• R, 1 hr. 35 min.
  • Drama, Comedy
  • Directed By:
    Roger Michell
    In Theaters:
    Dec 7, 2012 Limited
    On DVD:
    Apr 9, 2013
  • Focus Features

Opening

20% Transcendence Apr 18
53% Heaven Is for Real Apr 16
7% A Haunted House 2 Apr 18
89% Bears Apr 18
58% Fading Gigolo Apr 18

Top Box Office

89% Captain America: The Winter Soldier $41.3M
47% Rio 2 $39.3M
71% Oculus $12.0M
62% Draft Day $9.8M
77% Noah $7.6M
41% Divergent $7.4M
13% God's Not Dead $5.5M
92% The Grand Budapest Hotel $4.1M
79% Muppets Most Wanted $2.3M
78% Mr. Peabody & Sherman $1.9M

Coming Soon

45% The Other Woman Apr 25
—— Brick Mansions Apr 25
72% The Amazing Spider-Man 2 May 02
100% Neighbors May 09
—— Godzilla May 16

Premieres Tonight

—— Devious Maids: Season 2
50% Salem: Season 1

New Episodes Tonight

38% Believe: Season 1
83% The Bletchley Circle: Season 2
—— Californication: Season 7
83% Call the Midwife: Season 3
61% Crisis: Season 1
98% Game of Thrones: Season 4
100% The Good Wife: Season 5
86% Mad Men: Season 7
—— The Mentalist: Season 6
—— Mr. Selfridge: Season 2
—— Nurse Jackie: Season 6
71% Once Upon a Time: Season 3
100% Shameless: Season 04
48% Turn: Season 1
100% Veep: Season 3

Discuss Last Night's Shows

100% Da Vinci's Demons: Season 2
100% Orphan Black: Season 2

Hyde Park on Hudson Reviews

Page 1 of 25
Bathsheba Monk
Bathsheba Monk

Super Reviewer

January 8, 2013
There was no story. The character of Daisy, played by Laura Linney, was so lame--and she was the narrator--I had no idea who she was or what she wanted. FDR was played wonderfully by Bill Murray, but again--what did he want out of her? Just sex? He was getting that with 3 other women and he was married. I loved the British invasion and would have liked to see that perhaps played out more--was that supposed to be the story? I think that the producers found Daisy's letters and diaries and thought, "oh, a scandal!", but it wasn't a scandal. It wasn't even interesting.
Anthony L

Super Reviewer

July 31, 2013
They could have gone over the top with Hyde park on Hudson but I'm glad they didn't. The humour is subtle and a little infrequent but of the right tone. The performances are good but it is Bill Murray as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Olivia Colman as The Queen Mum (as she is now known) who really steal the show. How many more great performances by Colman are going to be overlooked? The story doesn't exactly thrill the way you'd expect, it's unbalanced for the most part and I think they should have concentrated with telling the Royal visit story, rather than the affair Roosevelt was having with his cousin. I can't say I was particularly enamoured by Laura Linney's character or performance. It's all a bit of a wasted opportunity really and unfortunately a little dull but it's not all bad, watch it for the performances.
Spencer S

Super Reviewer

July 12, 2013
Though there seemed to be a lot to invest your attention in with this film, there is very little that will hold it. Set right before wartime in WWII, this film is set at the Roosevelt family home in upstate New York. The president, FDR, is staying there and running the country with the help of his advisors, mother, and wife, when she shows up. The visit from King George and his wife was an interesting story, especially because each seems to think the other is trying to claim superiority over the other. FDR is portrayed as an easy going, interesting, whimsical man, who likes to tell stories and is somewhat ashamed of his wheelchair. Bill Murray has a wide scope as an actor, and oftentimes he picks serious roles where he is at the bottom of the barrel and he needs to find some way to climb out. As FDR there is very little conflict, or unease about him, which is an unwelcome change of pace. There aren't any obstacles for him to overcome as president, and what little there is, is a simple fight with his fifth cousin, who narrates the film. Laura Linney plays her, as one of FDR's mistresses, confidant, and friend. The way she is portrayed in the film most lands on trusted advisor, and their relationship seems only alluded to, and only for a brief moment at the beginning. The main problem is that there's no tension or drama to this film. The screenwriter was one of the people who first found the real letters between FDR and Daisy (Linney) and wrote a script shortly after. This wasn't a scandal and it wasn't all that interesting, what with all his other mistresses, and the fact that the royals are ignored throughout. Mainly, the things that should have been explored in depth were not, and tension was incorrectly mounted in all other cases just to give this film a reason for being made. Murray may be engaging as the president, but even that doesn't make it watch worthy.
MANUGINO
MANUGINO

Super Reviewer

May 15, 2013
The President. The First Lady. The King. The Queen. The Mother. The Mistress...One weekend would unite two great nations...After cocktails of course.

Decent Film but don't expect alot! Hyde Park on Hudson is a film that wishes to be seriously esteemed and respected as a minor historical film account of a momentous occasion; but it never gives its audience a serious reason to do so. It isn't a bad movie, it just never becomes the good one that it wants to be. There are plenty of decent moments in Hyde Park on Hudson including Murray as FDR and some wonderful shots of beautiful country landscapes. The film looks nice and the period detail will win some over; but the film fails to ever make a connection with Daisy. As the central character, the audience is given no real reason to want to follow her ... why is she really even here? I appreciated the depictions of the King and Queen (this is the stuttering king Colin Firth won an Oscar for playing a few years ago and Olivia Colman is quite good as the uncomfortable queen) and their struggles with being in America such as their trying to fathom the "rage" about hot dogs. "Hyde Park on Hudson" is a pleasant film, but it presumes to be interesting on the basis that it depicts famous political figures and exposes a beloved president's unflattering personal life. Maybe that's an exaggerated assumption of the film's intent, but it doesn't tell a story of any kind as far as plot structure goes. It's a great advertisement for a film audiences would prefer to see about who FDR really was, but in and of itself, it fails to offer any acute insight.

In 1930s Hudson Valley, Margaret "Daisy" Suckley is reacquainted with her distant cousin, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to help him relax at his family estate. That aid soon develops into much more as they become lovers. That puts Daisy in a unique position as Roosevelt receives the King and Queen of Britain in 1939 for a visit. As the Royal couple copes with the President's oddly plebeian arrangements, Daisy learns that there is far more to Roosevelt's life than she realized. With the world about to be set ablaze by war, friendships are struck and perspectives are gained on that special weekend that would make all the difference with a great, but very human, president.
Carlos M

Super Reviewer

March 30, 2013
The kind of outdated love story that should not have space in modern times - and it also has the wrong lead character, since her relationship with FDR is the weakest element of the plot and her intrusive narration is always useless and expository.
KJ P

Super Reviewer

January 9, 2013
There is nothing interesting here and it kind of bored me to death, but when Bill Murray's shows his presence on screen, you will not be able to look away. His portrayal of Franklin D. Roosevelt is absolutely perfect and definitely deserves him his Oscar nomination. It just follows President Roosevelt through the final years of his life and how he and a young girl (Daisy) become close, and develop a secret relationship that nobody can know about. The movie is well filmed and the acting is terrific, but the script i not powerful enough for the movie's substance. "Hyde Park on Hudson" fails to do what it is trying to do, but succeeds on character levels. I didn't particularly enjoy the film, but I do admire it.
Everett J

Super Reviewer

January 7, 2013
First thing is first, as I have mentioned before I try to watch as many movies nominated for awards as possible. I'm a firm believer in you can't complain about what is nominated without seeing the movies nominated. So looking over the Golden Globe nominates I saw Bill Murray up for Best Actor in a Comedy for "Hyde Park on Hudson". One would naturally think "Bill Murray+Comedy=Gold". However, this is not a comedy in any way shape or form and his least funny movie ever. Here he plays Franklin Roosevelt(yes the president) in 1939 and is about to host the King and Queen of England for a week at the Roosevelt home. Amid all this he juggles his wife, his mother, and a woman whom he has a "special" relationship with Daisy(Laura Linney). They don't really have an affair, but they have an affair, and at the heart of the movie is their relationship. How they just drive off and enjoy being alone together away from the world. Sound funny? Yeh, it didn't to me either. This film is pretty boring, although Murray and Linney are both great, just as they are in everything else they do. But this is not a comedy, it's a drama. The only laughs are at the expense of the King Bertie(the King from "King's Speech" with the studdering problem), but there is really only like one scene of his that will get a chuckle. It moves slow, even though the story is intriguing and offers a good glimpse at President Roosevelt that no other movie(that I know of) has offered. Decent for a one time watch, but don't expect a comedy. Expect a drama that drags, and you won't be too disappointed.
Debbie E

Super Reviewer

October 21, 2012
An over the top attempt at who knows what. This is no "King's Speech", nor much of anything else. Save your money!
Dann M

Super Reviewer

March 18, 2013
An underwhelming and bland film, Hyde Park on Hudson is a piece of rubbish that doesn't have much to say. The story follows Margaret Suckley as she takes up an affair with FDR during the summer of '39 when he hosted the King and Queen of England at his Hyde Park estate. Bill Murray and Laura Linney lead the cast, but their performances are rather mundane. The storytelling is also weak, and doesn't offer much insight into FDR or the importance of his meeting with the Royal Family. An empty and shallow film, Hyde Park on Hudson is uninspired tripe.
themoviewaffler.com
themoviewaffler.com

Super Reviewer

February 6, 2013
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Murray) welcomes King George (West) and Queen Elizabeth (Colman) of Britain to the title retreat in the summer of 1939. The plan is to use the occasion to garner public support among Americans for Britain, a nation which finds itself on the brink of war with Nazi Germany.
Murray has received much praise in recent years for his performances in indie films like 'Lost in Translation' and 'Broken Flowers' but, frankly, I've always found him a bit one-note. Here, somewhat outside his comfort zone, he's fantastic, managing to embody the character of Roosevelt while maintaining the enigma of the man. It's an impressive cast all round and visually the film is splendid. The script, however, is at times hideous, with an insultingly moronic voice-over forced upon the audience. This is what happens when you hire a playwright, rather than a screenwriter, to tell your story. Literally everything we see on screen is explained either before or after by Linney, as though the film is being simultaneously broadcast over radio. Recently, it seems as though every second major American film features a similarly dumb voice-over. Call me paranoid, but I can't help think this is Hollywood's reaction to the increasingly popular, and incredibly ignorant, phenomenon of viewers texting while "watching" movies. Those of us who venture to the cinema to look at images projected on a screen are the ones who are being left behind.
Bradley W

Super Reviewer

December 9, 2012
Fun but also a bit of a mess.
Glenn G

Super Reviewer

November 4, 2012
There's a certain genre of film that I've never particularly cottoned to - the historical period drama. THE KING'S SPEECH is a perfect example. It's a pretty flawless film, stunningly entertaining and beautifully acted, but in the end, give me raw, gutsy stakes like we get on BREAKING BAD or else I check out. I JUST DIDN'T CARE and the only things I'll remember from the film are how Helena Bonham Carter folded her hands together and the distorted shots of the old-fashioned radio mikes. Sure, there are a couple of Merchant/Ivory films I loved - REMAINS OF THE DAY, HOWARD'S END, and A ROOM WITH A VIEW come to mind, but none of them have stuck with me in the same way NETWORK, THE EXORCIST, or PAPER MOON have.

I tend to call the genre HOOP SKIRTS AND CORSETS. Now don't get me wrong, we can learn a lot by looking back, but after a while, it all tends to come across as WHITE PEOPLES' PROBLEMS. (make a mental note: that would make a great name for a band - sort of a THE NEGRO PROBLEM 2.0). There's too much self-satisfaction going on, as if everyone, the cast AND the audience, make little "tutting" sounds to prove how superior they are to everyone else around them. "Look at us! We're cultured! Bring on more iambic pentameter!"

So enter HYDE PARK ON HUDSON, which on the surface, looks like a perfectly respectable entry. You have a cast with an undeniable pedigree, a director who certainly has proven to have visual flair despite a spotty record, and an unusual subject matter, FDR hosting the King and Queen of England while simultaneously boinking his cousin. It's certainly handsomely shot, and Bill Murray is a daring choice to play the 1939 President, and the tone is quite genial, but after about an hour, I had had enough. I walked out. I just didn't care what I was watching. It wouldn't be fair to fully review this film. I was bored beyond belief. I heard the King and Queen stuff is pretty fun, and I'm sure everyone acquits themselves respectfully. Others told me that it's pretty shapeless and doesn't really go anywhere. Clearly, this one ain't for everyone. It just makes me want to say, please path the meth and throw out the granny panties!
SC007
SC007

Super Reviewer

December 8, 2013
Billy Murray and Laura Linney shine here. They should have gotten Oscar nominations for the film. They have a great on screen chemistry. Murray is great as F.D.R. The film felt like a stage play. It also felt like it was a part of the movie The King's Speech. It reminded me too much of the movie, My Week With Marilyn. In fact, it copied the exact same style of that film. That was a big mistake in my opinion.

The performance are great here. I kind of wish Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter would have returned as Bertie and The Queen. Olivia Williams was very good.

I recommend it for Murray's and Linney's performances.
PantaOz
PantaOz

Super Reviewer

June 18, 2013
Many people didn't like this one... I probably understand why. Writer Richard Nelson and director Roger Michell focused on a single weekend that ultimately may have ended up charting the course of modern history - many good story possibilities here, but not all of them were seen to fruition.

The visit of King George V and Queen Elizabeth (the "Queen Mum") to Franklin D. Roosevelt's mother's house in Hyde Park On Hudson, in upstate New York, on the eve of the Second World War, was a significant event, but the movie is just well made piece of historical speculation mostly grounded in personal recollections that have continually been coming to light over the last seventy years. With eccentric and intriguing characters including Eleanor Roosevelt (Olivia Williams), King Bertie and Queen Liz (Samuel West and Olivia Colman) and, if course, Franklin D. Roosevelt himself (Bill Murray) the movie could not fail, but sometimes telling of the story through the eyes of Franklin D. Roosevelt's fifth cousin Daisy (Laura Linney) could be done much better. We have here a long and friendly affair told using the least interesting technique, missing the effects of the momentous circumstances going on in the slightly chaotic household. Bill Murray is my favourite here - charming, clever, at ease and, ultimately, cunning! Elizabeth Marvel matched him well most of the time as his aide Missy.

If you like films which are breezy and you are curious about a very unique part of the President Franklin D. Roosevelt's life, there is a chance you will find this movie totally enjoyable - even lovable.
Cameron W. Johnson
Cameron W. Johnson

Super Reviewer

January 30, 2013
"The King's Speech II: Roosevelt's Last Stand" would be an awesome title for this film, were it not for the fact that, well, this film isn't quite of the "King's Speech" quality that it wishes it was of, or the fact that this film is clearly portraying the beginning of WWII, seeing as how, as with the prelude to every war, hardly anything is happening. No, folks, this film isn't that bad do-little, but I can see why they portrayed the relationship between FDR and Margaret Suckley relationship as sexual, because although such a portrayal is historically dubious, come on, it's FDR having an affair, and with yet another distant cousin, so don't tell me you're not at least a little bit interested. I'm the last guy to show sympathy for Bill Clinton (You know, Hilary Clinton's husband), but evidently presidential affairs have been going on from generation after generation, so you know you've got to have some serious bad luck if they actually catch you. I don't know, maybe Laura Linney suggested that she play FDR's cute, relatively young little thing on the side because she's still not old enough to Eleanor Roosevelt and just couldn't wait to continue her mission to play a "romantic" link to most every US president. Seriously, she was Abigail Adams in "John Adams", probably did "The Truman Show" because she was expecting to be portraying the wife of Harry Truman, and now she's playing FDR's mistress/friend/distant cousin. I don't know what was up with people and hooking up with their cousins back in the day, but hey, at least Eleanor Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley were just distant from FDR, though not quite as distant as your attention will be when watching this film. No, no, no, people, I'm only kidding, this film is adequately enjoyable, but the fact of the matter is that not even presidential affairs, even by those who can't even walk and are hooking up with distant relatives, can obscure the flaws that leave the final product to stutter about as much as King George VI in its momentum.

I joke about how there's not much intrigue to this pre-US-enters-WWII study on the life of F.D. Roosevelt, but the fact of the matter is that this film's plot is relatively thin, so not a whole lot of flesh-out should be expected out of this film, though perhaps the final product goes a touch too far with its active underdevelopment, glossing along over the exposition behind people we very much know and recognize, but can't entirely grip as characters in this undercooked opus, thanks largely to exposition issues. The film does only so much to thoroughly absorb the depth of its characterization, as sure as it does only so much to absorb atmospheric genuinness that would have helped in doing away with the degree of sappiness that hangs over certain aspects in this film, thus sparking a sort of TV film-grade superficiality that isn't so overwhelming that you feel like you're watching some kind of Lifetime movie-of-the-week bull, but further thins out a story that is light in concept and all-out too light for its own good in execution. At the very least, this film's TV film sensibilities and superficiality give you the opportunity to meditate on just how generic this film is, because although this film is too aimless to be predictable, too many familiar aspects go flaunted as supplements to the blandness that haunts this film all but throughout its course, and most supplemented by, of all things, this film's being a bit too long. At 95 minutes, this film is certainly a brief affair on a general standard, especially when you take into consideration that plotting is, as I said, superficial, expending more material - particularly those of an expository nature - than it should, yet for every moment that is relatively tight and every moment that is too tight for its own good, there is a series of moments that outstay their welcome, going bloated by excess material, and especially by repetition. The film drags its feet, and cannot afford to do that, considering how short it is, treading an overdrawn path whose length goes emphasized by plotting dragging's being accompanied by dryness in atmosphere that isn't so cold that the final product is rendered thoroughly boring, but bland enough to all but render the film paceless, and even provide more than a few occasions that are genuinely kind of dull. Roger Michell's storytelling blandly drags along about as Richard Nelson's script bloats a story concept that is not simply superficial, but all-out inconsequential, thus aimlessness ensues and leaves the final product to meander as underwhelming. Still, as lacking as this film is in both conflict, depth and tightness, a product this flawed can be saved if it delivers on more than enough charm to compensate for considerable shortcomings, and sure enough, while this film isn't too memorable, in the moment, it keeps you going, and not just with its charm.

As with most every other aspect, including the strong ones, there really isn't much to this film's style, so it's not like Lol Crawley's photographic efforts come close to ranking up there with some of the best of 2012, yet there are still reasonably in there presenting the film's visuals with handsome warmness that often catches your eyes, while your ears go caught by Jeremy Sams' score work, which is considerably conventional, often mishandled as an atmospheric supplement, and even with its own more natural shortcomings, but still nicely old-fashioned in its near-elegant simplicity. The film's photographic and musical touches aren't really anything to write home about, yet there are commendable, particularly as compliments to this world that goes further complimented by Simon Bowles' production designs, which are minimalist, and therefore nothing to really write home about either, but still restore the setting comfortably. The film certainly looks good and presents its world quaintly, being not too terribly proficient in its technicality, primarily by design, but still appealing on technical level, so much so that charm goes complimented by the film's nice technical value, though not as much as the script that also does so much damage to the final product. Playright Richard Nelson handles this film script, and all too often makes his share of hiccups, whether it be through superficiality and conventionalism, or through repetitious padding, so it's not like he's not to blame for this film's being more underwhelming than it should be, even with its being so minimalist and inconsequential, and yet, at the same time, Nelson does quite a bit to get this film by, turning in dialogue that is perhaps too dryly old-fashioned, to where there are hardly any actual chuckles throughout this generally rather stuffy comedy ("I suppose an angel walked by... a clumsy one"; oh yeah, hilarious...), but still charms as surely as what characterization there is charms. As a character study, this film boasts little in the way of depth, and I'm not just saying that because this film, even in concept, is paper-thin, so characterization is hardly all that colorful, yet Nelson still gets you associated with these figures with enjoyable humanity that makes most every real-life character in this film, to one degree or another, likable, and finds its color complimented by charismatic portrayals of the reasonably charmingly-crafted characters. As you can imagine, there is nearly nothing in the way of acting material presented to this film's case of fairly well-esteemed talents, yet more everyone in this cast charm, with standouts including Samuel West, who is hardly the gripping force that Colin Firth was in "The King's Speech" (Hey, don't get me wrong, Firth was great, I just thought James Franco topped him in 2010), a film still too relevant to dismiss comparisons, but portrays King George VI's medical flaws believably and humanity with a decent bit of engaging range, all but matched by the human range in Laura Linney's relatively standout performance, while leading man Bill Murray all but makes up for his being miscast by turning in his usual charm, which fits FDR comfortably enough for you to buy into the figure's humanity, even though this film doesn't give Murray the material to flaunt the strength behind the powerful leader in question (Longest-serving US president of all time; he better be good). The film is what it is, and what it is is a minimalist and inconsequential biopic that wanders along dryly and conventionally, and on that level, while this film is far from rewarding, the final product succeeds in sustaining your engagement value adequately, boasting enough charm to keep you reasonably entertained, though not likely to remember the film too much.

To wrap up this affair, exposition issues and a touch of sappiness to atmosphere supplement this film's kind of TV film superficiality, which leaves you to further meditate upon this film's conventionalism, while padding through excess material and repetition, and the often dull atmospheric dryness attached to a meandering story structure, do the most in emphasizing the inconsequential aimlessness of this film that render the final product underwhelming, yet doesn't completely battle back the undeniable strengths, from good cinematography, charming score work and decent production designs, to the script that boasts charming dialogue and characterization, - brought to life by charismatic performances, particularly those by Samuel West, Laura Linney and leading man Bill Murray - and helps considerably in making "Hyde Park on Hudson" a reasonably entertaining opus that charms through and through, regardless of its being a bit too thin for its own good.

2.5/5 - Fair
Joey S

Super Reviewer

December 24, 2012
Despite a good performance by Bill Murray as FDR and some nice camera work, Hyde Park on Hudson doesn't quite work, mainly because the way it tells its story just isn't very interesting, and the movie doesn't give many reasons why you should keep paying attention.
David S

Super Reviewer

February 3, 2013
I don't really know what story the film-makers were trying to tell with this film. The whole thing is narrated by Linney's Daisy but her story is so dull compared to the meeting between Roosevelt and Bertie that her character just became plain irritating. Also it made no sense that she would be able to tell the Bertie story as she isn't present for most of it. It's such a shame as I really enjoyed the scenes between Murray and West and Colman and West but the film feels the need to delve into Roosevelt's relationship with the women around him and doesn't seem to come up with any amazing revelations. If Michell and Nelson had just focused on the better story this could have been a great film and certainly Murray, West and Colman are brilliant here. It's just a shame their performances couldn't have been put to better use.
February 24, 2013
You may have to suspend disbelief as to the historical accuracy of this film but Bill Murray's performance makes this worth seeing. Bill Murray got a Golden Globe nomination as FDR although i have to wonder if it is a creation influenced by Groucho Marx when I look at the newsreels of the real FDR - other than this criticism, I do not understand why it got so much flack from the critics unless they are hung up on the fact that the historical premise is based on speculation, innuendo, and rumor. If so, again I say, suspend disbelief.
November 13, 2012
Billh Murray show his range here but it a shame that this film is weak structurly but strong in acting and looks
Page 1 of 25
Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile