Telling

[Film Monkey · 10/10 · 5 February 2003]

I am a big fan of Poliakoff and was delighted by the superb two-part TV film of the Royal Family around the First World war through the eyes of the Lost Prince 'Johnny', who was indeed played very well. It was vivid, colourful and really striking cinematically. It had a well written screenplay and the actors were brilliantly case. Hollander as the King couldn't have got closer to the man. It was considerately done and I would recommend this to anyone interest in the period or indeed anyone who likes a good story.

I liked the bits where Johnny imagines the various kings of europe staying at his farm (where he doesn't like the chickens much), and I found that well-humoured and was a bit of fun.

Poignant, lovely, but you better know your history

[irish23 · 5/10 · 25 February 2007]

Excellent period film with a liberal dose of brief stunning vignettes that haunt the viewer for weeks afterward.

This film keeps stepping into and outside the action, drawing us intimately into Lalla's desperate care for Prince John and Queen May's inability to cope with the crumbling world around her -- then it steps back and views the world through John's eyes, turning us into spectators of something so large and complex (the destruction of centuries of royal culture and the social revolutions of the early 20th century) that we can only make sense of bits and pieces.

As noted elsewhere, the acting is marvelous, with Miranda Richardson simply outstanding.

The drawbacks are few but significant. The biggest one is the lack of hints for those not deeply versed in the personalities and events of the Great War. For instance, I'm not sure Stamfordham's name is ever actually mentioned in the film. How are we supposed to know who he is? There are a number of examples of this type of thing. I felt fortunate to know as much as I do about this period of history in England and Russia but was, at times, distracted from the film as I wracked my brain to piece together who the characters were talking about.

While the film assumes an extensive knowledge of this time period, it oddly did not portray Dowager Queen Alexandra's deafness, nor, to my memory, mention Alice Keppel or show King Edward as the dissolute party boy he was.

It is for these reasons I rated the film as I did; there were a few too many times when I was drawn out of the story. But there are images from the film that haunt me yet, and the whole sad plight of Prince John seems a metaphor for the distorted time period covered in the film.

Sad story strangely uplifting

[Philby-3 · 30 August 2003]

Prince John, youngest son of George V and Queen Mary, was handicapped by learning difficulties and the epilepsy which eventually killed him at 14. He spent most of his life hidden away on the Sandringham estate, but he was well cared for and not entirely forgotten by his family (he appeared with his brothers and sisters on a Newfoundland stamp issue). Stephen Poliakof has taken this sad story and created a wonderful tale of growing up in a royal family who, far from ruling their roost, were hidebound by convention, slaves to 'appearances' and emotionally crippled. John, however, is virtually free from all of this – as his brother George remarks 'he is the happiest of us all' (or words to that effect).

John and George (later the Duke of Kent) are able to observe some notable historic personalities and moments. When their grandfather Edward VII (Michael Gambon) dies, most of Europe's royalty turn up to the funeral. George, on chatting terms with Lord Stamfordham (Bill Nighy), his father's private secretary, follows the diplomatic descent into World War I. And there is the fate of cousin Nicky, Tsar of Russia, and his family, at the hands of the Bolsheviks. We see these events from the child's viewpoint, or rather from the viewpoints of two rather different, though close, children. This gives a sort of dreamy immediacy to the story, unadorned with explanations.

While his mother Queen Mary (Miranda Richardson) is both physically and emotionally distant, John is given plenty of love and affection by his nurse Lalla (Gina McKee). Despite his disabilities he thrives under her care to an extent his parents find overwhelming.

It's hard to tell how much of the story is based on fact and how much on Poliakoff's imagination, but it scarcely matters. He has created a story which actually evokes sympathy for royalty, a major achievement in this republican age. Prince John, the royal refusenik, leading his band of retainers across the landscape, is an evocative sight.

The settings are gorgeous, though none of the real places (Sandringham, Buckingham palace) is used. The acting is all first-rate; Tom Hollander's earnest George V and Miranda Richardson's stern but not totally unfeeling Queen Mary stand out, along with the boys playing the two princes.

It was amazing...

[DamianGein · 10/10 · 19 October 2005]

I agree that this movie is not only about Prince John but still it gives us an idea of who he was.It was great well acted especially by the kids.But the most important thing is that the movie can teach about history without boring us.I hope they keep bringing us good movies like this one,that can entertain and and are also educative.And another thing this a a two part movie,i like both parts although i think the second one is very cruel but still those events(the assassination of the Russian Royal family) were true.I also couldn't stand the character of the Queen(not the actress,she was great)she was so...i don't know cold and the king well he was way worse.

Royal Family Relationships

[kitsilanoca-1 · 10/10 · 28 September 2006]

It should be pointed out that not all royal parents are depicted as showing lack of affection in this very touching production. Edward VII is depicted as a very affectionate grandfather who gets right down on his hands and knees to play with his grandsons and their tin soldiers, silently shaming his son, the Prince of Wales, into doing the same. He also races buttered toast down his pant legs, much to the delight of his grandchildren. His wife, Queen Alexandra, is also supposed to have been a very affectionate mother and grandmother, and is depicted as such in this production in the few scenes she is in, being the first to laugh at Prince John's cute behaviour in front of the royal family and their guests at the picnic the have in the palace gardens. King George V's early enrollment in the navy is supposed to have turned him into the gruff father he was, while Queen Mary's cold behaviour is shown in this series to have been from her sad shame in her obese and eccentric mother, not wanting to be like her. As for George and Mary's children, I think we must also put to mind that since most of their time was spent with their nannies, they were they people who had the greatest influence on their personalities. The later King George VI is supposed to have been abused by his nanny, which is why he developed a severe stutter. I do think George V and Mary should have been more affectionate parents; why George didn't benefit from his parents affection, I'll never understand, but then I have know overly affectionate parents whose children have grown to be selfish adults.

Brilliant Diorama of Turn of the Century Royal Life

[zzapper-2 · 8/10 · 4 February 2003]

This lavish production, uses the vehicle of the short life "The Lost (from history) Prince" to portray what Royal Life was like at the turn of century. The sumptuous production illustrates the splendour, luxury, misery and ultimately the futility of the Royals. There are wonderful images of the beautiful daughters of the tsar. Epileptic Prince John is however seen as the only one as being allowed to be himself. Wonderful performances of the roles of the ice queen Queen Mary, Lalla the nursemaid, Prince John young and old.Has been criticised for being too long, but you must try and get to see this when it comes to your country.

Historical facts, Prince John died aged 14 isolated from his family in a farmhouse at Sandringham? cared for by Lalla Bill. Only one historical reference to him still existed. The height of George V is still a secret.

Very moving story

[ozone · 8/10 · 22 June 2003]

I was very touched by this, particularly as I have a family member who has a moderate degree of autism. It really showed how dedicated and under-appreciated the teachers and caregivers of "special needs" children are. Miranda Richardson gave a very fine performance as the Queen. Highly recommended.

Gina McKee deserves a BAFTA

[leeks-1 · 10/10 · 30 June 2003]

A fascinating presentation of a boy's life in his special position with a real insight into the historical and political situation existing at the time and Gina Mckee played her part to perfection and deserves a BAFTA award for best actress.

Perfect ..... if you need a snooze

[fortean2 · 5/10 · 2 October 2007]

What a crying shame - Poliakoff's work is, for me, a real mixed bag - he can soar to dizzying heights with such gems as 'Shooting the Past' and 'Perfect Strangers', but can also sink to writing some real yawn-fests such as 'Caught on a Train' and 'The Lost Prince'.

Of course it's unfair to expect one writer to churn out a perfect script every time, but the extremes in quality are a source of bafflement to me.

Naturally it's all down to personal taste - I see that many people love 'The Lost Prince', but to me it was just a costume drama - all the right ingredients were there, except for a good script and story.

Five out of ten from me I'm afraid - could (and should) have done far, far better.

The Unknown Royal Child

[barryrd · 9/10 · 26 July 2023]

I was very much moved by this movie about the youngest child of King George V (1911-1936) and Queen Mary. The young Prince John was largely kept out of the public eye because he was thought to be an embarrassment to the Royal Family.

The Prince was diagnosed with epilepsy by his doctors and because of this and his learning disabilities, he was dismissed by both doctors and teachers as a child with little potential and a liability to the Royal Family. In fact, the young Prince was capable of learning as his governess, played by Gina McKee, was able to prove. It is quite likely that he had autism, a condition that makes social interaction difficult but is not a sign of low intelligence. In fact, with proper guidance and some understanding, he was shown to have exceptional talent, not unusual with autism.

The Prince was used to spending much of his time at Sandringham, the royal estate in Norfolk and home of his grandmother Queen Alexandra, which was where he enjoyed his own private garden. He also had a strong friendship with his slightly older brother Prince George, later the Duke of Kent. This is interesting because George was something of a pariah himself as a young man but later became an important working royal with his wife Marina and their children by his side.

What I found most unsettling was the distance between John and his parents George V and Queen Mary. The King and Queen performed their official roles very well but ran a tight ship, which put a lot of pressure on their children. Whether true to life or not, King George is shown as a high strung monarch, who was incapable of acting naturally with his youngest son, to the point of unleashing outbursts of anger towards John. John's grandfather Edward VII showed far more understanding of John but he died when John was only five. One can imagine that life with the grandparents - Edward VII and Queen Alexandra - would have allowed John an easier childhood.

Queen Mary, a tower of strength to the the Royal Family for almost 60 years, seemed incapable of showing any personal affection. When tears welled up in her eyes, you could see her sorrow but she was incapable of hugging him or speaking to him as a loving mother. Queen Mary felt constrained by her role. She showed anger towards the governess whenever John without warning, appeared in front of the public or government officials. In fact, as governess, it was Gina McKee who showed great understanding and took great pride in young John's progress.

The movie seems to have a layer of truth as the story of a special needs child, who is subjected to pressures and misunderstandings as a member of the Royal Family. This is the flip side of the life of privilege. The one bright light in his short life was his governess who was able to draw out his overlooked talents and impart to him some measure of happiness despite his imposed seclusion.

Piece of art

[dochito · 10/10 · 10 July 2020]

Awesome acting, so sad story about the brutal and unfair relationship between Queen Mary and George V toward their little son Johnny. Film tells about king and the queen rejection of the prince, because he was born "different".

how cool is this

[randomone · 28 March 2003]

i think this is the most amazing film ever. i think Gina mckee is the most amazing actress ever. the children both are really good, not wooden as most children actors are. it is an ace film and as i am doing GCSE history it is really cool to see how the world history appeared to people at the time. appsurlutly ace i completely reccomend it.

Impressive production

[khatcher-2 · 8/10 · 26 December 2003]

I have been rather off the British Royal Family for some years now. Even before Lady Diana was hastily removed from the scene. There is so much pomp and circumstance that I tend to look the other way. The tantrums that various members of the British Royal Family may be up to - or down to - do not appeal to me overly. By which you must not understand that I am anti-monarchy or pro-republican. Neither is the case. The aloofness of such highnesses does not impress me.

However, this telefilm by Stephen Poliakoff from the BBC is not only an impressive production but an enthralling piece of biographical film-making of the first order. From the outset to the closing credits this film enthralled me. Firstly because of some magnificent performances, even from the children, secondly because of the magnificent mise en scène, superb Victorian and Edwardian furnishings and beautiful c1910 automobiles, as well as the excellent threading of the events between 1908 and 1919.

Young Prince John (1905-1919) suffers from epilepsy, and thus is hidden away from public eye, largely ignored by British subjects, or simply unknown to them. The story is told more or less from his viewpoint, such that at times their is a feel of autobiography to this excellent dramatisation. The background is the looming World War I, but without forgetting the family tie-ups with Greece, France, Germany and Russia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. True blue blood runs thickly among European royalty. Poliakoff did not forget the massacre of the Romanev family, the Tsar of Russia, until overthrown in 1917.

Magnificent interpretations mark this TV film, as is to be expected in British productions, even by the children playing the parts of the brothers John and George. The photography is also superb, bringing us excellent scenes of rural England, especially in Norfolkshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and what I think was the Bluebell Railway, south east of London in Kent.

Worthy of mention is Miranda Richardson's interpretation of Queen Mary (of Teck) whose exceptional reading of the remote and aloof mother does not merely serve for dramatization in the film itself, but also so as to understand the British Throne's attitude, especially the present incumbent, Queen Elizabeth II, to the death of a rather uncomfortable princess called Lady Diana. I imagine the present queen, on seeing this film (which hopefully she has), as her grandmother Victoria, `was not amused'. But also, hopefully, the future British Royalty will take stock and do something about their ineffectual pageantry, their aloof protocol, and descend into the realms of the real world down here doing their shopping in East Grinstead High Street.

If not, this film will, sadly, have missed its possibilities. Excellent, Mr. Poliakoff: I am in no hurry for your next production. Please take your time over it. I shall be waiting.

A cinematographical tour-de-force

[mccleans · 10/10 · 4 February 2005]

A recent excerpt from "The Extra" magazine (a public domain Webzine) about The Lost Prince....

...The all star cast also includes Peter Setterfield who behaved like a complete count whilst giving a marvellously hammy Von Trapp, the renowned twosome Douggie Rae and Dave Toye who almost overcome the challenges of their early lives to play "two idiots next to King" and a scintillating Clive Warren whose "toothless buffoon" would give John Mills in Ryans Daughter a run for his money any day.

The discovery of the drama, however, must surely be the hitherto undiscovered, but exceptionally talented Simon McClean. Not only can he share a wardrobe with Robbie Coltrane (who didn't appear in this film) but his quintessential performance of "Fat person loading for even fatter person with beard" is second to none. His portrayal of "man giving concerned look at King leaving" will surely rank as a benchmark performance for this demanding role.

Michael Gambon was quite good also.