User reviews

I like Ruth Wilson as an actress, but I think Gillian Anderson's portrayal as Emily Matliss just pipped her, I think they should/could have put this into 2 episodes, I found myself drifting in the third although maybe then they would have cut the best line in the drama "I would have offered you tea but we've had to let the the staff go" this line delivered by "Fergie" played brilliantly by Claire Rushbrook, to the equally excellent Alex Jennings playing the Queens deliverer of bad news ,Sir Edward Young,this line probably sums up the weird world that they live in. Make it yourself you entitled so and so,shout all us commoners!

Was he guilty ? Maybe, Was he innocent ? Maybe Was/is he an idiot? No maybe's about this one .

I've viewed the first (of 3) episodes and really enjoyed it. It's a 'grown up' production, beautifully filmed and with a pace and editorial that engages you from the start. The acting is superb, particularly Michael Sheen as Price Andrew. It's a substantial piece of work covering the before, during and after the interview and I very much look forward to watching the 2 remaining episodes. It's fun too!

PS - the reviewer ExiledRoyal notes that as the production is shot in letter box format, the top and bottom black bars are frustrating. The reviewer might like to adjust the settings on their television so that the set can adjust to the format. I get a full screen with no image miss and no black bars.

The first thing I need to complain about is the cinematography. For some reason the film is presented in a letterbox format, so we have black bars above and below the picture. The other thing, certainly in the first episode, is that many of the scenes are made in darkness. Maybe it's intentional, but it really makes it hard to see what's going on. Not well lit.

So far as the acting is concerned, as usual, Michael Sheen inhabits the character of Andrew very well. Not a nice man, we're led to believe.

Emily Maitlis, played by Ruth Wilson, is also believable, though we don't really get an in-depth understanding of her character. She also has adopted a weird kind of accent, a cross between Miranda Hart and Maggie Thatcher.

Hmmm. Time, I think, for the team behind this Scandal series to move on. It's clear now that they're never going to equal, much less top, the brilliance of A Very English Scandal, in which Hugh Grant and Ben Whishaw turned the Jeremy Thorpe story into a riotous and riveting frolic. The sequel - A Very British Scandal - was an undercooked and ultimately unsatisfying account of the sordid saga of the Duchess of Argyll. But there was every reason to expect a return to form with this account of the bottomless sleazefest that engulfed the Duke of York. Unfortunately, A Very Royal Scandal is even more timid and turgid than the Argyll affair. I can't help wondering if those involved just can't bring themselves to really go for it when the subject is royalty. It's interesting, by way of example, that both the Queen and Prince Charles are afforded a degree of dignity and immunity, in that they remain off screen throughout, their decisions and dictates delivered by envoys and fixers. Yet they are really as much a part of the story as the Duke of York, and they are engaged in an epic battle to save the monarchy from ruin. And if you can invent scenes and dialogue for Andy, Fergie, Bea and Eugenie, then why not Liz and Charles too? Letting them off the hook is the main reason this Royal Scandal looks continually lame. It is also poorly served by the casting. Michael Sheen gives what is in many ways a well judged and finely wrought performance as Andrew, but he still doesn't quite pull off the arrogance and the obliviousness. And Ruth Wilson is undone by an ill-judged and annoying vocal impression of Emily Maitliss, that somehow comes off as more like Fenella Fielding in Carry On Screaming. Claire Rushbrook is also a poor choice as Fergie, which even the director seems to acknowledge by shooting her mostly from behind, or in profile, or in soft focus at the edge of frame. There's enough schadenfreude.to keep it mildly interesting, but it never fully takes flight. Except maybe at the very end, when Randy Andy, shamed and banished, wonders what he's supposed to do now. Sir Edward Young, played by Alex Jennings, tells him: "live with the consequences of your actions". The preceding three hours could have done with a bit more of the same blunt honesty.

Obviously huge chunks of this docudrama are fictionalised as it portrays what was going on behind the scenes leading up to, during and after the controversial BBC interview with Prince Andrew. We see a lot of Andrew's family and Royal advisors and Emily Maitlis' family and colleagues at the BBC (By the way, I think this is far better dramatisation than the recent version starring Billie Piper which was told through the eyes of a BBC researcher.) Michael Sheen must be one of, if not the best character actors of his time. He does not particularly resemble some of the characters he portrays but with excellent input from wardrobe and make up and his ability to deliver lines with the mannerisms of these people he is utterly convincing in the part. It is thus the case with his portrayal of Prince Andrew. Ruth Wilson is very good to in the role of Emily Maitlis.

I think it was an appropriate we do not see any of the Royal family other than Andrew's immediate family portrayed on screen. Mummy and Charles speak to Andrew over the phone and we do not see or hear them. We do have a lot of fictionalised dialogue between Andrew, his daughters and ex-wife Fergie. And some rather cringing scenes with Andrew's staff especially Amanda Thirsk played by Joanna Scanlon. This we should take with a pinch of salt and not as a historical account. We can assume that Emily Maitlis is happy with the depiction of her input into the interview and family life as she was plugging the drama on GMB the day before it dropped on Amazon Prime.

I binge watched all 3 episodes because it is such a good dramatisation not because I wanted to know how it ended.

Historical accuracy: 8

Acting: 7 Dialogue: 6 Camera work: 6 Editing: 7 Budget: 6 Story: 5 Theme: 3 Pure entertainment factor: 7 Video quality: 3 Special effects: NA Pacing: 7 Suspension of disbelief: 5 Non-cringe factor: 3 Lack of flashbacks: 4

Some seem to rate this low because the lead actress fakes her accent in a way that seems off in all scenes. It's indeed jarring especially as she's playing a real person who is still in the media so all know her real voice. Maybe they wanted to make it different from real life and forced her to act weird? In this TV show we jump from Prince Andrew to the interviewer. Of course we hate Andrew. Hence the good guys are supposed to be the heroic oasis for us. Yet when her accent is this bad we feel eerie with her too and there is no one else we follow so that's why the whole thing feels off. All these people seem like rich spoiled jerks and we don't want to look at any of them.

I think the movie Scoop did it way better storywise. It felt more real and fun as it was about finding out the truth while here we just hang out with people without any goal to anything. Here things just happen to these people and the writers didn't quite figure out why the events happened like how the interview team tricked Andrew into the interview. In Scoop his secretary sees him as an icon hero who can do no wrong and he eats it up - he is quite arrogant. Everyone else is warning him not to do the interview. But the interview crew is constantly contacting her and making her feel important so they become friends. And then she asks him to do the interview with them. She feels like she knows both sides and forces it all to happen. In reality she didn't know either side of course. Didn't know the interview crew would be more direct and crude than they were towards her and didn't know Prince Andrew actually looks like an arrogant fool to the public as she doesn't see him that way. It was an amazing storyline that made the movie work. Here they fully remove it as we follow the woman doing the interview not the woman setting it up. That's a bad focus as that's the least interesting part to the story. The same happened in A Very English Scandal. There too we have a curious story but follow the wrong people in the wrong timeline. Here we mainly see the interviewer whine about any little thing in her life as that's what replaces the real story and real drama. At one point online critics repost an eye-roll she did during an interview. She starts complaining about this for multiple scenes constantly making it out to be a huge disaster and a witch hunt as she's an easy woman to target. And no matter how many scenes with her complaining they throw at us at no point in time did I feel any sympathy for this rich semi-famous woman in a powerful position with a loving husband, kids, and a dog. They constantly show us scenes of her taking care of the dog and how hard this is. Again, this is not significant enough drama to carry a TV show. It actually makes her look spoiled.

Something to note. One the nose writing can be fixed. His daughters at one point talk about him and say "Remember when he returned from the Falkland war and girls were screaming his name". Stuff like this needs to be changed so that characters talk to each other not at us. They would mock him and not use the word remember. When you make a fun statement you don't overdo it. You underdo it. If you write natural dialogue the viewers will try to listen more carefully as it's engaging. Hence it can be a tad more vague when it's good. But even so you can repeat the Falkland wars story another time if you feel some viewers may have missed the point. He was seen as a very attractive guy at that point as he was royal, rich, and now a war hero. You can't use flashbacks as that never works. But you could for example show us someone holding a photo of him in uniform and then ask about it. An older woman then buds in as she recalls the stories about him back then. Clear and direct storytelling without overdoing it with on the nose dialogue.

Then many viewers point out how dark it is. Even indoor scenes are often night dark despite lamps everywhere. One could assume he maybe liked to be in dark rooms? But even so we have real photos from various rooms depicted here. It's quite clear this is a production error not a choice. Scenes always look a tad too dark compared to how it really should look like and brightening it 30% would make all scenes look like the photos from the real events. Unless they on purpose tried to make it look less realistic? Do people in UK have 10 lamps in each room with no light being produced? Are all days in UK dark and grey no matter the time?

These issues I pointed out are very much significant. It's stuff ALL viewers will note as they are glaring errors created by lazy and inexperienced filmmakers. It's a shame as the foundation, the true story itself, is great and very engaging. One just has to compare it to other ways to learn about the story like documentaries, books, and the movie. And it just fails compared to what else you can find. But I did enjoy it and despite it always feeling lazy and cheap, with below par dialogue, it's always fun to explore real history. The first 2 episodes are somewhat historically relevant the last episode goes more into the cringe whining family melodrama. It ends up feeling dark and moody which is a great shame.

This show on Prime is apparently Season 3 of "A Very English Scandal" instead of its own title called "A Very Royal Scandal" as it is advertised. I searched for "Royal" and was at a loss. I checked the date, and it should be available, but it wasn't there. Just for fun, I selected the Hugh Grant series and went to Season 3, and there it was!

So far, only through one episode, but it's really well done (assuming you know a bit about the story in advance). It's hard to write a review this long without giving anything away. I guess I'll add by saying it's odd they chose to start this miniseries where they did, an interview that's about to happen with no context as to why the interviewer is so flummoxed.

Happy viewing! Hope others find this useful in locating the show.

Watched all three, back to back on the day it dropped on amazon. Amazing fantastic brilliant was my opinion of this excellent beautifully constructed drama. Ruth wilson as Emily Matis, and Michael sheen as Andrew were as they always are fantastic in there roles as was all the supporting roles with for me a special nod for the actor who played the Queens Private secretary. I personally also thought it was better than the BBC version they did a little while ago although that was also very good. So I highly recommended this amazon three part drama. Please don't think because you watched the original interview, that's it . Because it's far more than that.

After A Very English Scandal, which was sensational, I didn't expect to like this very much. However, I did find A Very Royal Scandal to be pretty darn good. Michael Sheen gives a great performance as Prince Andrew, and he even obviously put on weight for the role, subsuming his own good looks into the pudgy form and persona of the arrogant and clueless prince. Even so, he also makes the prince a sympathetic character, which came as a surprise. I was expecting to root for the journalists (as I usually do, having worked in journalism myself), but found myself instead feeling sorry for Prince Andrew and disgusted with the journalists, who come across as overly hard and driven and not especially concerned with the victim(s) of Jeffrey Epstein, so obsessed with their own success as they are. This all be part of the dramatization of the events surrounding this story and not how things actually spooled out, but it did make for interesting viewing.

One star docked for Ruth Wilson's Elizabeth Holmes Theranos CEO type voice. What were they thinking? It was so obviously put on and fake. Took me right out of the drama. Is she angling to play Margaret Thatcher in future?

I loved the actress who played Sarah Ferguson and Michael Sheen is always good, but when I first heard he was playing Prince Andrew I was really surprised. I just didn't see how he could pull it off, but wow he did... And without a silly voice! He really captured the look and feel of a man in turmoil. That embarrassed type of anger when someone knows they have been caught out. That is skill.

OK, think we all know the story here so it's very interesting to get a bit of behind the scenes of it all.

What I really couldn't get on with is Ruth Wilson's take on Maitlis' vocal tone. At points I had to remind myself I wasn't watching The Windors (a brilliant Channel 4 comedy) it seemed that much like she was doing a parody.

Michael Sheen is his brilliant usual self and the rest of the cast were 'fine'.

This story will never get old and over time, I'm guessing, more information will come to light so no doubt more drama's will come.

If you want a masterclass in acting and actually becoming someone else, watch Gillian Anderson in Netflix's Scoop!

**Scoop** and **A Very Royal Scandal** have basically the same theme-Prince Andrew's 2019 car crash interview. They are both great, but I prefer the latter because it's more detailed compared to **Scoop** in terms of storytelling and character portrayal. It really makes you think about the interview, for example, the function and importance of media, the relationship between the royal family, media, and society, and whether the interview truly helped the victims.

As for the character portrayal, dang, Michael Sheen is brilliant as usual and as expected. He literally nails every role, especially those based on real people. His appearance, movement, voice, and the way he speaks-everything is just incredible. The ick he gives? Oh God, I can't handle it. MICHAEL SHEEN, WHAT A BRILLIANT ACTOR YOU ARE! LEGENDARY, I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT. Ruth Wilson is the same. Seriously, I didn't know it was Ruth at first because of the hair, rig, and makeup, and the voice she used is just so Emily Maitlis. Please just give them all the awards; they are brilliant!

Emily Maitlis and Prince Andrew navigate the before, during and after of the "car crash" interview that ultimately led to his disgrace. Prime have brought together a truly stellar cast to take us through the three hour drama, from Ruth Wilson's brilliant Emily to Michael Sheen's warts and all portrayal of Andrew. The supporting cast were excellent and while I didn't like some of the characterisation, it was incredibly well done.

Loved the imagery and stylistic choices - clocks as a running theme throughout, the fact that we never see any other royals on screen bar Andrew's immediate family. To me, it felt very true to life and plausible.

Warmly recommended and this deserves some serious awards.

Loved this series, brilliant glimpse into royal life and royals.

Somehow I believe the courtiers who say that the royals have no idea what it's like to love in the real world. And this is a story of one of these people who thinks he deserves much more than he already has just because he was born in the right family. Unfortunately for him he is too stupid and too arrogant to know when it's time to stop.

Michael Sheen is great as pince Andrew - truly pathetic character who becomes a pariah. Even Queen's favourite son is not above the Firm.

Ruth Wilson is absolutely mesmerizing as a ruthless journalist who wants job to be done even more than she wants justice.

After three episodes I feel like I have to start running again.

Not sure if we needed the 3rd episode, the climax was in the 2nd one. Still brilliant series.

This latest "Scandal" series should have been a triumph, with a highly talented cast and one of the story principals as executive producers, but the lighting throughout the episodes was atrocious! Scenes couldn't have been darker if they were shot at midnight during a power outage. There is even one scene late in the second episode where Amanda Thirsk enters her office, flicks the light switch with an audible "click", and the light level in the room DOES. NOT. CHANGE. This applies to the file broadcast by Amazon Prime in the USA; other regions may have better copies. I can only surmise that something must have gone awry during final editing, because the trailer and behind-the-scenes videos are well lit. Please, Amazon, upload a good file so folks can actually SEE the performances.

First, superb acting by Ruth Wilson. She is simply excellent at encapsulating Emily Maitlis. She is both painfully arrogant and self serving and seemingly naïve without regard for her own family but laterly some regard for the daughters of the villain of the piece. Sheen is fine. I haven't watched enough footage of Andrew to say whether it is accurate. The story is almost sympathetic to him but perhaps that is as a result of the depiction of Maitlis as being so awful. He supporting cast are good (again no idea as to accuracy) and it is an engaging watch unlike (solely in my opinion) Scoop where the actors seemed more intent on forcing their own imprint (fair enough, not everything must be trying to adhere to realism). I liked the invisible but omnipotent hand of the queen and her influence via supplicants in the storyline. Essentially I enjoyed it and was supremely impressed with Ruth Wilson. She was simply incredible.

STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful

Prince Andrew (Martin Sheen) is photographed, striding through Central Park with prominent financier Jeffrey Epstein, weeks before he is arrested on sex trafficking charges, and then found dead in his prison cell. When an accusation is made against The Duke of York himself, he goes into damage limitation mode, and agrees to a live TV interview with high profile presenter Emily Maitlis (Ruth Wilson), against the traditional royal protocol of keeping silent, only for the interview to have unimaginable results.

Following on from the success of Netflix's film dramatisation, Scoop, back in April, the dramatic saga of Prince Andrew's notorious interview with Emily Maitlis is further explored in this three part drama from Amazon Prime, getting their shot in on the tale. With a TV format, there's more room to examine the tale with more scope and depth, with both sides of the televisual duel examined on a more human and intimate level, as the enveloping aftermath plays out.

Lead actor Sheen hasn't been shy expressing his personal socialist politics, and you wonder if there may be a touch of his personal convictions shining through with his portrayal of the Duke, showcasing a man prone to explosive outbursts, which increase in consistency as his situation worsens. That said, his performance is no less convincing and committed than it ever is. In the supporting role, Wilson also convinces as the fiery, determined Maitlis.

Some may question the necessity of such an undertaking after there so recently being a big hit regarding the same subject, but director Julian Jarrold has crafted something perfectly worthy in its own right, a succinct and affecting piece with reliably strong performances and thorough exploration of its main characters. ****

I enjoyed this production immensely, but i feel there was miscasting with Ruth Wilson. My viewpoint-only as I watched it. This interview was very well known, and it was distracting the many differences were significant. The Crown made great work of combining amazing performances, along with casting that enveloped you and made you find such similarities. That is where the production is different. This would have been a showstopper if that huge element was cast differently. I kept thinking Jillian Anderson should be in this role. . I do love the production, and the historical detail, and for that I give it great reviews.

I think if you're going to go head to head with Netflix's telling of the same story you need to up your game a lot more next time. Netflix version was far more compelling, entertaining and gripping.

Actors in this were very stiff, lacklustre and lacking any charisma. The voice of the main female character was very irritating and really difficult to listen to. Considering this story is so well known and had been done before I'm not sure why Amazon felt the need to retell the story again without actually adding anything. The story might be told from a different person's perspective than the Netflix version but actually a lot of details and elements that made the story more interesting were missed out.

As an American who is also a subject of the British crown by virtue of the fact that my father was born in Great Britain to a British citizen, I have to say that this take on the whole Prince Andrew-Jeffery Epstein affair was very well done, a very nuanced view of what went down! Now, I believe Virginia Guiffre's allegations against the Duke of York are 100% accurate, no matter what he says, or has said! I also believe that Andrew is an entitled spoiled brat with a severe case of arrested development! I've never understood why the late Queen was so fond of him, regardless of the fact that he was her son, she should have stopped him from getting involved with a monster like Epstein in the first place, let alone get involved with the sex trafficking! I think Andrew was let off very easy by the Palace, while his nephew, Prince Harry, was hung out to dry for things that are far less reprehensible than having sex with a minor!

This series smacks of 1970s made-for-TV movie. It has all the same awkwardness plus a lot of gratuitous yelling. Coworkers yell at each other, moms yell at kids, dog owners yell at dogs... the list goes on.

Between all the yelling there are tense silences that are supposed to impress upon us how difficult a reporter's job is. So difficult that she needs a constant supply of vodka while she ignores, snaps at, or is downright rude to everyone around her.

They somehow managed to make this scandal boring. I guess because they focused on "getting the interview" and "waking up the boss at 2 am for no apparent reason" and "stony silences that supposedly reveal inner thoughts" instead of on the peculiar uniqueness of Prince Andrew's character and situation, and the incredible story of one of his victims, as well as the news media, standing up to ancient institutions of power and privilege.