"W.E" (2012) - Film produced by Madonna on the Abdication of Edward VIII


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:previous: I agree. Most of the reviews I've seen have said the set and wardrobe is stunning but have been consistently negative about the Wally (modern day) storyline. The only movie I've seen that has worked a period piece and modern storyline together is The Hours, and that was only because Meryl Streep is competent enough to hold a movie up. Abbie Cornish isn't.
I'm still going to see it though once it reaches Australia :whistling:
 
Saw a bit of the film on the news at 1 basically it's a sympathetic view of Wallis and the 'terrible' life she was 'forced' to lead when Edward abdicated. I am a fan of the true Edward and Wallis story but I won't be seeing this film, I would have if it had been portrayed more realistically.
I've never liked Madonna, mainly because of her name but she's just too much.
 
I don't love Madonna but I don't hate her either. I just don't see how can she be a director when she could barely act. The reason why she was so well in Evita was because she played a person similar to herself. I also think she's trying to stay famous and in the papers, and even compete with other celebrities, by taking up directing. I'd prefer if she'd stick to singing and creating great music, which she does.

Maybe W.E. would get better reviews in the USA because some Americans love the whole idea of a king giving up the throne for the love of a woman.

Maybe I'll see it then if it gets good reviews. Especially to see Natalie Dormer, who I thought was great in "The Tudors".
 
I think also that this is the ultimate passion project for Madonna. She's not doing it to win awards or to be praised. She's simply fascinated with the woman and has the type of money to be able to create a big-budget film about it.
To be completely honest, I don't give much credence to critics or reviews, and I'll see a movie if I like the overall plot so W.E. getting panned by those who expected to see a masterpiece doesn't bother me one bit. There are plenty of movies that were panned and yet made back their budget ten-fold...
The acting by Andrea Riseborough, James D'Arcy, and Natalie Dormer is apparently excellent so it seems the film is lopsided and should have just contained the period scenes.
 
It does seem the negatives arent trying to hide their bias against Madonna and Wallis as well, and so far from what I have seen, they are British.
 
The director of Black Swan was interviewed on telly this evening, and kind of said that W.E was going to compete with The King's Speech on the same level. I nearly died of laughter. Even without Madonna, and a crappy parallel storyline - it wouldn't compete with that fantastic film.


If it didn't have the 'bringing it to modern viewing' bit, i'd probably watch it.
 
The director of Black Swan was interviewed on telly this evening, and kind of said that W.E was going to compete with The King's Speech on the same level. I nearly died of laughter. Even without Madonna, and a crappy parallel storyline - it wouldn't compete with that fantastic film.


If it didn't have the 'bringing it to modern viewing' bit, i'd probably watch it.


Yes, I do wish directors and writers realised audiences are intelligent enough to follow the historical storyline without being told what's happening through the eyes of a modern woman/man. It's degrading really...
 
NnnnnnEeeeeWay
I HATE movies like this that jump back and forth in time, the time jump usually serves no purpose. And I am not one of those people who can't watch a movie based 2000 years ago. We don't need skyscrappers and iphones to identify with people in a movie.
 
I don't allow the opinions of others to dictate what I should or should not watch. I can't judge something based on anothers biased view. I'll see it at some point and if I don't like it, then I don't like it.

It's all interpretive with perhaps slithers of truth's in any case.

I recall when I saw Marie Antoinette. I enjoyed the film for it's cinematic magnificence. It was lush and made so contemporary yet did justice to the era in which it was set. I think transcending time or at least, relating cultures or social trends and moods, be those sub or greater, can work if done diligently.

I was dissapointed by the ending though as i'd have liked the trial and consequential execution to have been depicted but I thoroughly enjoyed it all the same.
 
Last edited:
Mainly because of her name?? And here I thought maybe it was something of substance which helped form your opinion lol

Ahh well you would be wrong. I don't like her name, and the fact that she acts like a 20 year old and IMO doing this film with the aim of having a revenge pop at her ex husband also influences my decision that I don't like her and never will.

Like I said, if she hadn't bothered to add the 'modern' day bit, I would go watch it due to my interest in the core subject it's about.
 
Last edited:
NnnnnnEeeeeWay
I HATE movies like this that jump back and forth in time, the time jump usually serves no purpose. And I am not one of those people who can't watch a movie based 2000 years ago. We don't need skyscrappers and iphones to identify with people in a movie.
SoI take it you didn't enjoy Julie/Julia? :D
 
Her name's quite ironic considering her rather blasphemous use of religious iconography. Of course, in today's world, that perhaps adds to her "brand."


Mainly because of her name?? And here I thought maybe it was something of substance which helped form your opinion lol
 
i'm not a fan of Madonna, so almost automatically, I'm a little wary of this film. The topic itself sounds intriguing, but I think I'll wait for more feedback before choosing to see or to skip it.
 
I've never liked Madonna, mainly because of her name...
If you don't like the name, direct your displeasure at her very Roman Catholic parents.
Her birth name is Madonna Louise Ciccone and she goes by the name of... Madonna. Gasp!
Madonna was also her late mother's first name.
 
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but here is the trailer which is up on youtube. It's the long version which contains both timelines.
:previous: This isn't the official trailer (that hasn't been released yet) but clips that were available to the press in Venice. I suppose someone just edited them together. :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank American Dane I wasn't aware of that. Was wondering why IMDB which normally gets the trailers first didn't have this.
 
British peeps will freak if she shows it there. I actually think it should be shown EVERYWHERE but in GB.
 
The clip is intriguing. The scene with Wallis and Edward does seem to be like their relationship actually was.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
British peeps will freak if she shows it there. I actually think it should be shown EVERYWHERE but in GB.

... Why?

That makes zero sense. It's a film about British history. If it's inaccurate, those inaccuracies will be noted in the press and people will move on.
 
British peeps will freak if she shows it there. I actually think it should be shown EVERYWHERE but in GB.

Why may we 'freak' at her showing it in our cinemas? AFAIK, it will be shown in the UK January time. :ermm:
 
Back
Top Bottom