Genuinely - what did you all think? Especially you non-brits... I'm intrigued. I caught this on TV on a lazy Sunday afternoon and... my God, awful film! And come on... those who say 'it shows what the royals have to do with the press hounding them'... consider the fact that this film is also a form of hounding! Shots of St. James Palace looked hurried as if they were being taken on the sly, or were culled from archive news footage.
So... you agree, or disagree?
hahahahahahah! this is the funniest thing ever...admittedly i only watched 2 minutes but i still got a couple of laughs in there...the fact that they werent able to hire tara palmer tompkinson and had to get someone to play her just shows the quality of these guys..good show!
what channel was it originally on?
I saw it on one of the Sky movie channels... you are right though - if they couldn't even get Tara 'rent-me-for-anything' Palmer-Tompkinson then they must have been scraping the bottom! Even if that WAS Lulu's son playing Wills!
shareAye, it was a pile of crap. It's on TV just now :-D
Spicey world!!! :oP
-VM-
I didnt really enjoy the movie, there were a few things I thought were wrong:
1. The actor who played William was to short, Im sure William is (and at the time was) taller than Charles.
2. the Harry kid, nothing like the real Harry
3. Prince Charles's actor had to much hair
life is to short to spend it crying over spilt milk.
Disgraceful. Everything in this movie including the ¨British¨lingo was off. The movie made Prince William and Prince Harry look like a bunch of emotional little girls who get offended and cry for absolutely EVERYTHING! Watching this movie was not only painful but made me want to cry too..... out of embarassment.
share[deleted]
I'm an American and I loved it!
Bu then what do I know?
[deleted]
I don't think stating that this actor was too small or that actor had too much hair is a valid reason for not liking the movie. Besides, in the movie, the character started off at 15 & by the end was 18 so the actor's height isn't the problem. There are numerous movies wherein the actor does not physically resemble the character they're portraying 100 or even 70%.
The reason this was a bad film was bec it was poorly written (crappy dialogue & sappy/cheesy/cringe-worthy character portrayal), erroneously misdirected & what about that horrendous score? The director must have gotten an F on 'The Basics of Directing101'! Everything just did not fit, very very bad movie indeed! I gave it a 2/10, I know, I'm a very generous person!
Kahn, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
According to *beep* extraordinaire virtualmetal, not a damn thing.
shareThis is on television right now and I'm watching it here in Canada. It's sort of the "Dawson's Creek" version of there lives. As soon as I heard that "I can't stand to fly" song I burst out laughing. And what is with the Celtic sounding music whenever they show really English settings like Eton? I cam here to see where it was filmed because I thought it was an American film shot in Canada. The Roots clothing that they were given in Canada was really to most accurate looking thing.
I usually not picky about whether the actors look exactly like the person they are playing but after seeing "The Queen" it's dissappointing to see so many of the actors looking nothing like the people they play. Having said that the actress playing Camilla was the really good at imitating her awkward body. While it's probably unfair to reduce the woman to just that she actually gets a better deal then Harry who is only reduced to saying "That brilliant!" all the time with wide eyes. The Harry in this looks and sounds like a Harry Potter character.