The Young Visiters

Pay attention to minor roles of servants and royals...the gem within a gem. As was the introduction to the regal beale.

As expected , the bar is set by the major performances of nighy, broadbent, and beale. Laurie was just a step behind.

Which leaves us to the lone disappointment of marshal, who kept the plot going but just unable to keep pace with those at the pinnacle of dry british comedy.

Had they put beale as a key guest in the tiresome wedding scene, another star point was imminent.

This is a lovely film. No smut, innuendo or anything nefarious whatsoever. Apparently originally written by a girl of nine, all her spelling errors have been left in place. The Prince of Whales indeed! Lovely shots of the British countryside, Bluebell Railway (I assume it was) and all. The story is very simplistic, but thoroughly enchanting. Nice to have the Crystal Palace mentioned and depicted - I only wish they could have rebuilt it for the film, but that might have nudged the budget up a bit! Recommended to anyone who enjoys the values of childhood and thinks childhood is all too brief.

mikmiki, kindly keep your religious commentary to yourself. It has no place in a movie review. Thank you.

This is one of the most charming movies I've seen lately. I tried to get into the book, several times, but found it too twee.

Which is why I'm grateful for this film. More reasons to be grateful: Bill Nighy (whom I hadn't seen in anything other than "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest") and especially the incomparable Hugh Laurie tarten it up just enough.

Glorious period sets, costumes and landscapes. Makes you feel with good cause and certainty that there will indeed always be an England. Especially in the movies.

Just delightful.

Mr Alfred Salteena, "an elderly gentleman of forty-two", an ironmonger by trade, meets a young lady, Miss Ethel Monticue, on a train and promises to introduce her to the royals and nobles of his acquaintance if she comes to stay with him. What he doesn't tell her is that the sum total of his acquaintances is one, Lord Bernard Clark, who lives in a remote castle surrounded by portraits of his ancestors. Alfred engineers an invitation to stay with Lord Clark and Ethel is beside herself with excitement. Alfred soon realises that Bernard is much more the type of man Ethel is looking for, since he is after all a real Lord. Alfred wants to learn to be more suitable, and with Bernard's help, he begins training at Crystal Palace. The training regime is far from easy and some of the funniest and at the same time most poignant scenes are of Alfred's attempts to get it right. Things don't go according to plan, but it all turns out moderately all right in the end. No spoilers here, though. You'll just have to watch the film! The movie is a delight. If you like fairytales with a twist, you will enjoy the wonderful recreations of 9-year-old Daisy Ashford's idea of what the world looks like. And if you're a language person like me, you will be tickled by the dialogue. At 9 years old, Daisy Ashford must have been either an absolute darling or a real pain in the butt! Either way she created some very lovable characters and wrote a gem of a story.

This is the second time Daisy Ashford's famous book has been filmed for UK television. Sadly, this is the less successful version. The whole appeal of the original book was seeing and hearing about the world through the words of a nine year old Victorian girl. Her unique spelling, opinions and ideas - mostly romantic notions about how adults in love behave - make for hilarious reading.

This BBC TV production changes much of the original material to suit it's own purposes, which completely obliterates the artless innocence of the book. Worse still, they have actually made up new lines, supposedly in the style of the original book, and yet actually left out many of Daisy's original and memorable lines of dialogue along the way! They have also added new characters and even devised new mis-spellings that Daisy Ashford never included...what a mistake! It's impossible to embellish a piece of work as original as "The Young Visiters" just for the purposes of padding it out into a full length movie...it's a unique piece of work that sprung from the mind of a nine year old girl, and written circa 1890 - what script writer today could possible emulate that with sufficient accuracy?! So, the overall result is a mildly amusing but perplexing comedy of manners with the characters delivering odd speeches and unfathomable mannerisms, and seemingly unable to spell when they write letters to each other. As a TV programme, it just doesn't make the charm of the book come to life.

The previous version was made way back in 1984 and seems to have disappeared completely now, it does not seem to be listed under the same title on IMDb...? But it was in fact better than this effort, plus it starred Tracey Ullman, who was hilariously well cast as the pompous Ethel. And the cast got to concentrate much more on the original immortal dialogue, unlike those roped into this mess. None of the humour stands out in the new version, even though it has a stirling cast and a big budget. If you watch this and enjoy it, that's great, but in my opinion the spirit of Daisy Ashford's book has been all but wrung out of it.