mtloans
I like watching movies where the audience is in on the big secret and the other characters have virtually no clue until they discover who is behind the mask.This sequence is done over and over in this movie and it's fun to watch the look of surprise on their faces when they find out who P1 and P2 are.Not disclosing anything at all when I say this as the title already gives it away.Nice ending too - not too over the top - just right.You will enjoy this 1) If you have a sense of humor 2) You weren't rooting for the National Socialists in the War and 3) are not too upset about the British Royal Family even though they were 100% German from 1711 to 1901. That is the source of a joke or two in the movie.
l_rawjalaurence
On 8 May 1945, the official end of War in Europe was celebrated, and London went wild. Spontaneous parties broke out in the streets, celebrations continued long into the night, and the bars, clubs and other areas devoted to pleasure did a roaring trade.In Buckingham Palace the young Princesses Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon), than aged nineteen, and sister Margaret (Bel Powley) yearn to join the celebrations, but their stuffed-shirt mother Elizabeth (Emily Watson) and King George VI (Rupert Everett) are particularly reluctant to allow their daughters the freedom to do so. Eventually they agree, so long as the girls are accompanied by two chaperons, Lieutenants Pryce and Burridge (Jack Laskey, Jack Gordon), from Chelsea Barracks.There begins a wild night of partying, celebration, and chasing, as the two Princesses lose their chaperons and end up moving from place to place - from Piccadilly, to Soho, and thence to Chelsea Barracks - being exposed to aspects of London life that they have never previously experienced, including making the tea. During their one night of freedom they learn something about what ordinary people think of the Royal Family and their role in society.Based on a true story, and with more than a nod towards classics such as William Wyler's ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953), where a princess (Audrey Hepburn) enjoys a similar night off the leash of protocol, A ROYAL NIGHT OUT tells a picaresque tale, as Princess Margaret gets blind drunk and has to be rescued by her sister, who eventually reveals her true identity when things threaten to get a little out of hand. There are some amusing moments, especially when the Princesses try to communicate with ordinary Londoners in their marked RP accents, thereby proving just how sheltered an existence they have hitherto led.Gadon and Powley give creditable impersonations of the young princesses, although Powley's accent veers towards the Sloane Ranger rather than the upper-class gell of the Forties. Everett's George VI bears more than a passing resemblance, both vocally and facially, to the current Prince Charles, while his spouse comes across as a snob with a perpetual desire to drown her sorrows in a gin and tonic.Director Julian Jarrold makes some important points about the ways in which Princess Elizabeth (especially) learned a lot about her people as a result of this night. What a shame, therefore, that when she acceded to the throne, she should become so remote that she failed to understand Princess Diana's extraordinary popular appeal. But that judgment is made with the benefit of hindsight. As a lighthearted piece of entertainment, A ROYAL NIGHT OUT is definitely worth looking at.
MartinHafer
I wonder if perhaps I would have really enjoyed "A Royal Night Out" a lot more if I was British. All I know is that the film, and especially the premise, left me cold. The film is based EXTREMELY loosely on the fact that Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret went out to celebrate V- E day (when the Germans surrendered to end WWII in Europe). This DID occur...but the girls were chaperoned and went in a large group...with absolutely no real free time to be common people. Margaret, by the way, was only 14. This film pretends that instead of staying with BOTH their escorts, the pair ran about London--with Margaret acting a bit like a dummy and Elizabeth spending most of the night looking for her. Yeah...whatever.Apart from the story (which didn't interest me very much), the movie DID has a nice look and they apparently tried very hard to get the look of 1945 right. But as I mentioned, it didn't interest me very much. I don't care about what MIGHT have happened if the two princesses went slumming. First, they didn't. Second, I couldn't care less about the actions of a couple spoiled royals. I guess I am too much of an oppositional American to really care about all this. Looked nice, made me laugh once or twice and well made but that's about all.
cfdunmyer
I loved this movie. I've seen reviews calling out some 'goofs' or saying it was 'pompous'. Seriously - this is not meant to be a serious movie. It's just fun. I watched it on a flight from London back to the U.S. - and was so happy when it came out on pay-per-view - so I watched it again. I thought they did a nice job on creating characters that look much like the real people would have looked. And for those who pay attention, they even used the king's nickname - which we've learned from other movies. So it made it seem even more real. One critique is that they really didn't need the one brief nude scene. Now I can't watch this with my grandchildren - which is a shame - because otherwise it would be fun to watch with the kids. The airline version did not have the nudity - so it would have been nice if they could have left it out altogether.
