Genres

Visitors Review

2013-05-18 11:34:28

Great Movie about an interesting time in England

If you can see one movie this year, this is the one to see. Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen give riviting performances as Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair.The movie centers around Elizabeth and Blairs relationship surrounding the turbulent days and weeks after the death of Princess Diana and how they delt with it while trying to do their jobs.Great Movie

Jizdenky 2013-05-17 19:23:32

Queen Helen Mirren

Frears brilliantly recreates that royal events surrounding the tragicand sudden death of the people of England's beloved princess. The focusis on the royal family, particularly Queen Elizabeth and what may havegone in her mind during this ordeal. Frears attempts to give animpartial view of the event and sticks to the main point. He cleverlyuses live footage of the late princess and combines it within the film.The cinematography and quick cuts are very effective. Helen Mirren andMichael Sheen give standout performances. No doubt it must have beendifficult to play both parts but the two actors pull it off withouthassle. Even as Queen Elizabeth (one of the most unsexiest queen),Mirren looks sexy and not in a way that distracts the viewer from thecharacter. It's remarkable how she so accurately displays the nuancesof the title character. I'm glad that Michael Sheen finally got a roleto display his wonderful acting abilities. James Cromwell and SylviaSims are equally good in their roles respectively as the Queen'shusband and mother. Helen McCrory makes Cherie Blair look pretty. Myonly small complaint is that, the film, at times, moves at a very slowpace but otherwise this is a well made movie that gives a glimpse ofhow the tragic event might have affected the royal family.

Kevin Martin 2013-05-08 18:21:48

So Disney this Queen

The open of this film begins with a wink, but it doesn't end soonenough.So much in a film resides with how it begins and how it ends. Just likeflying a plane, it's not how you fly it that is the most importantpart, but how you land it.The Queen is so endearing in the middle why could it not be so deftlyhandled from the beginning to end? If it were better handled, it wouldbe best picture. Our star, The Queen, is a leading lady both literallyand metaphorically, but it is so hard to carry an entire movie on yourshoulders let alone the hopes of a country.

2013-05-07 21:48:30

great movie about the queen and her dilemma..

Helen mirren gives a great performance as many have already stated.. What i find the most interesting is the tension between the classes in great britain.. On the one hand the country is so very modern.. on the other hand it feels like it is still clinging to the last remnants of tradition.. At the center of this lies elizabeth who must reconcile her private concerns for upholding her dignified historical position with her realization that things are changing... As much as i detest people who are handed everything in life.. mirren's deeply felt performance makes the queen's position very real and identifiable.. while i will never feel sorry for the aristocracy in any shape or form (yes it exists in the u.s. to they just call it something other than aristocracy) i can still find their position very interesting to examine.. and that is precisely what this movie does.

Chris Sullivan 2013-04-30 16:18:05

Very very unfair to Charles.

Stephen Frears has always been one of my favourite directors; he hasmade some of the best films over the past twenty or thirty years or so;his films on TV were good too and he has done a great job on this film– almost; and that's a really big almost! This family, the RoyalFamily, are almost impossible to take seriously; they walk around inkilts, play silly games and stalk stags when they should be facing upto the tragedy that has just entered their lives; to portray the royalfamily as it is portrayed in this movie is a plus for director Frearsand the performance from Helen Mirren as The Queen will probably winher an Oscar with a nomination, at least, for Michael Sheen who playsTony Blair. After all this meticulous casting and care how did Stephen Frears allowsome kind of Prince Charles impersonator to play Prince Charles? The portrayal of Charles in this movie, both by the actor who playshim, the writer who wrote it that way and the director who let it beplayed that way is a disgrace; let us not forget who Charles is andwhere he came from; look at some of his biography on IMDb: 'In 1968, hegraduated college, becoming the first heir to the British throne tograduate college. Later that year he was formally invested as Prince ofWales, a title he received in 1957. He dated many women, two of whomare Camilla Shand (later known as Camilla Parker-Bowles), and SarahSpencer, the sister of his future wife.' 'His first military servicesappointment was in 1969. He currently holds the rank of captain in theRoyal Navy and group captain in the Royal Air Force. His favourite foodis scrambled eggs and he likes to drink whiskey. He enjoys going toScotland, UK; Klosters, Switzerland; and the Eleuthra in the Caribbean.He enjoys hunting, shooting, fishing, polo, skiing, painting, writingand reading.' Does this sound like a man who 'thought he heard a shot'when a car back fired; does it sound like someone who would ask for'extra protection' – as they say in the movie – because of that shotwhich got a big laugh at the intimated cowardly Charles on the night Isaw it at the Arclight in Hollywood last week? Did we really have to see the silly pulling of faces like the 'SpittingImage' puppets that portrayed him on Television and the bending of themouth like a demented Frank Spencer? We have all seen footage ofCharles standing next to the five feet ten Diana and being just underher height – she used to wear flat shoes when she was with him so asnot to tower over him and we have seen Tony Blair stand next to GeorgeW. Bush; Blair stands one inch higher than the five feet eleven Bush;in this film Prince Charles is played about six inches taller thanBlair – six feet six!!!! This film could have been so good – in fact it was if you ignored theportrayal of Prince Charles, the fish fingers for Tony Blair's dinner(this is a sophisticated man whether you like him or not) and theNewcastle football shirt he wears around the house with his name on theback. There will be other films made of this period in the history ofBritain's Royal Family and when it is played by people who don'tnecessarily look like the people they are playing maybe we will see itin a better light – rather like Helen Mirren's portrayal of Elizabeth Irecently.

ABC ABC 2013-04-30 14:46:01

„The Queen" – a film about one of England's most misunderstood political figures.

If you are interested in modern history, you should have a look at "TheQueen". This film was directed by Stephen Frears and is set in Englandthe week after Princess Diana's death in 1997. "The Queen" deals withher death and offers a look into the royal's point of view of theevents and Queen Elisabeth II personal conflict when she was caughtbetween the relentless media and the desire to protect her family.The plot of the film is as follows:In the beginning the new elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (MichaelSheen) meets Queen Elisabeth II (Helen Mirren) in Buckingham Palace forthe first time. Their meeting hints that they have different ways ofmaking political decisions. Three months later, Diana, Princess ofWales dies in a car crash at the Alma Bridge tunnel in Paris. In thenext time it becomes clear that they also have different views on howto react to Diana's death. The Queen wants to keep the issue private.Meanwhile her nation is annoyed that she does not fly a Union flag athalf-mast over Buckingham Palace, and speak to the nation about Diana'slife and legacy in a televised address. When the media has finallyturned their attention on the supposedly unfeeling Royals, Blair has tofind a way to bring the Queen closer to her nation again. But to findout how the film ends, you will have to view it yourself.All the cinematic devices used in the film serve a function and achievetheir intended effect. For example the use of original interviews andvideo footage of Lady Diana creates authenticity.In sum, I can only strongly recommend this film because it isfascinating and very interesting to people who want to learn abouthistory. If I was asked to rate this film on a scale from zero to ten,I would give it eight points.

M. O. 2013-04-08 07:52:26

Exceptional!

What really happened to the Royal Family at that time, we'll neverknow. I was very young when Diana was dead and I could never understandwhy she was so important for the people, and now that I'm grown I seethat she was loved because she was from the people and the closest oneto the Royal Family. She could see that there was a hole between thepeople and the institution and she did what a sane and modern person(like she was) would do: work like a bridge between them.As well said in the movie, Diana had 2 very different personalities:Diana as a family member and as a mother, and Diana as a visionarywoman that found a way to show the people that her country was in needof some changes. But when the Royal Family could finally see that, itwas too late.All this is shown in the movie. The Queen is one of the most touching,sincere and subtle movie I've seen in years, and it's on its mannersthat it makes you take your own conclusions about everything.

Merwyn Grote 2013-04-07 22:43:19

Old Dinosaurs Learning New Tricks ...

I have to admit that I never quite got that whole Princess Diana thing-- the awe that she inspired, and still does. I didn't hate her oranything, but I remember shortly before her infamous death I saw her onthe cover of a magazine and I thought to myself "Is there anyone onearth who should be of less interest?" Okay, she did the Cinderella bit and married into a royal family onlyto find the "happily ever after" myth didn't quite pan out. A badmarriage, disapproving in-laws and a messy divorce and what did she getout of it? Untold wealth, immense fame and adoration, jet set friendsand she even got to keep the royal title. Not a bad haul, I'd say. Theself-pitying poor little rich girl image just didn't move me. And whenshe died, the whole world seemed to go into a state of frozen shock ina way that hadn't been seen since JFK was assassinated. And as theworld mourned, I scratched my head in confusion.All of this is a way of me getting around to saying that going into THEQUEEN, I was more than little bit sympathetic to the royal family. Thefilm deals with how Queen Elizabeth faced an unexpected publicrelations nightmare upon Diana's death and while I can't say that I wasany more enamoured by the Royals than I was with Diana, I appreciatetheir predicament. The Golden Girl to the rest of the world was at bestan ex-in-law to The Royals and at worst a disgruntled ex-employee ofHer Majesty Inc. Not only did Diana seem inappreciative of all thatbeing part of the monarchy had given her, she showed little restraintin bucking royal protocol by complaining to the press. And just whenElizabeth thought she was more or less rid of her, the so-called"People's Princess" proves she can upstage the monarchy in death justas effectively as in life.In a wonderfully understated performance, Helen Mirren plays the Queenwith an unpretentious, down-to-earth -- if a bit joyless -- directness.There is neither a trace of condescension nor satire in her approachand she invests a surprising amount of compassion in a character who isstrangely lacking in passion. Her Elizabeth II wears the burden ofpower almost defiantly, as if she has to prove that she can, despitehalf a century of proof that she is up to the chore. All she expects isthat everybody play by the rules, including herself -- never mindwhether the rules are fair or make sense. Thus, when faced with theexpectations that the rules be revised, once again, to accommodateDiana, she is not amused -- or even understanding.What the Queen never seems to grasp is that Diana was modern-dayroyalty -- not part of an arcane line of inherited sovereignty, butsomeone who is famous for being famous. A celebrity. Though the Queenclaims her status as divine privilege, Diana out ranked her; heracclaim anointed by the masses, via the media. What THE QUEEN makesclear is that while the royal family really should be commended for notexploiting Diana's tragedy with insincere grief, they really had nochoice but to become part of the world-wide sob-fest. Howeverinexplicable or undeserved Diana's notoriety might have been, it wastoo potent to ignore.That is where Prime Minister Tony Blair comes in. Though recognizingthat the monarchy is a dinosaur, Blair realizes that just having adinosaur is something unique. And the care and feeding of a dinosaur isa delicate chore. Despite the subject matter, THE QUEEN is largely acomedy of manners, a droll and understated examination of how Blaircoaxes Queen and Co. to adapt to the times in an effort to avoidextinction. Grudgingly, indignantly, Elizabeth deigns to allow Dianathe royal treatment one last time. But, while public opinion may makethe Queen mourn, nobody can make her cry.Despite Mirren's wonderfully dour performance, THE QUEEN is hardly aone-woman show. As Blair, Michael Sheen gives a lively and humorousperformance as a man who also must adapt, evolving from someone opposedto the monarchy to one who passionately must defend the royal familyand all that it entails. And James Cromwell is all impotent bluster asthe perpetually outraged Prince Phillip. But curiously the mostsympathetic character is Prince Charles, played by Alex Jennings;caught between two powerful and self-centered women, Charles ends upbeing a minor character in the film, just as he has become in reality.In the end, THE QUEEN knocks the royal family off the throne, but notin a cruel or radical way. Perhaps what made Diana so popular was thatshe seemed human, a trait either bred out of those born to the monarchyor a trait that they had been carefully trained to hide. Either way, Ileft the movie liking the royal family just a little better -- exceptfor Diana, who I still just don't get.

Ajit Mahadevan 2013-03-31 21:36:39

Outstanding performances

Ten years ago, after the death of Diana, the monarchy was faced with asituation where for the first time they felt the power of the commonpeople fly in the face of protocol. This movie - superbly written,crafted and performed - is another step towards humanising themonarchy.The movie - which intersperses actual footage with some brilliantperformances by Helen Mirren as the Queen - has captured the complexitythat it is to be royalty in the UK. There is a growing body of opinionamongst the people that the royalty really is an anachronism (the lifeof opulence and luxury in the day and age when everyone pays their ownway). The concept of entitlement does not go down well.However this movie reflects the other side as well. That royalty feelthey have to take on sacrifice in the line of "serving" the people. Inshort, god's duty.I will not raise the issue - however I will say that this movie is amust-watch. It is very well edited to keep a taut and tense feel aboutit -very cleverly using real footage to move the story along.

JackBenjamin 2013-03-31 01:52:13

A Royal Waste

I was in England when Blair was elected. The sentiment was very muchthe same as it was in the U.S. when Clinton came to power, a young,vital man ushering in a new age of idealism and renewal (I'm convincednow that we'll have this once every 20 or so years until the end oftime, or elections). It's interesting to note that Peter Morgan is nowworking on a Bill Clinton script.I didn't love this film though. Thought Mirren was good, thought thesame of Sheen. I was disappointed by the Frears/Morgan commentary onthe DVD. I expected a little more from two very intelligent men.It's hard to grasp as an American how consumed British culture is withroyal goings on. It's an integral part of their ethos, so maybe that'swhy the film didn't completely grip me. I found most interesting thenotion of the decline of civility and "quiet dignity" in favor of theloud, raw truth of liberalism.Elizabeth II is an intriguing figure and I wish some other aspects ofher life and the life of her country were explored. She lived throughWWII, stood watch as Britain transformed from empire to commonwealth,oversaw its decline into relative global impotence. She watched as itappropriated elements of American pop culture and liberalism whichshook her existence to the core -- this woman is a relic, a symbol, agrotesque waste of money. I wish Frears/Morgan had addressed theseissues more than the family dynamic, which barely held my interest.

2013-03-30 07:58:13

Dead Woman Upstages Living Woman

Couldn't help but notice how the movie kept flashing back to Diana who is DEAD, but that's to keep the audience from fully falling asleep.British Royalty, being the parasites that they are, are completely boring! If no one would pay to come to England to see them, they'd have been phased out last century as the deadwood that they are. They are to be pitied. No jobs, nothing to do all day but go to openings of this or that. Poor Charles even got kicked off his polo ponies because Mumsy thought it was too dangerous.I haven't watched this movie in one sitting. Too boring. This is one where you watch it in shifts, if I finish it at all. Helen Mirren did an OK job, but frankly, Elizabeth is very easy to impersonate and many others have done this before Helen. Think of the stupid Naked Gun movies.

2013-03-29 23:14:44

Dame Helen's Oscar Finally!

Dame Helen Mirren is one of the world's foremost talented actressesthat she has won countless awards. Her casting of Queen Elizabeth II isquite stunning considering that she already played her namesake and wonan Emmy for it. She really becomes the Queen that we all know and lovebecause she blends into the role so well that it's nearly impossible tothink of her as the same person who played Jane Tennison, a TitanicSurvivor in the S.O.S. Titanic. I admired Sylvia Syms and think sheshould become a Dame herself. James Cromwell is great as Prince Phillipand should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination as well. I can'tforget Sylvia and think she deserves a Best Supporting Actress Oscarnomination as well. Stephen Frears really deserves nominations forrecreating a week that was well unforgettable because it was sopainful. I always knew that the Royals were real decent people withflaws and problems of their own. It's hard to imagine them as anythingother than the caricatures that the British tabloid press make them outto be. The Royals have lived in a fishbowl their entire lives and willdo so. It's not easy being Royal, I'm sure the Queen has her days aswell.

2013-03-27 05:23:04

Queen

A bit slow in spots, but excellent acting, sensitive presention of a controversial subject, respectful presentation of all historica people involved.

middleburg 2013-03-26 21:42:10

Tears for a beloved princess and an all-too-human queen

The Queen is riveting. It is no simple film, but rather an absolutelyfascinating glimpse behind closed doors: the massive closed doorsshielding the British Royal Family in their opulent cocoon, the rathermore plain doors of the media-driven British government and its moversand shakers, and the doors too often hiding or protecting all of usfrom the pain of real feelings, real emotions. But then these doorscome tumbling down during that awful, shocking week, as visceral now asit was 10 years ago. The political manoeuvrings, the confusion abouthow to handle such an extraordinary public and private tragedy in themidst of an astonishing, but not necessarily surprising outpouring ofnational, indeed international grief is shown with razor sharpbrilliance. It is a movie that is simply unforgettable. One can viewthe film from an historical perspective, and be completely intrigued atthe way the events unfolded. But what makes the film so powerful arethe emotions that one experiences. We remember the sadness of thatweek, and we get teary-eyed seeing the collective grief of the countryone more time on the television screen. That beautiful, complex,extraordinary Diana - without realizing it was part of our dreams of"happily ever after". When there was no "happily ever after" - just theawesome finality of death, we cried - for her and also for ourselves.But in an amazing portrayal of the Queen in this movie, we now look atthat week through Her eyes - not Diana's, not ours. Helen Mirren'sperformance is so unique, so exquisite, that we can't believe she'sacting. She is a real person - regal, beautiful, elegant,down-to-earth, eccentric - a full human being. But as the turn ofevents unfold, her pain now becomes our pain - a pain that we didn'teven realize was there. But of course it had to have been there! Thismovie makes us see that. When she almost becomes a little girl again,and calls out "Mummy" to the Queen Mother, seeking out her advice,desperate to be comforted, our hearts break. She is even morevulnerable than one could ever have imagined. At the end of the movie,everyone has been transformed - those historical characters are movingon as both duty and the human spirit dictates it must, but we have beentransformed as well. We have cried all over again, but this time with alittle more insight, a little more understanding and a little morewisdom.

MBunge 2013-03-25 14:58:48

As spectacular a docu-drama as the genre ever gets

A scrupulous docu-drama about how the death of Princess Diana elevateda newly elected prime minister and nearly devastated the Britishmonarchy, The Queen does a wonderful job at fairly depicting thestrengths and weaknesses of aristocratic privilege and democraticmodernity. With a script that avoids all excess and sparklingperformances by Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen, it's that rarest of allworks of fiction - one that enlightens and well as entertains.Anyone old enough to remember the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Dialso remembers the way her life ended in Paris, practically chased todeath by the paparazzi. In the week after that tragedy, Great Britainwas consumed in an orgy of public grief and a growing anger at a royalfamily that pointedly refused to join in the ostentatious mourning.This movie seeks to give a fair hearing to the much maligned royals,acknowledging the basic ridiculousness of a 20th century societywillfully engaging in the mass delusion of treating an unelected,unappointed and factually powerless figurehead as if she were stillimportant, while being fair to that figurehead and her family for theodd behavior their odder situation has cultivated in them.Deftly fusing together real news footage with re-enactments anddramatic inventions, The Queen is a brilliant blend of family turmoil,political maneuvering and social observation. It takes us inside theroyal family and tries to demonstrate the peril and the promise ofhereditary power. The Queen (Helen Mirren) is a shining example thatwhen privilege is married to at least a sense of responsibility, it canproduce someone quite impressive and worthy. When privilege is divorcedfrom responsibility, we see the results in the seething arrogance ofthe Queen's husband, Philip (James Cromwell), and the snivelingweakness of her son, Prince Charles (Alex Jennings). Charles isactually the most fascinating character in the story, as it's subtlysuggested that keeping him in subservient irrelevance for his entireadult life trapped him in a state of emotional adolescence.Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) is a man given power toreform British life and finds his first challenge is the daunting taskof preserving the very heart of British tradition. In life, PrincessDiana became a complicated woman with virtues and vices. In death, shebecame a secular saint which the public demanded the royal family bowdown before. The fact that Diana had been a pain in the royal neck formany years didn't matter. The fact that such insistent wallowing ingrief was overwrought and unseemly didn't matter. The people demandedand their supposed sovereign had to obey, something the movie makesclear the Queen should have understood herself.This is just a tremendous film with crackerjack writing and masterfuldirection that crystallizes a moment of history about as well asanything else in cinema. You should definitely watch this.

sashank_kini-1 2013-03-25 02:27:53

In the words of Peter Morgan, hands of Stephen Frears and instruments in the form of a great cast, The Queen is an important character study in the form of a biography

It is a general belief that oldsters cherish the values and customsthat they have grown up with while youngsters on the other hand rebeland boot established norms. Your grandfather may constantly scold youfor your irregular sleeping habit while you would constantly justify itby reminding him how busy you are. This nature has been seen since timeimmemorial and will be seen in the future. In 'The Queen', CherieBlair, Mr. Tony Blair's wife saucily reminds her husband about hismother while they debate about the relevance of monarchy, calling her'old-fashioned', 'rigid'. On the other hand, in the opening scene, anaged painter, while making Queen Elizabeth's portrait, confides in herthat he hasn't voted for Blair since he doesn't believe in'modernizing'. The Queen smugly reminds him that in the end, she is theone to ratify. This establishment versus modification between theroyalty (the old) and the common people (the new) is what sets the toneof The Queen. I asked my grandfather whether he felt Lady Di wasentitled to a public funeral, to which he replied that it was theQueen's private matter. On the other hand, many youngsters (and under50 is young) would feel the Queen is being vindictive.'The Queen' captures what possibly went inside the four walls of theRoyal family and Tony Blair's home and office. If one observes theattire itself, it is noticeable how regally the Royal family dresseseven when in bedroom while Blair sports jaunty tee-shirts. When theQueen meets Blair, the latter, who isn't very accustomed to theprotocol, smiles stupidly when he flubs up at one point during themeeting. Till here, everything seems formal and distant, and we knowless about both the characters. But when the tragedy occurs, we aretaken right into the center of action. It is then that we feel theactual tension that runs on both sides, and we get to see how QueenElizabeth and Tony Blair react and respond, to their families, theirassociates and the public.Helen Mirren, an acting God, should share the space with heavyweightslike Brando because she is able to find a path to make her charactersentirely convincing without having the need to draw attention towardsher technique. Her contemporary Meryl Streep too has that capacity buther Iron Lady sometimes became 'Oh, did that thing with her lower lipjust like Thatcher!' or 'Look how she conveys shivers by lowering herneck and bringing it forward!'; Mirren played with her pearls, spokewith slight disconcert and humiliation during the televised speech justlike Queen Elizabeth but never made us draw comparisons with the realQueen while watching the film because we believed, at least for theruntime of about 100 minutes, that she was Queen Elizabeth. Hercharacter is beleaguered not only by the public, the media and TonyBlair, but also by her own family who, with the exception of PrinceCharles, consent with her stance about a private funeral. The momentshe acquiesces with Tony Blair, they frown and take her to task. On theother hand, Blair reminds her that by resisting his advice, she wouldblacken her own reputation. Helen Mirren conveys her character'sdilemma with dignity, demureness and valor, and the only moment shebreaks down (along with her jeep) is when she is absolutely alone. Thecamera does not pan at her face then because she doesn't want "anyone"to intrude then.The stag scene is pivotal in the film, an abstruse allegory to PrincessDiana's death and Queen Elizabeth's compassion. The stag is a beautifulcreature that Queen Elizabeth encounters during her breakdown. Whileadmiring its majesty, a gunshot is heard in the distance but the stagdoesn't move. The queen tries to shoo it away before it gets killed andit leaves when a dog barks in the background. The Queen feels relievedafter this incident, only to find out that it was killed in aneighboring area. She visits the place alone, sheds a tear, tells theperson there to convey her regards to the new owner and leaves. (i)This situation may allude to Princess' death with the stag signifyingDi who left to Paris, a neighboring area and got killed over there or(ii) in one of the earlier scenes, as Queen walks down the hallway withI think Robin Janvrin behind her, the camera is at almost ground leveland titled toward the air. On the top of the walls, the heads of stagscan be seen affixed. Later, the Queen's compassionate attitude towardsthe stag seems like a contrast to her former attitude.The rest of the cast helps in achieving cracking chemistry with eachother, avoiding the talky film to slip into boredom. Michael Sheen asTony Blair may sound childish and artificial sometimes in his deliverybut for most part is convincing. Sylvia Syms is wise, witty and nuttyas Queen Mother, and so is Helen McCrory as Cherie. More than the cast,scriptwriter Peter Morgan should be credited for his glorious andimmaculate work, which helped the characters slip naturally into theirroles and create dramatic tension. The symbolism is subtle andmeaningful unlike the embarrassing metaphors in Iron Lady ("Right-o!"says Thatcher and swerves the car to the wrong side of the road just tohint her political inclination. Then there is the scene with 'milkcartons'. How tacky!).In the words of Peter Morgan, hands of a great director (StephenFrears) and instruments in the form of a great cast, The Queen hasbecome an important character study in the form of a biography. Plus,you do not need to know much about Britain's past to see the film. Itis a must watch for everyone.My Rating: 8.7 out of 10

LeRoyMarko 2013-03-13 23:43:39

Triumph

Excellent movie by director Stephen Frears. He adroitly captures themood of a nation, of most of the world in fact, that first week ofSeptember, almost ten years ago. The part that is fiction though showsthe way the Royal family reacted to Lady Di's death. Who knows for surehow they reacted? But that's what also interesting about this film. Itputs a human face on a personage known only in public. That was easywith Diana, it's more challenging to do for Elizabeth. Have you evertried to imagine what the Queen does when she's relaxing in her privateapartments? The movie reminds us that she's not only an old womanwaving while sporting colorful hats. That brings me to the way Frears depicts the Royals. The Queen is ofcourse rigid. But one can sense some sensibility some times, quicklyput away by the more present sense of duty. Funny to think that the twoRoyals that are shown as the most insensitive are the ones that areusually considered more accessible: Prince Philip and the Queen mother(now dead, of course). All the Royals and their staff, but also TonyBlair and his entourage are brilliantly played by an excellent cast. Atthe top: Helen Mirren. She's just great. A word on the use of footages from the archives. I think the directordid an excellent job of mixing those with the fictionalized parts.A question remains though: has the Queen seen the movie? If so, couldshe please let us know what she thought of it by posting a comment onIMDb? This would truly show the world that she's able to modernize herinstitution!Seen in Toronto, at the Beach Cinemas, on October 28th, 2006. 88/100 (***½)

quaintone 2013-03-13 03:32:32

Disappointing

A very disappointing film and totally overrated. Helen Mirren'sexcellent acting cannot detract from the fact that she is physicallywrong for the part. She seems too serene and sophisticated. More likean older Diana. I wondered if this was perhaps the intention of StephenFrears to make this a feature of how Diana's death was having such animpact on the lives of the Royals. After all they all thought she was"out of her mind" and a "walking cannon". After the Queen reluctantlydelivered her obituary speech for Diana she was reported as saying "Wasthat moving enough for you?" To me a much less worldly characterportrayal would have made a more interesting contrast. After all wewitnessed her Majesty on BBC programs,etc which should have shown herordinariness and served as a guide. The Queen is a well known huntressand even strangled a wounded bird at one time. I felt no particularsympathy for this character, even though the well written and directedfilm urged me to do so.

2013-03-11 01:39:24

This is really a pseudo-documentary

This review is from: The Queen (DVD) Mostly about the "Diana-demise" era. While not intending to be a comedy, such is its best feature. "Blair" plays a British "Howdy Doody" with panache. "Liz" is largely boring and her occasional dry wit is SO dry that one needs hydrating before the unwarrantedly-abrupt (but welcome) ending. An Academy Award? Just what "academy" might that be?

vie324 2013-03-10 11:21:34

not just a film about Diana

I wasn't expecting much from this film, but was pleasantly surprised.It's not just about the Queen's reaction to Diana's death; it's a filmabout a changing world. Given Queen Elizabeth's long reign, she's hadto adapt to changing public expectations about her role as monarch, andshe's had to learn to share power with the prime minister, the media,and the public. The film opened my non-British eyes to this and made methink of another public figure who lived through this age--Pope JohnPaul II.The acting is superb, and I especially enjoyed watching actors whosecelebrity doesn't get in the way of the role they are playing.