The Queen (2006) User Reviews

Great Helen Mirren performance in compelling personal drama

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 23 May 2014]

It's 1997. Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) and the Labour Party have just won a landslide victory. Then Princess Diane is killed in a Paris tunnel. The Queen (Helen Mirren) is reluctant to change any protocol. Prince Philip (James Cromwell) dismisses the tidal wave of grief. Blair tries to advise them despite their intransigence. Eventually the pressure becomes too overwhelming and the Royals must change with the times.

There are two great performances in this. There is also an interesting personal drama within this international story. The death of a princess may not be important in the grand scheme of it all, but it provides a backdrop for a compelling personal drama. Michael Sheen seems to be the guy to play Tony Blair. He's great at it. Helen Mirren is exceptional. She brings both the stoic and the scared with such ease. She fully deserves the Oscar for best actress.

Pointed and Impartial. Mirren is superb.

[PizzicatoFishCrouch · 8/10 · 27 September 2006]

On the 1st of September 1997, the world saw tragedy. In the turmoil that followed, Princess Diana's death was blamed on the Media, the driver, and an entire array of others, before the upset and ill-meant malaise of the public was turned sneeringly to the Royal Family. In this film, we get a glimpse of what life was like inside Buckingham Palace, and whether The Queen (played here by Helen Mirren) was being cold and uncaring, or, if she was the one who was suffering most of all.

Director Stephen Frears recreates one week in 1997 with intelligent, deft strokes. The presentation of Princess Diana is artfully done in news snippets and archive footage, which brilliantly demonstrates the high impact her being had on people. The design of The Queen's home and her surroundings are convincing without being overly showy, and the Alexandre Desplat score is by turns dark, sad, and grand, perfectly summarizing the mindset of those involved.

But the film belongs to Helen Mirren, who takes on of her most challenging roles and showing us that behind the Queen lay a person, and one with feelings. In her role as the reigning lady, she is the epitome of suppressed disappointment and hurt. The Queen chose not to make a parade of her feelings in response to Diana's death, and, though the nation hated her for it, we learn here that it is not because she did not care, but because she honestly thought it the right thing to do.

As a young and newly elected Tony Blair with big aspirations and an even bigger grin, Michael Sheen is freakishly good as the Prime Minister. His performance shows a likable side of the prime minister in his refusal to side with the public over the denouncement of The Queen for her actions, and his attempts to make The Queen limit the damage that she has made is the basis for a very insightful story.

Other delights in this film come in some high-brow one-liners and some other good performances, but the best thing about it is how it manages to make you think, and even empathise with a group of people that you never saw yourself giving a toss about. At under 100 minutes, The Queen is funny, pointed and highly intelligent, showing that, as always, there are two sides to every story.

Betty Windsor as we have never seen her before ...

[MOscarbradley · 8/10 · 26 September 2006]

There is no way of knowing, of course, just how authentic is Peter Morgan's very fine script for this account of what may or may not have taken place in the household of HRH during the days, chiefly between the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and her funeral, as it is unlikely that those involved would have blurted out to Morgan what they probably consider to be state secrets. No, Morgan's script is pure conjecture, a fiction about real events lent a considerable degree of seeming 'authenticity' by director Stephen Frears handling of the material and use of documentary footage mainly taken from the television programmes of the day. Should we condemn him, then, for guessing what conversations may have occurred in private between the Queen and her Prime Minister? Certainly not, anymore than we should condemn James Goldman for being fanciful as to what may or may not have occurred in the Court of Henry 11 and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

"The Queen", then, is not some purposeful account of the facts surrounding the death of Princess Diana as seen from the Royal, (and Prime Ministerial), perspective as a wonderfully human comedy hewn from a national and a private tragedy. And at it's heart, and what really makes it work, is a devastatingly accurate study, not simply of a Monarch we all feel we 'know' from endless television footage, but of a deeply private woman struggling to maintain her own personal dignity in the midst of immense public scrutiny, and Helen Mirren's performance is really quite extraordinary. She has the looks and the mannerisms off pat but more significantly she cuts to the quick of the private individual and unearths the human being inside the Queen. This is great acting which I have no doubt will be rewarded with every prize going come the year's end, (and anyone unfamiliar with Mirren's work who thinks, perhaps, that this is largely just a brilliant piece of mimicry should seek out her very different but equally brilliant performance on television as the present Queen's namesake Elizabeth 1).

The biggest glittering prize most likely to come Mirren's way is, of course, the Oscar and amid the ballyhoo surrounding her performance, Michael Sheen's brilliant turn as Tony Blair has been mostly overlooked. Sheen, too, gives an award-worthy turn as our present Prime Minister, again capturing, not just the look and the mannerisms, but also the arrogance that comes with youth and success and, more importantly, the humility that finally comes with understanding. Sheen gets closer to the 'real' Blair in those moments when he isn't saying anything at all.

Neither Alex Jennings nor James Cromwell look anything Princes Charles and Philip but they manage to capture the essence of the men. (Jennings is particularly good at getting that vacant look of Charles' that says to many people, 'Is there anyone at home?'). And there's a lovely, beautifully understated performance by Roger Allam as the Queen's Private Secretary.

Of course, it is almost as unlikely we will ever know what the people portrayed in the film think of it as it is we will ever know how close Mirren has come to 'getting it right' but I defy anyone to condemn the film on the grounds of either taste or accuracy. What matters isn't how real this film is, (it isn't a documentary, after all), but how closely those involved have come to capturing the hearts and minds of the people on the screen. Judged on this basis, "The Queen" is an unqualified triumph.

Queen Helen Mirren

[Chrysanthepop · 21 October 2008]

Frears brilliantly recreates that royal events surrounding the tragic and sudden death of the people of England's beloved princess. The focus is on the royal family, particularly Queen Elizabeth and what may have gone in her mind during this ordeal. Frears attempts to give an impartial view of the event and sticks to the main point. He cleverly uses live footage of the late princess and combines it within the film. The cinematography and quick cuts are very effective. Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen give standout performances. No doubt it must have been difficult to play both parts but the two actors pull it off without hassle. Even as Queen Elizabeth (one of the most unsexiest queen), Mirren looks sexy and not in a way that distracts the viewer from the character. It's remarkable how she so accurately displays the nuances of the title character. I'm glad that Michael Sheen finally got a role to display his wonderful acting abilities. James Cromwell and Sylvia Sims are equally good in their roles respectively as the Queen's husband and mother. Helen McCrory makes Cherie Blair look pretty. My only small complaint is that, the film, at times, moves at a very slow pace but otherwise this is a well made movie that gives a glimpse of how the tragic event might have affected the royal family.

A Royal Knockout

[NormanCroucher · 6/10 · 23 September 2007]

I have never been a particular fan of the Royals, nor indeed of the monarchy itself. I also felt the mass hysteria that overloaded and in many ways out shone Princess Diana's death was of the most hypocritical kind in regards to a guilty media, and outrageously superfluous on behalf of a needy public. Yes, that week was truly a memorable one if you lived in Britain and owned a television set because you couldn't fail to be engulfed in the bleeding heart hysteria that followed on from Diana's untimely demise.

"The Queen," sifts through that week of high drama to tell an elegant and quintessentially British story about our values and our expectations of the family people love to hate. Helen Mirren looks every inch The Queen of England and quite exceptionally captures a portrayal of the woman by investing her with a heartfelt dignity, conviction and humanity, that the real Queen should be nothing less than flattered by. Mirren secured herself that Oscar the moment production wrapped; she is truly sensational, carrying us through the whole movie with a grace we rarely see on the big screen these days. Michael Sheen is also to be praised for his uncanny impression of Tony Blair, although he scratches deeper than just surface imitation and digs deep to unearth the once idealistic, and seemingly honourable Prime Minister in the early days of his premiership. Support also comes courtesy of a terrific James Cromwell who adds that light touch of comic relief in the role of Prince Philip, while Mark Bazeley as Alistair Campbell reminds audiences how instrumentally devious a spin doctor can be. Every performance is spot on and helps do justice to the brilliantly written script by Peter Morgan who somehow has drawn to light the different sides involved in that week of tragedy and media spin without being too intrusive in terms of the grief of Princes William and Harry, while Stephen Frears never turns the stock footage of Diana into something overly ghoulish or unseemly.

Ultimately though, this story is not really about Diana at all, her death merely serving as the catalyst for a deep and painful self-reflection for The Queen on her monarchy and personal aversion to Diana and the circus slowly gathering outside Buckingham palace. Further to that, the film is most sincerely, you could say almost whimsically, about the relationship between The Queen and Tony Blair, their differing views on modern Britain and the general public who populate it. I found myself seeing The Queen and Mr. Blair in quite new lights, putting more faith and respect in the decisions they made in that fateful week, and believing that solidarity, compromise and respect played a key role in laying Diana's memory to rest. It is also very amusing at times too, and when not tickling the ribs with a sardonic sideswipe by Prince Philip or a wry put down by The Queen Mother about Blair's "Cheshire cat grin" Morgan's script and Frears' controlled, beautifully unshowy direction combine to create the most tender and curious of scenes where The Queen encounters a lone stag in the wilds of her estate whilst at her weakest moment, and draws a strength from that rare meeting of beauty up-close. Another gem of a scene is where she is greeted by a little girl who is there not to simply pay her respects to the Princess of Wales, but to the Queen of England herself, with a bouquet of flowers. Very sweet, and very touching.

This truly is a strong piece of work, quite possibly one of the best films of its year, certainly as fine a British production that I have seen in some time. The characters are well drawn and strongly performed, the writing insightful and totally believable, while the warmth of the material makes me think I might start appreciating our Royal family just that little bit more. Certainly if The Queen's emotional wealth of character and strong, traditional values can survive and rise above cynical opportunism and media mined mass hysteria then I'm sure she can survive anything. But above all else "The Queen," goes to show that no matter how unjustly wealthy, obnoxiously powerful or goofily out of touch the Royals may be, as a family unit they are just as complex, dysfunctional and quirky as any other family in Britain. This truly is a royal treat, please do believe the hype and don't let Her Majesty pass you by.

An Acting God As A Royal Queen

[arichmondfwc · 9/10 · 10 December 2007]

It was Meryl Streep no less to call Helen Mirren "an acting God" and she wasn't kidding. I saw "The Queen" again last night, a year after the hype, the awards and the masses of superlatives thrown Helen Mirren's way and you know what? It was all richly deserved. Her performance got an extra something along the year and I believe it will continue to grow like most wonderful true things. Helen Mirren is not an actress who "dissappears" behind a character , no, she is in total control and that's what makes her creation so moving. The illusion is fueled by her own conviction - the character's as well as the actress's. Last night I wondered, during the Queen and her Prime Minister's walk, how did the real Elizabeth II reacted to this portrait. I'm sure she's seen it and I'm sure that she must agree that nobody could have done it better or more fairly.

Howling Hysterical Sorrow

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 11 October 2006]

At the time of Princess Diana's funeral I remember thinking that, instead of rewriting "Candle in the Wind", Elton John should simply have performed a song from "Evita"- the one that asks the questions "Why all this howling hysterical sorrow? What kind of goddess has lived among us? How will we ever get by without her?" Tim Rice's lyrics were, of course, originally written about Eva Peron, but they could equally well have been written about the British public's over-reaction to Diana's death.

Those sentiments were not popular ones in September 1997, but they should not be taken as implying that I have any particular axe to grind against either the Monarchy in general or Diana in particular. Republicanism is simply another manifestation of our regrettable tendency to jump on American bandwagons (in this particular case two hundred years too late), and I have always thought that King Charles III and Queen Diana might have made a formidable Royal couple. Charles the Head, with his intellectual interests in spirituality and the environment, and Diana the Heart, with her spontaneous human warmth and touch of sex appeal, could both have brought qualities to the Monarchy which it has sometimes lacked in the past. Unfortunately, their wildly contrasting characters, which could have made them such a great Royal team had they been able to avoid washing their dirty linen in public, made it impossible for them to live together as a married couple. The woman we buried on that September morning nine years ago was no longer Our Future Queen but rather the dead mistress of a millionaire Egyptian playboy.

This film is not about the life of Diana (there is a great film to be made on that subject, but it has not yet been made and probably will not be for a number of years). Nor does it attempt to analyse exactly why her death should have provoked such hysteria, including not only hysterical sorrow but also hysterical anger against the Royal Family. I suspect that the main culprit was the media which, exercising the harlot's privilege of power without responsibility, had over the years built Diana into (to borrow another phrase from "Evita") "a cross between a fantasy of the bedroom and a saint". The press found itself under criticism when the paparazzi in its employ were implicated in her death, and needed to divert the public's anger onto a new target. Given, however, the incestuous interdependence of the media world, where press barons own shares in television and film companies, film-makers are often reluctant to subject the Fourth Estate to too much scrutiny.

This is, rather, an examination of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and her Prime Minister Tony Blair and of the roles played by them in the events following Diana's death. The two are sharply contrasted, but the contrast is not one of ideology. The Queen is constitutionally obliged to remain politically impartial and Blair, who moved New Labour into the centre ground and away from its traditional attachment to Socialism and class-based politics, is probably less likely to harbour anti-monarchist sentiments than many earlier Labour politicians. (The Old Labour republicanism attributed to Cherie Blair in this film looks very old-fashioned). Rather, the contrast between them is that between differing temperaments and, even more, between different generations.

The Queen is the representative of the older generation, a believer in tradition, in dignity and emotional restraint. She sees no need to rush back to London from Scotland (the Royal Family traditionally spend late summer on their Balmoral estate) or to fly the Union Jack at half-mast over Buckingham Palace. (Tradition decrees that only the Royal Standard, which denotes the presence of the Monarch and is never flown at half-mast, can fly over the Palace). She is sympathetic to the Spencer family's wish that Diana should be given a private funeral. Blair, on the other hand, represents the younger generation- he is a believer in innovation and change rather than tradition and more sensitive to the public mood. His politician's instincts tell him that the Royal Family's attitude represents a public relations disaster in the making, and tries to persuade the Queen to return to London, to fly the flag and to grant Diana the official funeral for which the public are clamouring.

Michael Sheen bears a close resemblance to the Tony Blair of nine years ago, and has clearly studied him closely in order to catch his every gesture and nuance. I was not, however, particularly impressed by his performance. He seemed to have fallen into the trap of watching his subject too closely, becoming a mimic rather than an actor. I felt that I was watching an impressionist of the Mike Yarwood or Rory Bremner school impersonating Blair rather than an actor playing him in a serious drama. Some of the members of the Royal Family, such as James Cromwell's Prince Philip and Sylvia Syms's Queen Mother, seemed one-dimensional figures, based upon popular preconceptions rather than any attempt to create rounded characters. Alex Jennings's Prince Charles was rather contradictory; at times he seemed the most sympathetic of the Royals, at others weak and cowardly.

By far the best performance came from Helen Mirren as the Queen. In the past she has chosen some rather dubious vehicles for her undoubted talent (notoriously "Caligula"), but this is one of her most assured performances of recent years. Her Elizabeth II emerges as a very human and sympathetic individual as she and Blair, despite their many differences, discover a growing respect for one another's point of view. In many ways, this subject would have been more suitable for a TV drama than a cinema release. Mirren, however, always makes it worth watching. 7/10

Mourning Becomes Elizabeth

[littlemartinarocena · 9/10 · 16 September 2007]

A moment that may have felt like surrender to Elizabeth II is the most moving and powerful moment in a film filled with moving and powerful moments. Helen Mirren works a miracle with her characterization. When the Queen is forced by circumstances to address her people and mourn in public Diana's death, Helen Mirren doesn't forget that her character is a seasoned public speaker but not an actress. When she delivers her speech to her subjects, the real strength is in her commitment to her duty and not the meaning of her words. It is a chilling, masterful acting stroke. Stephen Frears uses the brilliantly structured script to reveal something that's always being in front of our eyes but we've never seen. The privacy of the most public people in the world. Michael Sheen is terrific as Blair and every piece of casting is truly inspired but it's Helen Mirren's film, oh yeah, one hundred per cent.

The Queen

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 3 May 2020]

Peter Morgan definitely got a germ of an idea of doing The Crown Saga for Netflix from this. This is high gloss camp.

Made by Granada, it does feel like a drama documentary made for television.

The Queen is portrayed by Helen Mirren who won a best actress Oscar. Britain looks fundamentally changed to her when her former daughter in law, Princess Diana dies in a car accident in Paris.

Just a few months earlier, Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) became Prime Minister as New Labour won a landslide in the 1997 General Election.

The British public feel angry that the Royal Family appear to be aloof during the days following Diana's death. Too wrapped in protocol rather than display any grief.

It is left to Blair and his press secretary Alistair Campbell to persuade the Queen that they need to show a more touchy feely side. Something that does not come naturally to Prince Philip (James Cromwell.)

Although in 1997 it really did feel like Britain has at last modernised, but you can never count out the Ancien Regime. Britain has had a government of public school toffs since 2010 the public just loves them. They cannot get enough of austerity. Not to worry there is plenty of more of that coming.

Of course the truth was even the nation's grief over the death of Diana was hyperbole. I went to work on the following Monday and everyone carried on as normal. Just sad that two children lost their mother.

You will never get an inkling of that ordinariness in this movie. It is just a rehashing of news footage with both Blair and the Queen reasserting the monarch's authority with some smart public relations.

Helen The Great

[marcosaguado · 9/10 · 10 September 2006]

Let's start by saying that the film itself is a perfect reflection of the days we live in. A deep human drama with a tabloid sensibility. A tradition that's lasted over a thousand years shaken by a world who demands public spectacle. Humbleness or humiliation? Asks Queen Elizabeth to her Prime Minister. Talk Show audiences wouldn't know the difference and we are all, one way or another, talk show audiences. From Jerry Springer to Oprah Winfrey. How did it really feel like? We all want to know, we all want to see the sorrow, the confession or the denial on the catch of the day's face. Michael Sheen is a adorable, yes I think adorable is the right word, as Tony Blair, the labor link between the people and the monarchy. Helen McCrory as Mrs Blair is another standout. Just look at her walking backwards trying to to be true to royal protocol. I had to adjust to the fact that the Queen Mother was played by Sylvia Syms. Sylvia Syms! Queen Mom, a wonderful old battleship who's seen it all and fought her entire life for things to change so they could stay the same. It is however Helen Mirren, in a performance that could only be described as miraculous, that takes us body and soul through the painful ordeal of those seven days surrounding the death of Princess Diana, the "people's princess" a natural master in a world of tabloids and self humiliation disguised as humbleness. Helen Mirren gives us more than a glimpse into the hermetic heart of a living queen. Not a single false note, not a single cheap shot. A performance that is as poignant as it is entertaining. I was as besotted with Helen's Queen as her Labor Prime Minister was. I can't wait to meet her again.

The monarchy survives

[agmoldham · 6/10 · 5 March 2007]

The film is focused entirely on the period of Princess Diana's death and the period upto the funeral a week later. In common with most people from the UK that is something that is very much etched in the memory, so the film does very little in terms of information. I can certainly vouch for it's accuracy although the reaction does seem a little over the top in retrospect.

Mirren puts in a fine performance as the Queen and you certainly couldn't quibble about the Oscar recognition. Although the historical content is very accurate it is impossible to comment on the accuracy of the royal characters. The film seems to adopt the stereotypical representation of the royals and it is quite possible this is correct. The royals are so detached though that it is hard to say this for sure.

The film is really about whether the monarchy can survive even though they aren't aware they are under such close scrutiny. I found the film quite entertaining and it's really a docu drama. You can also see little indications that it was originally meant to be a TV film. It will not change your life, but it's reasonably entertaining.

Long Live Helen Mirren

[ccrivelli2005 · 9/10 · 10 September 2006]

I saw her Elizabeth I not so long ago and I was bowled over by her fearlessness, I was moved, transported, amused. Now, Elizabeth II, the living Queen. Helen Mirren accomplishes the impossible. She lets us know the Queen, her Queen, without passing judgment. Just being her. I found myself understanding her dilemma in human terms. Something that she had done so brilliantly with Elizabeth I, she humanized her or rather she allows us to find the human creature behind the iconic façade. The difficulty of not falling into a caricature or a simple impersonation may have seemed insurmountable but here she is. Perfect, real, extraordinary. Long Live Helen Mirren!

Helen Mirren and The Stag

[amenfd · 7/10 · 20 August 2021]

The Queen is a biopic of Queen Elizabeth II. It describes the Queen's struggles after the death of Princess Diana and the people of Britain yearning for change and modernization. It is an accurate and entertaining drama with excellent acting performances and is a movie worth your time.

The general direction combined with Helen Mirren's performance makes this a good movie. As for the performance, Helen Mirren is acting superbly and portrays the Queen with grace and authority. Speaking for the direction, I love how the director chose the actual videos of Princess Diana to tell her story. Also, the scenes with the Queen are shot with 35mm films and those of Blair with 16mm to distinguish their worlds. Finally, as far as I searched, the movie is faithful to the actual events, which is a plus for a biopic in my mind.

The story is based on real-life events and engaging. With the appointment of Tony Blair, a modernizer, the people are hopeful that needed changes will follow. Interestingly, by the end of the movie, both the Queen and Blair, affected by their relationship, are more moderate on their ideas. Also, the story contains some symbolism which makes it more powerful. The stag we see near the third act is a symbol for Princess Diana, and Queen admiring it and mourning its death shows her embracing her feelings for Diana.

In conclusion, for those interested in biopics and great performances, The Queen is a great choice worthy of your time.

Is It a Hit? Or a Miss?

[fwomp · 5/10 · 27 December 2006]

Sometimes it's a hit or miss with directors, and with Stephen Frears at the helm the odds of a film being a success versus failure are about fifty/fifty. He has given us some excellent cinema such as High Fidelity, Dangerous Liaisons, and The Grifters. But sometimes his movie eye misses the mark or lacks an intriguing or well-rounded story. Mrs. Henderson Presents, Mary Reilly, and Hero are just a sprinkling of Frear films that had a good shot at being great, but ultimately failed in coherency, pacing, or some other aspect.

THE QUEEN is certainly a film with some great acting. Helen Mirren is spot-on as Queen Elizabeth II, as was Michael Sheen in his portrayal of Tony Blair. But from here the cast sags quite a bit. James Cromwell picked up the part of Prince Philip, but seemed very out of place since he has been typecast in such things as The West Wing TV series and The Sum of All Fears flick. And Sylvia Syms (as The Queen Mother) and Alex Jennings (as Prince Charles) were difficult to see in their respective roles since they are still in the public eye. Although Queen Elizabeth is still in the spotlight, Helen Mirren's strong portrayal made that role much easier to swallow.

Fresh subjects are tough to hit upon anyway, and you have to give credit where it is due; Stephen Frears certainly deserves some acclaim for simply attempting to make a film about the Royal Family and their reaction (or non-reaction) to Princess Diana's accidental death. But herein lies another problem: plot. There isn't one. The Queen is a reactionary tale, focusing mainly on Queen Elizabeth and the newly installed Prime Minister Tony Blair, and how each of them views the country's response to Di's death. Of course, the Queen deals with it by not dealing with it. While Mr. Blair continually tries to save the monarchy from self-destructing due to their own ignorance of the peoples' grief. But there isn't a definitive beginning, middle and ending to the story. It's character study of the monarchy will probably be boring to many, especially in the beginning. Most viewers may feel like dozing off after the first twenty minutes of disinteresting royal uppityness.

Although the beginning and middle of the film lag, the ending picks up just enough to make it watchable. The excellent shots of Balmoral Castle and its Scottish surroundings were fairly awesome, as were some analogies regarding the royal deer that roam the outback wildlands.

If you enjoy a good modern day character study, and are interested in the current monarchy, you'll probably eat this film up. But if you're eager for something plot-driven and deeply intriguing, you best look elsewhere.

Brilliant Performances

[Michael_Elliott · 26 February 2008]

Queen, The (2006)

**** (out of 4)

Stephen Frears' drama about Queen Elizabeth (Helen Mirren) and her struggles over the death of Princess Diana. I held off seeing this thing for quite a while because I figured we'd have a great performance in an over-dramatic British soap opera but that was far from the case. In fact, I thought the movie itself was a lot better than anyone has really given it credit for. Director Frears does an incredible job at keeping the thing moving and deeply interesting. I wasn't a fan of Princess Diana and I certainly don't care about British politics but I don't think I blink once during the entire film. It was so strong that it really kept me into it from start to finish. Mirren is excellent, which has been reported everyone and even won her an Oscar but I feel this has taken quite a bit away from the supporting cast and their excellent work. James Cromwell is terrific in the film and Michael Sheen is equally impressive as Tony Blair.

just a little to hyped.

[triple8 · 6/10 · 11 February 2007]

SPOILERS:

It seems everyone in the world thought this movie was extraordinary except myself and the person I saw this with. I don't think this was a terrible movie but I DID think it was really really over rated and there was a bit to much hype about it. I was very disappointed with the Queen and here are the reasons why I didn't think it was much above average.

There was a television movie feel about it. I'm not sure just what I was expecting but this felt very much at times like a TV movie. It also seemed like so much of The Queen was less about Lady Diana or The Queen then about Tony Blair. I expected the film to open with the day Lady Diana was killed only it didn't. This seemed, at times, more Blaire's story then Diana's or The Queen's. And a lot of the movie just wasn't very interesting frankly. It didn't hook me in or the person I saw this with.

I also felt it was a bit to talky. The music in the film was enthralling so to bad it wasn't used enough. I generally like talky films but with this one, it was just TO talky. So many scenes went on and on about the same thing. And that would have been fine if I felt I was watching The Royal Family but I didn't. I didn't feel like I was watching the royal family. With the exception of Helen Mirron who is always extraordinary, nobody really jumped out at me and I never felt the performers were the people they were playing.The actor who played Charles didn't even look much like him. Sometimes it just didn't seem authentic. I did enjoy Mirron as the queen but as far as an Oscar goes I will be happy if she wins because I always like her work but I'd still give it to Judy Dench for "Notes On A Scandel". Her character still haunted me for days after I saw the film. With The Queen, it really didn't stay with me afterward. Still, the best thing about the movie by far was Mirron who is definitely an amazing actress.

Also the movie moved very slowly and there wasn't a lot of intensity about much of it and there should have been. Sometimes I felt Diana was a backdrop to the relationship between Blair and the Queen. Perhaps I didn't fully understand what this was going to be about. But the movie just wasn't as powerful as I imagined it to be from the previews.

This all being said, I can understand why it's up for an Oscar because it does have Mirron and it seems like the kind of film that would be nominated. But for me this is a 5 or 6 and although I'd watch it again if someone I know wanted to see it, I will admit it would be very hard for me to get through it a second time as It wasn't exactly easy the first time. There are a lot of positive comments on this movie, way more then negative ones so perhaps I missed a few things and just didn't get it but this was a let down and just about average for me.

A Crowning Achievement

[ptmcq05 · 10/10 · 11 December 2007]

How silly of me. I kept putting off seeing this movie because I had an acute case of "Dianaetis" Too much about the doomed princess of the people. Well, I was wrong. I was very, very, wrong. The film is a surprising, unpretentious masterpiece and I haven't mention Helen Mirren yet. Apart from the fact that it's a film perfectly suited to be seen in your own living room or like me, in bed, it's also cinema with capital letters. The illusion created by Helen Mirren's portrayal is total and I mean total, eerily so. There were moments in which I was seeing the real thing or the "royal" thing I should say. When Elizabeth II bows to pressure and returns to London and views first hand the overwhelming show of affection for Diana, something happens to her, we will never know what exactly, but something. That in itself is Helen Mirren's mastery. To tell us exactly that without revealing anything. Needless to say I'm buying the DVD. I know I will see this one many times.

Majestic ...

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 16 September 2006]

... is the only word for Helen Mirren - though 'regal' is good as well. It's a great shame that The Queen cannot play in a double bill with Valerie Lemercier's Palais Royal which is a brilliant satire on Diana and the bewildering affect she had on the great unwashed public which constitutes a new definition of mass hypnosis. Consider: you're a reasonably personable young girl with the IQ of a Swiss cheese and someone makes you an offer; you can marry this rich, influential guy and wind up with wealth, the latest fashions, jewels, etc BUT; your husband will never love you, he's in love with someone else, has been for years and always will be. Okay, you accept the gig and THEN, a few years down the line start bitching that your husband doesn't love you - but STILL consoling yourself with, to paraphrase Noel Coward, the bitter palliative of wealth, status and adoration of the public. This, the inexplicable adoration and mass mourning, is rehashed yet again here and Mirren walks away with it yet bouquets to Helen McCrory who brings out the long streak of cow in Cherie Blair and has, in passing, one of the most outre' lines in the script when she, the Queen of freeloaders, accuses the Royal Family of being just that and 'nutters' to boot. It's doubtful whether Tony Blair would really have the decency to defend the Queen in private as eloquently and movingly - not to say correctly - as he does here but that's a minor beef. If Judi Dench can nab an Oscar for a twenty minute gig as Liz I then surely Mirren can do the same as Liz II.

Here's a film for my all-time top 200 list!

[roland-104 · 10/10 · 30 November 2006]

It's still early innings, but Stephen Frears's The Queen is definitely going on my short list for best film of the year, and it will stay there. It's a flawless, burnished production, a virtually perfect film. This glowing, suspenseful docudrama retells the story of the days of upheaval in London and elsewhere, in 1997, shortly after Tony Blair had just won for Labor, by steering clear of trades unions and welfare statism, while flogging his "let's modernize Britain" program, window-dressing for his Clinton-like political shift to the right.

Then, on August 31, Princess Diana, recently divorced from Prince Charles, was killed in a high speed auto accident in midtown Paris. The film's story turns on how various echelons of British society reacted following Diana's death. Dramatized are many vignettes that bring together the major personalities at the center of the highly public dilemma that unfolded in the few days following Diana's passing.

Helen Mirren was, as they say, born to play Queen Elizabeth II. In every tableau, in every body movement, in every nuanced shift in feeling she conveys to us, with or without words, she is simply majestic. But this movie is far more than a showcase, a star vehicle, for Ms. Mirren. Each of the major supporting players, portraying some prominent person, is superb. Besides The Queen, we have The Queen Mother (Sylvia Syms), Prince Philip (James Cromwell), Prince Charles (Alex Jennings), Mr. Blair (Michael Sheen), and their respective retainers, playing out at close range their responses to one another, within the framework of a taut cultural and political crisis, one that is, above all else, a threat to public support of the Monarchy.

This drama takes place in an enervating, though also suppressed, emotional atmosphere, the tension level constantly ratcheted up by the principals' responses to pressures from the public and the press. (Of course the accuracy of the depictions is open to some question at least, and, in addition, there is the insurmountable problem that no one knows for sure the full truth about many of the rumored conversations -discussions that might or might not have transpired among these people - that are dramatized here. It is fair to say that the actors have magnificently sculpted their characterizations to fit the common perceptions of these celebrities in the public eye.

But there's more: I haven't yet touched on the main reason that I think this movie will be considered a classic decades from now. That is it's overarching subtext, not about individual personalities, but about a deep change in the very fabric of social custom signaled by events after Diana's death, especially in Britain, but also in the U. S. and other "anglophilic" "developed" nations. The point is made crystal clear in the film: Elizabeth's seemingly callous aloofness from the public in the wake of Diana's death is the result of her conviction, based on her upbringing, that duty must come first, that stoicism is the face one shows the world, while personal feelings are an entirely private matter, hence not to be aired in public. One must soldier on. Stiff upper lip. The English way.

According to this film narrative, Queen Elizabeth makes a serious miscalculation when she fails to consider, or perhaps even to perceive, the fact that the terms of public discourse - perhaps especially with regard to the open expression of personal sentiments - have changed radically around the world. Frank disclosure of personal feelings and issues once considered taboo for public consumption, emotional "witnessing," and even mass catharsis, have for many become the norm, displacing public stoicism, in response to poignant events. We know this from many lines of evidence, of course: confessional literature and film; the outpourings of personal tragedy and conflict on "Oprah" and a host of clone television and radio shows, and so on. But the Royals' cloistered existence very probably has always shielded them from accurately gauging the pulse of popular societal changes.

Never in recent times had there been such a worldwide wave of acute public grief over the loss of a single person, perhaps not since John Kennedy's death, as was the case of Diana, whom so many admired, revered, indeed, loved, even if from afar. The Queen documents with brilliance and power this major sea change in societal conventions, a shift that historians will undoubtedly look back upon as one of the most important and influential quakes in the tectonic annals of civil conduct. My grades: 10/10, A (Seen on 11/29/06).

The Queen

[syqcs · 7/10 · 9 April 2020]

In 1997, Princess Diana died in Paris due to a car accident. After the news, the whole world shocked the country and the country. The grieving people were very dissatisfied with the indifference and avoidance attitude of the British royal family headed by Queen Elizabeth. For a while, the public was furious and the anti Royal sentiment was rising. The death of Princess Diana made the British royal family fall into an unprecedented trust crisis. As soon as Tony Blair took office, the prime minister faced such a difficult situation. On the one hand, he was grieving and angry British people, on the other hand, he was struggling to maintain the tradition and avoid the British royal family. Blair, the "civilian Prime Minister" on the crest of the wave and under heavy pressure, must find a solution as soon as possible to calm the discontent and resentment of the people, restore the harmony between the queen and the people in the past, and establish her own reputation and prestige .

The real queen of England refused to watch the film because she didn't want to see herself played by others reliving the worst week of her life.

The purpose of the film is to show the strong emotional exchange among the royal family within a week after Princess Diana died.

In addition to flattering Blair for her understanding, the queen basically restored the original appearance of the event. Whether it's the characterization of the queen who lives a low-key life or the cognition of Diana, it's expressed in an extremely objective and comprehensive way.

The Queen in Turmoil

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 3 May 2019]

Once Princess Diana had been killed, there were expectations of the Queen of England. But instead of putting herself out there, she took the family and went into hiding. What this movie is about is how Great Britain began to want answers. We are made privy to the fact that the British press can be ruthless, especially the tabloids. Things get bad and Prime Minister Tony Blair comes on the scene. The Royals are incredibly resentful of this, particularly Prince Philip. The movie, and especially Helen Mirren, show us the fact that these are humans, even though they carry the weight of history. This is not a biography of the Queen. It involves those events following a tragedy.

Enjoyable watch

[emailmadhurimasen · 7/10 · 10 June 2022]

Quite an interesting watch.

I particularly loved Michael Sheen as Tony Blair. And might I say I enjoyed Helen Mirren's performance as the queen much more than I did Olivia Colman's?

I'm not getting into the historical authenticity of each scene. And I personally feel like the film grants a certain degree of impunity to the royal family. But, as a film, it's enjoyable.

The Irresistible Charm Of The Monarchy

[pierlorenzodangelo · 10/10 · 10 September 2006]

No matter who you are, what's your political stand, or your social status, if any. You won't to turn the page or look away from the TV set if there is a piece of news concerning the royals, the British Royals in particular. I think it's human nature so there is nothing we can do about it. That's why it's amazing to realize that the Queen didn't quite understand that and how powerful and moving her surrendering to the fact. I don't know how to describe Helen Mirren's portrayal but I'm tempted to say already (I only saw the film last night) that is among the best I've ever seen. Riveting, totally fulfilling. The illusion is complete and without mockery or mimicry Helen Mirren gives us a full picture of someone who only exists in our minds as a title and in a series of constantly repeating images - hats, smiles, hand waves and holiday greetings from a TV screen - Congratulations to everyone concerned. A total triumph.

Balanced and well acted - Recommended

[fallyhag · 7/10 · 16 September 2006]

Was very keen to see this film, especially because of the Diana connection. It started off quick and got straight to the point.

The thing I liked about the film was the balance. Just when I thought it was being biased it clicked back in and showed the other side. In fact the only one to come off looking like a git was Phil the Greek, the Queens hubby.

The PM and the Queen were acted very well and must be rewarded with professional acknowledgement. Charles however was a little miscast and understated.

The historical clicks and drama had women in the cinema crying so it was good to see that Diana still has it in her to tug at the heart strings.

Not a Hollywood blockbuster but just a nice film, which makes a nice change in this era of CGI and poor scripts.

Recommended.

Please Understand: This Is A Work Of Fiction

[saintorr · 2/10 · 18 September 2006]

I'm very worried that some people might think this movie is a faithful depiction of recent history.

IT IS NOT.

What we have is a series of set pieces where some fairly good actors deliver lines of fiction. I am no apologist for the Royal Family but I am concerned that people may watch this film and, mistakenly, think they are being allowed to see what goes on behind the scenes at the Royal palaces and Downing Street. This is simply not the case.

The news reels are true and the beauty of the Scottish scenery is true but the rest is just made up. No one knows what the Queen and the Prime Minister discussed after Di's death and I would have preferred this to have been made clear at the start of the movie.

It struck me that the film was target at the US audience who watched this unfold at a distance. That may explain some of the clunky dialogue: Tony Blair: "Who is he?" Assistant (holding phone): "He's the Lord Chancellor - you're on your way to meet him at the airport." Come on. Massive signpost anyone?

Viewers outside the UK may not know that the Stephen Frears/Michael Sheen partnership have been seen before in a very successful UK television drama where Sheen played the part of Blair. Just because someone can do a decent impersonation of the British prime minister does not appear adequate justification for making a 97 minute film.

As I left the cinema I tried to work out why the film had been made. Couldn't come up with a single good reason.