W.E. (2011) User Reviews

'Darling, they can't hurt you if you don't let them.'

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 8 May 2012]

The much maligned, brief theatrical film by Madonna - W.E. - fairs better on the small screen than it likely did in the movie houses. The stories are bifurcated, each one resembling a television creation - one a docudrama biopic, the other a contemporary soap opera. That Madonna, who directed and wrote the screenplay with Alek Keshishian, decided to mix the two stories is a bit daring but in some ways it works very well. In other ways the parallel stories seem like time traveling cars on the same highway that never quite travel at the same speed or quality.

The film mixes the notorious affair between King Edward VIII and American divorcée Wallis Simpson with a contemporary romance between a married woman and a Russian security guard. The time is 1998 and at an auction of the estate of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor unhappily married ex-Sotheby employee Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish) becomes obsessed by their historic love story. Her own marriage to womanizing, abusive psychiatrist William (Richard Coyle) undermines her feelings of worth and as she learns more about the sacrifices involved in the famous affair, she gains her own courage to find happiness.

The film flips back and forth between the present and the 1930s and it is the historical aspect of the film that is almost flawless. We get to know Wallis Simpson (in a brilliant portrayal by Andrea Riseborough) and understand her failed first two marriages (at the time we meet her she is still married to Ernest Simpson played by David Harbour), and see the American sizzle that made her the talk of England. When Wallis wrangles her way to meet Prince Edward, better known as David, (James D'Arcy) there is a chemistry that develops to the point of passion and ultimately leads to Wallis divorcing Ernest to marry Edward - a deed that leads to Edward's abdication of the throne for 'the woman I love', which he had assumed when King George V (James Fox) dies, to his stammering brother Bertie (Laurence Fox) and his caustic wife Elizabeth (Natalie Dormer). The paparazzi make their life miserable and the couple is not allowed to return to England until Edward dies, with the faithful Wallis supportively by his side through 36 years of marriage.

Wally - meanwhile - longs to be pregnant but sustains such abuse from William that she ultimately yields to the loving friendship the auction house Russian security guard Evgeni (Oscar Isaac) and begins her life again. The two stories are connected by Wally's obsession with the royal couple's notorious affair and at auction's end she is given access to private letters between Wallis and Edward that have been in the possession of Mohamed Al-Fayed (Haluk Bilginer) - a tacked on ending that feels ill at ease and redundant.

Everyone connected t the biopic angle of this film is excellent and Madonna shows that she knows how to direct affairs of the heart in a royal situation very well indeed. Both Andrea Riseborough and James D'Arcy are superb and the costumes and music and cinematography of this historical portion are exceptionally well done. Though the idea of the contemporary sluggish story is reasonable, Abbie Cornish seems uncomfortable with the script: Oscar Isaac shines as her new love. In all the film, though spotty, has merit and it not a bad debut for Madonna as director.

Grady Harp

Fantastic, compelling...

[Thestart1 · 7/10 · 5 December 2011]

I will not be revealing any spoilers. I just want to highlight the fact that I can now confirm for myself that critics are jaded and they will write off anything Madonna does in the film business. That is not to say most of her previous works weren't dismal at best, but I always felt they weren't as bad as critics bashed.

However, we're here to discuss W.E. A film that Madonna does not star in and that may just be the brilliance of it all. I screened it last night after winning a contest and I must say, as a Madonna fan, I walked in with the assumption that I wouldn't like the movie but I would search for little things that I could enjoy and emphasize those things. That had to be the last thing in the world I did once the film commenced. Even in the same room with Madonna and other fashionistas, celebrities and artists, I completely forgot where I was and I soon found myself captivated by the story.

The intertwining of the old and new, historical loosely based romance with a modern romance, music old and new was brilliantly executed by Madonna. The film really emphasized how the general public scrutinize public figures and demonize others without a clear understanding of who they are and how politics can destroy the chance of love and how King Edward would ultimately not have that.

Intertwined with the modern tale of a New York City woman who's fascinated by the story, there are flashbacks that go through the delicate history of the royal family in the particular time that Wallis Simpson, then married, met King Edward.. It is not a fact-by-fact story. It is an attempt to take a look at things from a different perspective because after all there are two sides to every story, if not more than two sides.

Although set design, location and costume design were unbelievable, I will not speak further on it because critics said that that was the only thing good about the film so I'll let that speak for itself.

Every character was played and executed brilliantly and it was just a captivating story from beginning to end. I take pride in my love for Madonna but I also take pride in my love for film and I walked in knowing I wouldn't lie to myself. If I liked it, I liked it. If I loved it, then so be it. If I hated it, oh well.

Fortunately, I found that everyone in the audience was pleasantly surprised, almost as if they were cheering on the fact that it will be seen for what it is. That no one has to defend it. Leave it to the film-goer to make that desicion.

The camera work was beautiful, slow but intermixed with a haunting score and pivotal performances. I really hope people watch it with an open mind and forget Madonna directed it. At least until the credits roll and her new song Masterpiece begins and you remember why we love Madonna in the first place. Her music is profound and the song Masterpiece is a beautiful closer to the film.

After the film, everyone was energized and the buzz carried out into the halls where people stood discussing the film. I can't wait to re-watch it with my friends on Friday for its limited release and then once more at opening night on February 3rd.

I will be buying this film for my DVD collection. It's worth it and that's more than I thought I'd ever say about it.

***1/2(out of 5)

Solid, Stylish Biopic

[rentboy828-262-26038 · 7/10 · 18 February 2019]

The cast alone makes this film worth watching. This was the first I watched with Oscar Isaac, and he truly generates heat in every scene with Abbi Cornish. Andrea Riseborough gives a star making performance that should have been recognized when the film was originally released. Madonna, as a director, knows how to let her cast do their thing and brings a stylish eye to the set design and costumes. Of course the critics were ready with their claws out but anyone who watches the film with an objective eye will be pleasantly rewarded.

A fascinating film--half brilliant, half awful.

[Mer_Girl_Fits_Heaven · 3 November 2011]

Far from the best or worst picture of the year, W.E. is certainly the most intriguing. It tells the story of Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) and the New York housewife who is obsessed with her in 1998 (played by Abbie Cornish). This is not a straightforward historical film, nor is it trying to be. Instead, the film is a mediation on celebrity, history and the way people search in those realms for meaning in their own lives. For example, Wally in 1998 is trapped in a loveless marriage where she is virtually ignored by everyone, so she imagines Wallis as utterly fabulous, and adored by the man who abdicated for her. "What are you thinking about?" she is asked at one point. She responds, "What it must feel like to be loved that much". Madonna hits that nail right on its head, and this premise is the reason she can't tell the story from a straight historical perspective--celebrities really only exist in our heads. Madonna likely knows this better than anyone. For this reason, Wally waves away her idols alleged Nazi sympathies and the possibility that she and Edward's marriage was not all that it seemed, because in New York in 1998, she needs to believe that love can be eternal. In this context, the much maligned scenes in which Wallis appears to Wally to give advice make perfect sense. All celebrities and historical figures really are figments of our imaginations anyway.

In the end, the theme is that people should not obsess over celebrities, but should "get a life" of their own. This brings us to the films one serious downfall. The audience is forced to spend more than half the movie with Wally, who is beyond boring and unsympathetic. This can be blamed on the script and the performance by Abbie Cornish, who never seems to do any more than pose and read lines. The character was never believable or engaging, and the script must resort to over the top melodrama to move her story along. In short, the 1998 storyline is a mess, and you'd think that a film whose premise is that celebrity-obsessed people need to get a life would have known better than to focus on an obsessed fan with no life.

That said, everything with Wallis is spot on, better even than anything found in "The King's Speech" (2010). Andrea Riseborough, who plays Wallis accomplishes in a single scene what Abbie Cornish couldn't in all of the movie. She makes us admire and care for the woman she's playing. She has a charisma (much like the director herself) that guarantees the indulgence of the audience. She is going to be naughty, and we're going to love her for it.

And thus you have the most interesting movie of the year: half masterpiece, half slog. If the 1931 storyline had been stretched out to 90 minutes, and the 1998 one reduced to 10 or 15, this would have been one of the best films of the year. As it is, it a tremendous curiosity.

I must mention, however, the best scene in the movie, featuring an elderly Wallis and a dying Edward. I shan't give it away except to say that it captures perfectly both the sweetness of enduring love and the sadness, and inevitability of age and death. Where I was laughing derisively at the previous scene, this one had me in tears before it was through. Like I said, a very interesting experience.

I have refrained from mentioning its superstar director, because most critics can't seem to see past their feelings about her as a person. Still, I can't help but note that Madonna is vastly better suited to depict the lifestyles of the rich and fabulous, than the dreary doldrums of us common-folk.

A fantasy with realistic (and historical) roots...well done!

[secondtake · 7/10 · 29 October 2012]

W.E. (2011)

Don't even think about who directed this. Think of it as a multi-layered, multi-era epic centering on the marriage of King Edward and his American love, Wallis Simpson. He's the English king who abdicated for love. But this is the story of the love, Wallis, the woman who gave up as much as the king did, or so the thrust of the movie suggests.

It's rather good! It mixes a bit of fantasizing with a contemporary woman, Wally, finding her obsession with the Wallis of history (1930s) is more than coincidence. The narrative flips between several parts of the royal story before WWII and the contemporary version, which includes a budding relationship with a guard at an exhibition of Wallis Simpson memorabilia.

Whether you find either story convincing doesn't matter. One of them is of course based on history, and is interesting if you don't already know the facts. The other is an echo of the same, with the woman having to become strong and independent just as her earlier namesake did.

What is most interesting is the way the two stories are inter-spliced, including some scenes where the two times zones are mixed (apparently in Wally's head, but it's very real to the audience). We start to see how often and completely women are stuck in situations they would not choose if they knew ahead of time. It's about independence, yes, but also failure to be independent and the consequences. And maybe it's about learning a little from history.

The director? Madonna. Yes, the singer from Michigan. The director of the terrible bomb "Filth and Wisdom." Here there is some real cinematic intelligence. It's a good movie. Flawed, a bit longer than it needs to be, a bit forced in the layering of stories, but well acted and conceived.

a directing/writing effort of Madonna

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 6 June 2017]

I suppose there is the germ of a good idea here, and 2011's "W.E." is not unsuccessful. As a directing effort by Madonna, it's okay. And you have to give her credit since she had to know everyone would be gunning for her.

In 1998, the estate of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor goes up for auction. One person particularly interested in it is Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish), who is very taken with the love story between Wallis Simpson and the Duke of Windsor, and particularly Wallis' life and other marriages. The film takes us through the courtship and marriage of the Duke and Duchess as well as Wally's disintegrating marriage to William, and then her relationship with the Soviet security guard she meets at the auction house.

Personally I've never found anything romantic or sympathetic about Wallis and David. I think Wallis was a great excuse for David to duck responsibility and heap it onto his stammering brother. And neither he nor Wallis thought about what they were going to do once they were married. And what did they do? Roamed the world, showing up at a location when it was in season, and making friends who would write books about them after they died. By the time the couple realized what they had done, it was too late. No breaking up the great romance.

Nevertheless, as many times as their story has been told, it's still fascinating, and much more interesting than the marriage of Wally Winthrop and her husband. Not to mention, there is a fantastic performance by Andrea Risborough as Wallis. As Edward, James D'Arcy is incredibly dashing and attractive. It's really the stronger story, and Madonna might have been better off just telling their tale, using a different point of view than others have in the past.

The moral seems to be to take a risk and go for happiness. It's a fine moral; I'm just not sure I would use the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as inspiration. Was theirs a great love story? I'm sure it was, and no doubt the Duke's death hit the Duchess very hard. But they were human beings who undoubtedly fought, took one another for granted, and had some misgivings. And that's the big problem with idealizing any romance - in the end, the people we idealize are too much like us.

Almost, yet not quite.

[mad_mandonna · 6/10 · 28 January 2012]

W.E. is one of three biopics I have seen this year, after The Iron Lady and J Edgar. Of the three I think W.E. is probably the best, but all three tread the path of the mediocre. What W.E. gets right is Wallis Simpson, Riseborough is fantastic in the lead role and has great chemistry with James D'Arcy. The biggest problem with the film is the the second tier of the romance with Abbie Cornish's Wally Winthrop, though the romance picks up momentum around the one hour mark, it slows down the pace of the Wallis Simpson segments.

The script has high and low notes, the romance at times is reduced sappiness, but these are forgivable even when they are at there worst. What is probably the biggest weakness in W.E. is the often used close up hand held camera shots. The occasional one works nicely, but these shots are put in far too often and take you out of the story. In most cases the camera work could have been more simplistic, it too often feels erratic which isn't good in the more tender moments of the film.

The music in W.E. is beautiful and the addition of "Masterpiece" in the credits is a lovely song to go side by side with the film. However sometimes the music is a little over powering, once again just a case of less is more. The much discussed and derided scene with Wallis dancing the Charleston with a tribesman to The Sex Pistols "pretty Vacant", I really liked. I felt the scene was a fun and good way to show how frivolous the character could be, using the modern day Wally's imagination to keep the scene from feeling alien.

Undoubtedly the best part of W.E. is the costume and lighting. The attention to detail in this department is incredible. Every costume looks stunning and is meticulously put together down to the nearest diamond, and the lighting makes the landscapes almost feel like paintings it really is stunning.

All in all W.E. is a great attempt from Madonna to craft a stunning looking film, though the storytelling can be muddled and the film takes around 40 minutes to really get going, its once again forgivable. Historical inaccuracies put aside would have made this film a 7, but not exploring the Nazi element could have made this so much more interesting. The negative reviews of this film aren't looking at it from fair perspective and anyone with half a brain can see though not amazing, W.E. is at least half decent and for a directors second film pretty damn good.

pretty, awful.

[Greigx3 · 1/10 · 25 January 2012]

There have been a lot of mixed reactions to this film. There's a reason for that: it's both good and bad. I didn't enjoy it but – staying away from the obvious tendency to judge this film based solely on the fact it's Madonna who's directed/co-wrote it – there are some diamonds in the (very) rough. The film tries to take two story lines which are set in completely different times and places, and merge them into one film. One of these plots are really good, the other really bad. The good one is the story of Edward VIII who abdicated from his place on the throne in order to marry a commoner, Wallis Simpson. The bad one is the story of an ordinary New York woman who's in the process of leaving an abusive relationship. The second story is trashy, melodramatic pulp. Any relation between these two story lines is contrived and every time it cuts between the two, it feels very awkward, forced, meaningless and confusing. It's a real shame, because the story of the Edward VIII is an extremely interesting one. There's so much there to write about: his controversial lifestyle, marriage to Wallis Simpson, abdication, relationship with George VI and the rest of the royal family – not to mention his alleged Nazi sympathies and friendship with Adolf Hitler! As a straight historical drama, this story would be truly riveting and I personally think it deserves a big budget treatment. It could even do well as a glossy romantic drama or a gritty political drama – or a mixture of both. I do appreciate that Madge has tried to tell this story (which has been done in film and TV before) from an alternative perspective: through the eyes of Wallis Simpson. This is a credible idea but the film doesn't focus enough on it. Instead, it's needlessly confused by a boring, ambiguous plot featuring a deluded and emotionally erratic protagonist nobody can relate to. The film is occasionally historically inaccurate and utterly bizarre in places. There is a point where a news reporter states that Edward is succeeding King George III, when it is in fact King George V (the former died more than a century before). There are also several absurdities and moments of sheer bad taste, most notably a scene where Edward and Wallis are popping pills at a party as they dance to the Sex Pistols in the 1930s! The fact Madonna chose the song 'Pretty Vacant' is probably more fitting than she'll realise. There is a consistent stream of these absurdities which cause serious detriment to the film's tone and coherency – as if it wasn't already hard enough to understand. There is no conclusion to this film either. By the end nothing is resolved, everything becomes wholly ambiguous and no explanation is given as to the meaning or core purpose of the film. Just before the credits role, as the camera pans up from nothingness to yet more nothingness, you're left thinking "what was the point in all of that?" Credit where credit's due though: the film has some nice cinematography. The fashion and costume design is great too. It's visually very good and you can tell there are some people working on this film who know what they're doing, but it's all wasted on a rotten script. The film seems to concentrate on fashion, materialism, aesthetics and stylistic elements more than telling a compelling story. It's just superficial. For me, the bad outweighs the good, and W.E. appears as nothing more than an opportunistic derivative of a sub-plot from the King's Speech, with potential that would never be realised here. Madonna's film is brash and contrived at best, random and pointless at worst.

Don't pass judgement on this one until you've seen it.

[DJRMewzique · 8/10 · 18 February 2012]

"W.E." had one hell of an uphill battle. Not only is it a period piece, but the film is also written and directed by the one woman in the world that makes people pass judgement before even experiencing her work. That woman is Madonna.

The film tells the tale of the infamously scandalous affair of King Edward VIII (aka David) and Wallis Simpson for whom, in the 1930s, he gave up everything for, even abdicating the throne of England. Being a twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson was a woman the monarchy would never accept, and because of that, David left everything behind for love. The film concurrently takes us back to 1998 and Wally Winsthrop, a woman who was named after Ms. Simpson by her Wallis-obsessed mother and who also finds herself in a marriage that is not living up to the magic she expected it to be, a fact which is brought more to life by the flirtations of a Russian security guard she encounters at an auction of the Windsor Estate at Sotheby's.

I can honestly say that, despite being an enormous fan of most of Madonna's artistic endeavours, I was not sure how this film would play out. But you know what? It's a good film. First of all, it takes the perspective of Wallis Simpson in telling the first story, which goes against the norm. Secondly, the interweaving of the two completely different time periods is extremely well done, incredibly edited, and manages to keeps you invested in both stories equally. And most surprisingly, it was an entertaining history lesson: Not only do you learn of this hugely publicized affair but the film, in a way, is almost like a prequel to last year's powerhouse, "The King's Speech," as that film focuses on Bertie, David's brother, who had to take over the throne once David renounced it.

The film is not perfect, but as Madonna's second attempt at directing, you have to give her credit. Something many critics just refuse to do. No, the script is far from genius, but it's far from awful. The film is visually beautiful to watch and the integration of regular filming and documentary-style graininess makes for an interesting watch. Then there is the exquisite costumes for which this film is nominated for an Academy Award...and has a good chance at winning. And the performances, all of which are good. Andrea Risborough ("Made in Dagenham," "Happy Go Lucky") gives a strong turn, if not slightly off kilter at times, as Wallis Simpson. James D'Arcy is at times whimsical yet stoic as the terribly handsome King Edward. Abbie Cornish ("Limitless") is close to heartbreaking as the suffering Wally Winthrop and Richard Coyle ("Prince of Persia") gives a great performance as Wally's emotionally absent husband. And then there is Oscar Isaac, also in the Oscar-nominated "Drive," as the incredibly handsome and sweet Russian who perks up each time Wally is around.

No, "W.E." is not brilliant, but it's far better than you might expect, Madonna proving to be a far better director than anyone might give her credit for. And if you just love her for her music, the Golden-Globe winning "Masterpiece" plays along the closing credits. Although I have always preferred her musical endeavours over her cinematic attempts, this attempt is one she can definitely be proud of.

Far better than you may think

[DebraIonaVogel · 7/10 · 29 December 2020]

It has its moments. A lot of them.

This is a story about two women: Wallis Simpson and a contemporary women named for her by "obsessed" mother and grandmother.

Their lives collide when Sotheby's holds an auction of the former King and Wallis's belongings and our protagonist visits obsessively.

It's beautifully shot, lavishly even. The casting and costuming are superb. The scoring was simple, purposeful and haunting.

The story, from Wallis's perspective was interesting. Having just watched, "The Crown", I was familiar with the fall-out but not the falling in love. Fascinating.

Our modern Wallie has a predictable and overdone story, no subtlety whatsoever. But, it ends well and who doesn't love a happy ending.

This was a successful movie and it was only when the credits rolled thst I saw Madonna. I give her points for not casting herself as Wallis Simpson, I'm sure she was tempted.

beautiful but lacking

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 24 January 2017]

Lonely Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish) feels neglected by her often-absent doctor husband William Winthrop (Richard Coyle). Sotheby's is auctioning off the Windsor Estate including his abdication desk. She falls in love with their romance. She's desperate to have a baby and tries IVF. In flashbacks and in daydreams, King Edward VIII (James D'Arcy) and his love American divorcée Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) come to life.

This Madonna project is beautifully costumed. She was probably meticulous with the designs and costumes. Her directing and writing prowess is another matter. The historical romance lacks a certain heat. It does have an upperclass comfortableness but it feels cold. With his abdication and their rumored Nazi connection, there should plenty of drama to work with. Madonna is stuck on their romance for a little too long and the drama is bled out of it. The performances of the royals are cold. The Nazi connections are papered over as Madonna is obviously making it a case of victim of falsehoods. It's fine to have a point of view but one has to pull it off. As for Abbie Cornish, her role has some big melodramatic moves. Overall, Madonna may have bit off more than she could chew.

Best version of this Romance

[mignonwolf · 9/10 · 13 May 2012]

I am not a fan of Madonna, her music and previous film stints do not do it for me.But I bear the greatest respect for her, she has gone where angels fear to tread,she is a pioneer of women, and she makes me proud to be one. I do not understand why this movie got such bad reviews. I found it well directed, casted and filmed. It is wildly romantic and thoroughly worth your time. The costumes are stunning and the dialogue intriguing. Perhaps all the reviewers with negative comments were male? It has happened before, but this is no "chick flick". My husband really enjoyed it also. Well he is in touch with his feminine side, but like Madonna he has balls the size of butternuts

Go away Wally

[soph_ia · 6/10 · 26 February 2016]

If I were to review this movie aesthetically it would be an 11/10. It is a nice movie to look at. The Edward/Wallis scenes in particular were pure eye-candy, especially for a period drama lover like me. The score of the movie was also great. It was actually one of the movie's tracks ("Dance For Me Wallis") that introduced me to this movie and made me want to watch it.

Sadly, as beautiful as this movie is, it falls rather flat where its story is concerned. The entire Wally storyline should have been omitted altogether. The only good thing about it is that it has Oscar Isaac. This movie would have been great of it was just about Edward and Wallis. I actually thought that was the case and that Abbie Cornish and Oscar Isaac's characters were museum/auction people of sorts and that Edward and Wallis' story would be narrated through them.

To start with, Wally is a boring character. She does not deserve to be the protagonist of this movie and we as an audience do not deserve to have to go through her boring life when we could be watching a much more interesting story; Edward and Wallis'.

Wally and Evgeny were supposed to mirror Wallis and Edward which I frankly found stupid because they really didn't have that much in common? You are hardly creating a parallel just because the characters' names start with the same letter. I also found Wally's name cheesy, much like the explanation behind why she's called that. I get that it was a big part of the film that she's obsessed with Wallis but I think they could have easily made that point even if her name was Jessica or Sarah. Her being called Wally was something you'd expect from a story written by a twelve-year-old, not professionals.

Another problem with this movie is that although it is a romance the actors don't really have that much chemistry with each other. Oscar Isaac is an actor who I think can be charismatic even next to a cactus but I still did not find Evgeny and Wally's love story particularly engaging. James D'Arcy and Andrea Risenborough are somewhat better together but I still didn't feel like Edward and Wallis' love was so grand and strong as the movie wanted us to think. I actually find that they have more chemistry in pictures (like that promotional picture of them on the beach) than they did in action.

All in all I think that if they omitted the Wally storyline altogether and kept it about Edward and Wallis only (but still found a place for Oscar Isaac in that storyline because he is frankly too awesome) this movie would have been a lot better.

Confused and cack-handed

[davebest2001 · 3/10 · 23 January 2012]

Stories about royal scandal are usually surefire hits. The stories are there to be told. With a decent screenplay, nice costumes and some good actors, you should be able to create a decent film...unless the direction and concept is as cack-handed as this. I am often annoyed by films that move forward and back in time without chronologically telling the story. It's often a cover for poor editing. This is very much the case with this film. My head was spinning from all of the location and date changes. Another problem I had with this film were the supposed parallels between the modern day Wallis and Wallis Simpson. The links were very weak indeed. I was waiting for the scene that tied up both women's stories and it never came along. James D'arcy was a ridiculous choice for the part of Prince Edward. He is about 6' 3". The real Edward was around 5' 8". They looked nothing alike. Archive footage of the real Edward VIII intercut with the actor made the whole film look ridiculous. It was like a spoof scene were the stuntman looks nothing like the actor being punched. Overall this film was only watchable really for the acting of Andrea Riseborough, who looked very like Wallis Simpson and was believable as well. Not a film for repeat viewing. Overlong, boring and nonsensical

A Semi-Noble Failure

[jimmy_mack1973 · 20 January 2012]

Having finally opened in the UK, I've now had the opportunity to watch 'W.E.', having followed its coverage to this point with interest. I can't, in all honestly, say that this is a good movie. I'll back the common positives and reiterate that it looks amazing and Andrea Riseborough is wonderful in it. The score, while lovely, is over- powering at times - Madonna is obviously terrified of silence!

I went with the movie quite happily for the first hour. The Wallis and Edward scenes are effective (I thought the dizzying/choppy camera work worked really well contrasting with the vintage images) and reminded me quite a bit of Stephen Fry's movie "Bright Young Things". But they had absolutely zero dramatic tension. Largely, this was due to the fact that they weren't chronological, but also it was because (to my horror) they almost seemed there to serve the modern day story, rather than vice versa.

And as for those modern day parts ... well ... Firstly, I'll say that I didn't think the concept was bad and it had potential. However, they needed to be trimmed by about three quarters. Christ, did they ever go on. The dialogue was serviceable, at best, and toe-curling at worst. The character of Wally was about as engaging as a paper clip and that was largely due to Abby Cornish's lifeless performance. Honestly, I wanted to scream at the screen, "Stop whispering all the time and TALK, woman!" That said, if the movie had only cut to these scenes every so often and used them as well-timed interjections, rather than as a story worthy of screen time in their own right, it would have been more bearable.

The film really lost me in the second hour when I realised it had used up all its party tricks and it was obvious where it was going. (And, no, I don't mean the Wallis/Edward story arch, but how it was going to contrast the two tales, and what the oh-so-obvious climax was going to be.) By the end, I couldn't wait for it to finish.

There are some lovely scenes, though, and several nice touches throughout. But while the infamous 'Pretty Vacant' sequence is probably trying to say profound things about Wallis having a punk spirit, it feels rather out of place. (It's fun, though, I'll give it that.)

So, really, it's nowhere near the one star disaster many are claiming. And I, genuinely, can't see why anyone could charge it would be, other than to appear 'cool' to knock Madge. It's got too much going for it, for that.

But the reason I said 'semi-noble failure' is because, while I think it had some ambition, it's indulgent to a fault. At least twenty minutes of this movie are taken up by Abby Cornish wandering around Sothebys, exchanging in vacant platitudes with the Russian security guard, or looking blandly at something we're told should be exciting by the volume of the score. And, I guess, the blame for including such non-interesting stuff must lie with the movie's director.

Tonic for dull January eve

[philip2014 · 6/10 · 23 January 2012]

Along with others, I must credit the Material Girl's refusal simply to re-run the (very) tired (and exhausting) Edward VIII yarn: the visuals here are stupendous and on their own justify the ticket price. If, say, you have tonight no embassy ball/film premiere to attend, then a trip to your movie theatre to see this will fill the void.

If the genuine theme is misplaced love for celebrity, then Wally's is a (half-satisfying) story of redemption (ie with pregnancy she looks forward finally to a real future of her own); if instead it's about the Duchess as wronged heroine, it's a hearty effort but the sympathy that's generated for the dim but 100% non-evil prince (in this portrayal dotty, kind... and many other things the real David/Edward may not have been) makes the case hard to make.

The world's been long littered with (famous and totally not) adventurers who played with dynamite once too often, and few will feel much for a pair who persisted in material splendour as the Duke and Duchess, for all their troubles, plainly did.

Re. the modern story, I agree that it is overlong, and it slows down the whole thing towards the end, although not, fortunately, nearer the start. Worse, because of the space Wally et al occupy we feel robbed of more Wallis and David (or Bertie and Elizabeth, or even Lillibet and Margaret) time.

Overall light years better than expected, give it a chance, on the biggest screen you can find...

Madonna's vanity project? Yes, but it is exquisite.

[lasttimeisaw · 6/10 · 7 April 2014]

Madonna's second film as a director, after the little seen FILTH AND WISDOM (2008). W.E. is her much more ambitious venture commingles Wally (Cornish), a modern woman's self-liberation from a dead water marriage and the scandalous love affair between American divorcée Wallis Simpson (Riseborough) and King Edward VIII (D'Arcy) which causes a constitutional crisis in the history.

Shot with fluent confidence, this paralleled stories adeptly crisscross each other with two time-lines, with occasional but vital crossovers in the same frame as Wally's imagination goes wild. Voguish furnishings, exquisite reconstruction of the period flair with notable locales, it is glaringly Madonna's vanity project (who personally invested in most of its estimated $15,000,000 budget), even Evgeni (Isaac), an immigrant security guard of Sotheby's (he is the E in Wally's storybook), lives in a commodious penthouse and is also a dexterous piano player, that is to say, there is no grassroots trace in Madonna's notion of finding your Mr. Right.

One can not deny the film has a certain cinematic register which is quite charming, primarily in Wallis and Edward's affair, probing from Wallis' viewpoint, the tenor is to see the sacrifice she has undergone for the romance although we may all assume it is contingent upon Edward's decision to favor this woman to his own kingdom. Andrea Riseborough is intrepidly intense to interpret a woman who merits such an accomplishment and what a heavy toll she takes for it, a career- defying role for her; and James D'Arcy, his royal temperament alone can be killingly fetching.

As for Wally's narrative, it is a predictable damsel-in-distress situation, she is a trophy wife of an unfaithful husband (Coyle), who is a successful shrink, but not her prince-charming. Wally's insistence in IVF is met with harsh rebuttal and domestic violence ensues. Excessively loses herself in Walls & Edward's legend, and again predictably, his prince Evgeni is not what she expects. But the chemistry between Cornish and Isaac is comparatively tepid and more contrived, Abbie Cornish is habitually apathetic and Isaac seems to be too proud to patronizing his character and his love-interest.

W.E. is a conventional fare to present Madonna's strongest suit in accentuating women's own volition in determining their fate, all the bells and whistles aside, it is an average output considering her submergence in the showbiz for all those years, an opportune deviation of her career-orbit is a smart maneuver. W.E. is slightly above my expectation, and adding more of her own pizazz, she could be on a par with her confidant Tom Ford (A SINGLE MAN 2009, 8/10), at the very least.

Aesthetically beautiful but just a bit predictable in Direction

[misterjiggy · 6/10 · 10 August 2013]

This movie obviously had a tremendous budget and no expense was spared in their sets and quality of costumes and locations which are superb and the real 'star' of this movie. It appears that the director really took great pains to ensure authenticity with regard to Wallis Simpson's wardrobe as well as the Royal's wardrobe and their lifestyle. I was quite mesmerized with the laissez faire life that Wallis and what was to be the future King had created and this movie if to be believed portrays it very well.

The parallel story in this movie whilst interesting really does not add anything to the already complex and intriguing life of Wallis and Edward; therefore, had the director focused more on W.E., this movie may have been more successful.

You can sort of discern in this movie that the Director is 'thinking' out loud to themselves in the way some of the scenes are shot. The director has her actors over emphasize actions in order to convey an emotion that the director thinks is subliminal to the audience when in fact it is just too obvious that the director is a bit immature in their direction. Had this director allowed emotions to develop sincerely without the obvious conjecture of 'set-ups', then again this movie would have been dually successful.

No chemistry, no passion, no nothing!

[peter-carlsson-976-779113 · 1/10 · 2 August 2012]

This is the story of a man who gave up the kingdom for a woman and a woman who gave up everything for the man. Still there are absolutely no chemistry between them whatsoever. The movie totally misses it's mark. No passion, no sex, no feelings - nothing. You missed out on this one Madonna. I a movie are to show us how true passion is bigger than everything - yes, there has to be passion involved. And another thing - spoiler coming - in the contemporary story a woman are married to a cheating husband, who also abuses her - still SHE ask HIM: "Why won't you have sex with me". Come on... please! Why would she be stupid enough to want to have sex with a cheating and abusing husband? This movie really sucks and i would not recommend it to anybody.

W.E. surprises in all the best ways

[ryanbigbro · 10/10 · 13 September 2011]

I am not exactly sure what I expected from Madonna's latest film as a director, but I convinced myself to go into it with an open mind. I ended up being impressed in every way. Madonna has a great vision. The film is visually stunning, and the performances are all convincing and powerful, though never over-the-top as might have been expected. Madonna has put together a great screenplay with just the right emotional highlights, and then she executes the overall picture in the best way possible. On the heels of the success of "The King's Speech," I think people will really love getting to see see the other side of the story. I truly hope people give this movie a chance. It is a diamond in the rough.

Underestimated

[dimitrioschondros · 7/10 · 9 January 2021]

Not a masterpiece, but an interesting director's view on such a romance in two different ages. Clever scenario. Not bad at all.

It's been directed by a biased fan with all the subtlety of a rampant sledgehammer.

[TheSquiss · 2/10 · 16 June 2012]

It's very popular to bash Madonna. She did the unthinkable with American Pie, recorded what many regard the worst Bond theme ever (personally I'd give that status to Jack White and Alicia Keys) and starred in the barrel-scraping of Guy Ritchie's career, Swept Away. That's pretty damning evidence before we even begin to look at W.E.

Conversely, she deservedly won a Golden Globe for Evita, remains one of the greatest, ever-evolving and most recognizable pop icons this planet has ever seen and has recorded some fantastic, of-the-moment albums that have maintained their brilliance years, and even decades, later and sold 300 million copies and counting.

But, no, we can't escape the fact that she co-wrote and directed W.E.

Purporting to tell the story of the romance of Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII from the point of view the most hated woman in the world, W.E. dallies with her first marriage, ponders her second and deliberates over the third and final that brings about the abdication that rocked the Empire he ruled. It's a story that should be told. Focus is usually given to all that Edward renounced in order to marry the woman he loved and Madonna has decided to set the record straight. Unfortunately, her McGuffin is a latter day story about a Wallis aficionado, played by Abie Cornish and named after her heroine, who finds love with a security guard at Sotherby's while viewing the multitudinous lots in an auction of the couple's possessions. Yawn.

It's not a dreadful film but it certainly isn't very good. It's been directed by a biased fan, rather than an impartial or enlightened expert, with all the subtlety of a rampant sledgehammer. Too much time has been spent on attempting to amaze with beautiful shots (a long sweep over the embracing couple that continues all the way up the never ending trunk of the tree they are leaning against) and clever juxtaposition that absolutely does not work (Wallis dancing to the Sex Pistols, anyone?).

The music is overpowering and inconsiderate of the performances it drowns out in a Nicholas-Cage-in-pretty-much-everything kind of way. I'm sure that was a decision rather than an accident but it erodes any favour the film might otherwise gain from the deafened audience.

At the heart of W.E. is a beautifully measured performance by Andrea Riseborough as the woman who would never be queen. Her presence is a resolute flower of quality in the midst of a period piece demolition site and her quality cannot be diminished by the inadequacy that surrounds her. It's good to see Richard Coyle back on the big screen in a role that will hopefully remind casting agents he exists but Lawrence Fox is a weak pastiche of the stuttering Bertie, particularly after the lauded portrayal by Colin Firth in The King's Speech.

It's a mess. Other than Riseborough, the highpoint is, ironically, Madonna's song over the end credits but I'd give it a listen on YouTube rather than ploughing through W.E. to reach it.

Another film review from The Squiss. For more reviews from The Squiss subscribe to my blog at www.thesquiss.co.uk

Exquisite

[Clairepcb · 10/10 · 13 September 2021]

The low reviews for this movie is a tribute to what poor quality entertainment our society wants. I am NO fan of Madonna and frankly I am shocked she had this movie in her. It is complex, beautiful and an experience not to be missed. I only watched it because the music is my favorite composer but based on the reviews I didnt expect much. The costumes were outstanding as was the set design. But honestly it was the performance by the two lead actresses that had me mesmerized. As a side note, I think the actress playing the original Wally is the next Meryl Streep. She nailed her role! I cannot believe she didnt get an Oscar.

Sweet romantic movie & bad story background

[ashtaowq · 6/10 · 10 September 2019]

Watch it after The King's Speech. A lot of the same events and people but with different angles. Like King George VI and his wife better. But lady Madonna knew what the girls want to see. It's not waste a time for a love story movie, like the Fifty Shades of Grey.

why and how can this get made

[grumpy-3 · 1/10 · 1 February 2012]

i only managed half of this very tedious film. where to start, a totally rubbish script, about two completely uninteresting women, who really have nothing about them. endless shots of crockery and tables and glasses and basically nothing. half an hour into this i felt as if the film had been going on for hours, so half way through i bailed. i feel angered that money and distribution can be gained for something this bad just because the perpetrator is Madonna. this would not have seen the light of day if written by an unknown or a jobbing writer. the 1998 story(if you can call it that) was so unbelievable and ridiculous, about a woman so utterly not connected to any form of reality, you begin to wonder wither Madonna has any grasp of the real world. i went into the film giving her the benefit of doubt, and thinking that the critics were unduly harsh because of who she is, but now i see it was even worse than the reviews made out.