Catharina_Sweden The story about Edward and Wallis continues to fascinate - especially as it really happened. I have heard the version, that Edward in reality was too weak for the role of king, and needed an excuse to abdicate. And that Wallis got to be this excuse - which made his abdication into a romantic sacrifice instead of a failure. I suppose we will never know the true cause - and maybe it was a little bit of both. People are complicated! I liked this rendering of the story. It gave a fine and believable picture of the time period. Jane Seymore was just perfect as Wallis, and Anthony Andrews, with his upper-class accent and manners as always, was just as perfect as Edward! He looked very sad, weary, stiff and quite haggard all the time though - but maybe this was deliberate..? I think, however, that more could have been made of this movie, with its very good cast and interesting subject matter. First of all it ought to have been longer - at least as long as an ordinary feature film. And then I would have wanted to see more of the couple's love and courtship and happy times...But all in all it was a nice movie, well worth watching!

didi-5 Anthony Andrews imitates Edward, Duke of Windsor (but slightly better than Edward Fox did in 'Edward and Mrs Simpson'), while Jane Seymour is a fairly OK Wallis Simpson, a little bit scheming and a little bit vulnerable. She's backed up by Aunt Bessie (Olivia de Havilland, note-perfect but hardly stretched), while he is supported by Winston Churchill (Robert Hardy, good as ever).It's the usual story often presented in true TV-movie style, very glossy and very referential to the Royals. So nothing really scandalous or new here, and sadly the film remains flatly unemotional so there is no engagement with the plight of Wallis or Edward.So it is a reasonable effort, watchable television, but nothing fabulous. 'Edward and Mrs Simpson', having the luxury of more time to tell the story, is better; 'Wallis and Edward', getting the casting and pacing wrong, is worse.

Neil Doyle One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.

eye3 A bad rehashing of the Edward VIII story with Jane Seymour glamming it up. CBS wanted another "lavish" mini-series so they just $$$$ all over the place.First they scored Anthony Andrews, Seymour's leading man from 1982's "The Scarlett Pimpernel" - they sparked well there, despite CBS' best efforts. Here, he doesn't act; he simply imitates Edward VIII - and badly. It's embarrassing to watch.Then, they scored two other actors: Robert Hardy yet again reprising Winston Churchill - somebody had seen him in 1981's "Winston Churchill: the Wilderness Years." He was the man himself in that production; here we see him only sitting and painting.And then - for me this was the corker - CBS got David Waller to reprise his role as Stanley Baldwin from "Edward & Mrs. Simpson" - the 1980 British production that did this story right the first time. I saw that one, that was meaty work for everybody involved; here, Waller looked like somebody who just found out he was at the wrong party.