Not a bad film missed out Duchess's gambling and alcoholism, not to mention the two years she and her friend lived away from the family. I also wonder why they used a middle aged man to play the Duke who was after all only 25 when they married.

Frankly, I think this movie is all about women suffrage. Georgiana is depicted as a victim of the old time's order, and a martyr that sacrifice her love and happiness to defend her children. This movie originates from a very touchy story, in which one of the participants was the prime minister of England, and I think the director and storyboarding people are not doing everything they can to present it.First of all, Dominic Cooper is hideous-looking. His being an actor is a very encouraging example for young people, telling them that being an actor has nothing to do with one's appearance. His presence sure bereaves the movie of any romantic air it can possibly have. That is why I watched the movie with wistful agony.Good movies convey emotions through the way they shoot them. But I can not detect such techniques in this movie. The camera work was the most tedious and uncreative I've seen in years, therefore when Charles Grey dashed into the house and demanded for Georgiana to elope with him, I felt nothing but pathetic.Elizabeth's actor is that of Agent Carter, whom I admire ardently. Therefore I would love to give them an extra point for her.If it weren't for Keira Knightly's exceeding acting, this movie would've got a 3. I would really call consumer service for its wasting 2 hours of my youth, but I can't since I watched it for free.

I saw this movie in cinema and this is the way to do it!On one side, this movie is not well researched. Nearly every actor does not match with the role. Keira Knightley is not the 18th-century sex-bomb, you would expect from the contemporary paintings. But the hole political role of the duchess is not told in this movie. So you can not understand why in one scene is an great audience. Charles Grey was a young boy, when the duchess married the duke of Devonshire and this is the reason why the first scene in the movie is complete nonsense - like nearly all the story line. The duke was not a old men in this time, and the duchess was significantly older than Mr. Grey etc.. The dark side of the duchess, her faults (drugs, gambling etc.) were not told. So the story of the movie is something like a lie.On the other hand, there are very nice costumes. OK, you cannot see why the duchess of Devonshire was so famous for her costumes because she has all the film quiet normal and mostly informal dresses for the period. I think, it's a nice film for women. If you forget, the background and the historical life of the duchess of Devonshire - perhaps than nobody would see the film in cinema. So they needed a title. The life of the real duchess was quiet interesting full of adventures, illness, journeys, political arguments, intrigues etc.. But here is only a story of a nearly stupid rich women in some problems with her brutal husband. I admired the locations and the costumes but as a movie without any real interesting conflict and mostly boring not really motivated actors its hard to look at it without regret.

a beautiful film. not great or remarkable. only beautiful. for costumes and correct acting. for the light to dark rooms of period. for the flavor of Anna Karenina. and for the atmosphere before the storm. a movie like a jewel from 18 century. more complex than a nice adaptation of a book, almost fascinating for the science of Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes to explore theirs roles possibilities, special for performance of Charlotte Rampling and for the air of portrait of a life. a movie like a drop of perfume. noble, seductive, charming. and a different tool for discover the past in a profound way.that is all. a beautiful film about a special universe and remarkable force of a woman to be herself .