W.E. (2011)

It's incredible to believe that this is the first major film Madonna has directed - and it's a real labour of love. 3 years have been spent making the movie and all the effort and hard work is right there in front of your eyes when you watch it.

An amazing story and stunning performances - particularly from Andrea Riseborough as Wallis Simpson.

The cinematography is a visual feast for the eyes and the costumes are wonderful. The piano led soundtrack is also another nice touch. I can still hear it playing in my ears now! It's ultimately a feminist statement about love and power. The entire production is stunning and Madonna's touch can be felt all over it.

Fmovies: 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.

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.

W.E. fmovies. 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

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

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.