The Queen (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
434 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Mourning Becomes Elizabeth
M. J Arocena16 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.
120 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Helen The Great
marcosaguado10 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.
381 out of 438 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
An Acting God As A Royal Queen
A.W Richmond10 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.
93 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Long Live Helen Mirren
ccrivelli200510 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!
306 out of 371 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Crowning Achievement
ptmcq0511 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.
94 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Here's a film for my all-time top 200 list!
roland-10430 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).
41 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Outstanding
Maria26 September 2006
Everything, really utterly and completely everything in that movie, from the performance of the exquisite leading lady down to the smallest word or movement was perfect. There isn't a single flaw in it, not one, not a single one. I was a bit tired while watching it, but still that movie held me mesmerized to the screen all through it. Helen Mirren brought to life a Queen Elizabeth II that I would have never expected, and the outstanding performances of Michael Sheen as Blair and James Cromwell as Prince Philip (and the entire supporting cast) only made everything that much better. I will be the first to admit that I respected the British people for managing to uphold this wonderful ages-old tradition in today's modern world, and if I were British, I guess I would have shared in their royalist pride (although I do wish you could go to London and bring back souvenirs that didn't necessarily have a monarch's face plastered allover them). But I remember when Diana died, I was one of those ignorant people (yes, after that movie especially, that's the word I would use) who were bullying the queen for her lack of emotional display. This movie set right certain things that have been bothering me for quite some time whenever I thought back to what I was like at the time. It put many things into an entirely different perspective (not nearly all of which having to do with Lady Diana's death). But most of all, it stripped the queen of her ice before my eyes, and revealed a human being that ironically enough, the movie also made me understand why I did not see before. To top it all, there is the wonderfully tactful and flowing dialogue, and the mesmerizing performances of Cromwell and Sheen at both her sides. The movie, just as its leading lady, flows gracefully, with quiet dignity and respect, and captures the audience's hearts in the way we would least expect. I almost cried several times throughout the movie, and the memory of Diana was only one of the reasons; the Queen was the other. I also have to salute the cinematography in this film, especially sequences the likes of the one that led up to Diana's death, which was brilliant, as well as the various combinations between original and archive footage. So in a nutshell, my verdict? An absolute must-see, regardless of whether you're a "fan" of Her Majesty or of Lady Diana or neither. Go see this movie, it will change the way you see so many things in your life, I promise that much. I guarantee it. And if Oscars were still being given out to people who deserved them… but we all know that's wishful thinking. Let's just say that Helen Mirren deserved much more than 5 minutes of standing ovation. I know it's strange coming from me (or anyone), but I believe the Queen herself, if she is in fact anything like the Queen portrayed by Mirren, would have been very proud of this movie.
31 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The Irresistible Charm Of The Monarchy
pierlorenzodangelo10 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.
254 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Helen Mirren Creates Another Triumph!
gradyharp25 October 2006
THE QUEEN seems like one of those biographical features that would be difficult to hold anyone's interest - on the surface, without the benefit of knowing much about the content. Queen Elizabeth II is not exactly a figure who generates anything but a response of boredom, so flat and uninteresting is her persona. But enter Helen Mirren, one of the finest actresses on the screen today, and this potentially boring potentate becomes a vibrantly detailed and fascinating portrait of a queen at odds with the times. It is a staggering achievement.

Director Stephen Frears, using a superb script by Peter Morgan, details the time from the election of Labor Party Prime Minister Tony Blair (a brilliant Michael Sheen) to that momentous international outpouring of grief and love that followed the tragic death of Princess Di in 1997, showing the bifurcation of response between the Royals and the People as represented by Blair. Instead of the insensitive cold figure that the world witnessed as QE II, Mirren shows us that the woman who is Queen actually had feelings for her grandchildren, a respect for her station as royalty, and was gradually responsive to the cry of the people via Blair's influence, allowing the world to pay proper tribute to a heroine. The ogres in the Balmoral Castle were in fact Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) and the Queen Mum (Sylvia Syms) abetted by the very proper Robin Janvrin (Roger Allam) and the wishy washy Prince Charles (Alex Jennings).

The entire production is beautifully filmed with the use of clips from Princess Di's life (and death) instead of creating an actress role to portray her - a very wise choice. The musical score by Alexandre Desplat is superb (with a little help from Verdi's 'Libera Me' as sung by Lynn Dawson and the BBC chorus for the funeral portion). But indeed the accolades go to Helen Mirren in an Oscar worthy performance - with the very strong counterbalance by Michael Sheen. An excellent film about a moment no one will ever forget. Grady Harp
52 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Pointed and Impartial. Mirren is superb.
PizzicatoFishCrouch27 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.
230 out of 329 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent film by Frears
chrisuk45200321 September 2006
What an amazing Film; Mirren should get an Oscar and Blair was brilliantly portrayed too but best of all was the cinematography - the highlands, the stag - transcendental and wonderfully conceived and executed. Best film I've seen in ages. It perfectly portrayed the balance between the traditionalist monarchy on the one hand and the new modernising labour government on the other. The dialogue between the main protagonists was excellent and there were also some wonderful one-liners; "tell him to hang on" in reference to a 'phone call from Gordon Brown was the one I enjoyed the best. All the royals were well portrayed and it was a nice touch keeping the princes, William + Harry hidden from view.
72 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A tart, able tribute to two big Brits
Chris Knipp29 September 2006
Stephen Frears' The Queen, written by Peter Morgan (co-author of The Last King of Scotland) and starring Helen Mirren, is a glittering, compelling, solemnly anxious news comedy about the week in late summer, 1997, when Tony Blair, fresh in office as new-Liberal Prime Minister, "saved" the British royal family, or saved it from itself, when Lady Di died in Paris. Partly the Queen, Prince Philip, and Prince Charles, all in their own ways, loathed Diana for what she had done to them, which the public, conditioned by the mass media to adore her, could not know about. Partly the Queen wanted to shelter the boys, Diana's sons, from the noise of publicity, which would only aggravate their grief. Partly, and perhaps most of all, she was being the way she was raised, keeping things to herself, maintaining the immemorial English stiff upper lip. But also as Peter French has said about this film, the royal family "are shown to be morally and socially blinkered." Tony Blair reluctantly taught the Queen to see their absence of public response to the death, her insistence at first that it was a "private, family matte," was a disastrous policy that had to be reversed.

Diana had skillfully manipulated the media to form an image of herself combining Demi Moore and Mother Teresa. And she was still associated with the royal family, and appeared as wronged by them. You don't turn your back on that. You eat humble pie and play catch-up. But a monarch isn't tutored in such strategies.

No flag flew at half mast over Buckingham Palace, because that flagpole was used only for the royal flag, to show if anyone was home, and they were all at Balmoral, being private in their grief, avoiding publicity, and protecting the boys.

The Queen as seen here and imagined with enthusiasm by Morgan is not as witty as Alan Bennett's Queen, in her last on screen recreation, in A Question of Attribution (directed by John Schlesinger, 1992), nor does the estimable Ms. Mirren (who's nonetheless very fine) have the buoyancy of Prunella Scales in Schlesinger's film. But she is witheringly cold toward Tony Blair, all foolish smiles on his first official visit to the Palace. (Blair's played by Michael Sheen, who's experienced at this game.) As Peter Bradshaw wrote in The Guardian, "Mirren's Queen meets him with the unreadable smile of a chess grandmaster, facing a nervous tyro. She begins by reminding him that she has worked with 10 prime ministers, beginning with Winston Churchill, 'sitting where you are now'. As put-downs go, that's like pulling a lever and watching a chandelier fall on your opponent's head." Fully recognizing the crucial importance of the British monarchy, this film is tartly reserved about both sides of the game. The royal family don't like "call me Tony." And Blair's wife Cherie is a bit ungainly in her blatantly anti-monarchy attitudes. But when Blair sees how Elizabeth's coldness and invisibility is angering the fans of Dady Di – the media queen, the "People's Princess" -- alienating her own subjects en masse, he steps in and persuades them to leave Balmoral and look at the thousands of flowers for Di piled in front of the Palance with their humiliating notes; then deliver a "tribute" to Di on TV. The formal grandeur of the film inherent in its subject matter – the Prime Minister and the royal family – is offset by its ironies and by the intimacy of the tennis match that develops in communications back and forth by telephone.

This movie is ultimately kind to Blair and to the Queen. It makes us feel sorry for Elizabeth, whom Blair comes to defend (against some of his cockier associates, not to mention his wife) with ardor. In Peter Morgan's second imagined interview with Blair the Queen coolly observes that he confuses "humility" with "humiliation" (he hasn't seen the nasty notes on the bunches of flowers for Diana); and she sees his kindness as merely due to seeing that what has happened to her could happen to him as quickly. As for Blair, the Brits may have little use for him now, but the filmmakers acted out of the belief that this week when he averted disaster on behalf of the monarchy was his "finest hour." Frears has had a varied career, with high points second to few, concentrated in the decade of the Eighties after he came off doing a lot of television. These finest hours include My Beautiful Laundrette, Prick Up Your Ears, Dangerous Liaisons, and The Grifters. For a while there it looked like he could do anything, then more as if he would; but he's admirably willing to try new, as well as dirty, pretty, things, The Queen is dignified, but contemporary. It's bustling and grand. Loud music and vivid performances help. Mirren's Elizabeth is more of the Queen and less of the Queen than Prulella Scales' briefer performance. Bennett's Queen was very clever. Morgan's is sad and noble. The Queen, which is dignified, but contemporary, shows where the Brits are now, and the effect of Lady Di. QEII, like QEI and Victoria before her, has had an extraordinarily long and successful reign, half a century (obviously Mirren is younger than the actual Queen.) But with these events, with this crucial week, the days of her generation essentially ended.

There's a symbolic fourteen-point stag at Balmoral the men are interested in. James Cromwell's brusque, lordly Prince Philip will do nothing but take the boys hunting, to get them outside. In the end a corporate banker kills the stag on a neighbor's property, and only Elizabeth sees it, when she's stranded in a jeep she's driven into the mud, and crying.

For all its ceremony and noise, loneliness and wit, mostly The Queen simply tells a story, the new story of English royalty at the end of the twentieth century. It was a story worth telling, and it's told well.
157 out of 243 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Truly Moving Picture
tollini26 September 2006
I saw this film on September 25th, 2006 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival's Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "…explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.

Normally I am careful not to give away the ending of a movie in a comment. In this case, the story and the ending are already known. In 1997, Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris trying to escape from the paparazzi. This was about a year after her divorce with Prince Charles. Great Britain and the world mourned her loss in a surprisingly large way. It was as if Princess Diana was an assassinated world political or spiritual leader.

The royal family did not initially react to her death in a human or sensitive way. They alternately said it was a private affair or Princess Diana was no longer royalty since the divorce or we are protecting Princess Diana's two sons or let us grieve alone. But, they were coming off as cold and standoffish to the English people and they were causing the monarchy system to become unpopular and even despised. In steps the new young Prime Minister, Tony Blair, influences Queen Elizabeth II to mourn in public and bring a humanity to the English monarchy.

The real story is the journey of Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth II to get to this final destination.

It is hard to separate what is fact and what is made-up in this film. Many facts are certain because you see historical footage of the bunches of cut flowers growing in front of Buckingham Palace and the then President Clinton making a statement and many clips of Princess Diane throughout her life. But the many behind-the-scenes conversations had to be invented or recalled, so it has to be part fiction and part fact.

The monarchy is not treated kindly in this film. Prince Philip comes off as insensitive and a bearer of grudges. Prince Charles appears to be weak. Queen Elizabeth II, played brilliantly by Helen Mirren, comes off as reserved and complicated. And Tony Blair, played convincingly by Michael Sheen, trumps the royalty by being real and wise and likable.

The storytelling is compelling. Even though you know what will happen, you are intrigued by how the characters get to their ultimate positions.

In the end, Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair display a profound love for their country. It is really a story about public dignitaries trying to do the right thing for their country and their families.

FYI – There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where you can find a listing of past Crystal Heart Award winners as well as other Truly Moving Picture Award winners that are now either at the theater or available on video.
153 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Betty Windsor as we have never seen her before ...
Martin Bradley26 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.
119 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
A Royal Knockout
NormanCroucher23 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.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Paparazzi Kissed the Princess
The paparazzi kissed the princess that fateful week in 1997, but all the English people wanted was their Queen. Stephen Frears' competent, well written, expertly cast and intimate look into the Royal Family and British government in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death is a straightforward, no-nonsense stunner.

Operating both as a comedy of manners where the newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (an excellent Michael Sheen) must save the Royal Family from themselves before the Monarchy is tossed aside completely by an angry, guilt-ridden public desperately wanting a statement, a word of comfort, or at very least the presence in London of their Queen Elizabeth II (played masterfully by Helen Mirren, who is as cold and stubborn here as she was conflicted and passionate as Elizabeth I in the HBO miniseries of the same name earlier this year), and also as a surprisingly touching testament to the British people's love affair with Princess Diana and more importantly the Monarchy, "The Queen" succeeds splendidly on multiple levels.

Frears combines archival footage of a grieving public and newscasts with intertwining splices of historical recreations and fictionalized riffs on what it must've been like inside the Royal Chambers. The writers get the mannerisms of the Royals down perfect, as people with stiff upper lips who declare their outrage with words like "quite" and "that's not how it's done!" One miscalculation is when the writers try to create a connection between Blair's love for his deceased mother and his newfound sense of protectionism over Elizabeth. It's only surface level, and Freudian, and seems rather out of place in an otherwise totally British film. The rest of the Royals serve as a sideshow, with Prince Charles wimpy and ineffective in the presence of his mother, Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) a rowdy lout, and the Queen Mother (Sylvia Sims) providing equal parts comic relief and aristocratic wisdom to her daughter.

In the end, "The Queen" is a film that sneaks up on you, funnier and more touching than you imagined, and anchored by a classic turn from a consummate British actress as a Queen who desires to understand her people and do them proud while honoring the traditions of her lineage.
83 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
nuances of truth
Armand22 September 2012
beautiful, interesting, profound, real delight. movie of an actress. fresco of a slice from U.K. recent history.a jewel and subject of reflection. basic question - is it a true story ? it is difficult to say. so, the main gain is a impeccable performance and interesting recreation of atmosphere. Helen Mirren is amazing. and this is only fact who counts. because it is not exactly a portrait of queen Elizabeth II but demonstration of refined art of Helen Mirren. she is the Queen, a Queen from many others versions. credible, fragile, vulnerable and powerful. and this is basic virtue of film - humanization of a symbol.a window to a family and its system of affective protection. and the work is impressive.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
fourteen points
pookey5614 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
i've had a few days to think about THE QUEEN, and i say without shame that this is a perfectly constructed film with the necessary bonus of a great ensemble cast. This has got to be the great, Helen Mirren's year, in spite of everything. She has now recreated both ElizabethR's, and does it like nobody else. Watching the solid and versatile James Cromwell playing her idiot, cousin-husband was also very good; and i mean no offense to staunch royalists. British history and particularly it's ancient monarchy is one of my passions, so i waited for the films' release with anticipation. It was a true treat seeing Ms Sylvia Syms playing the queen mum. There are brief comments made about the royal family which are less than complimentary but true. But Mr Frears doesn't dwell on them, points out Elizabeth's devotion to her country and to her tradition, without hitting us over the head with it. I loved his film, THE GRIFTERS. THE QUEEN is equally as good. Some of my fellow film fans feel that the magnificent stag, so relentlessly hunted for it's fourteen points, represented Diana. For me, it represented the entire royal family, and especially the Queen. I loved the opening quotation assessed to Henry 4, who basically usurped the throne from family with a better claim: "uneasy is the head that wears the crown", or something close to that, For him, it was. But he did his fair share of back stabbing himself to retain power. The scene with Helen and Sylvia consulting about what to do was especially powerful. it's quite true that Elizabeth is descended from a long, unbroken line which precedes the Norman conquest. As queen, she has, imo, done everything she can and more to fulfill her obligations and her birth right, putting her country before anything else. The weak and ineffectual Charles wasn't man enough to marry the woman he loved. Some may argue that he was doing "his duty", but if he was, he destroyed a few lives along the way. And i do believe that yes indeed, he would let his mother take a bullet for him. Not nice to say, and perhaps a tad unfair. Elizabeth, on the other hand, threatened to abdicate as heir presumptive if she couldn't marry Phillip. Then there are the references to George the sixth's demise, from the stress of being King when he wasn't up to it, nor groomed for it. Well, other Kings had older brothers die,such as his own father; one was even passed over in favour of a younger one; others seized it. I think his excessive smoking and depleted immune system from generations of cousin-marrying probably didn't help, since he died from emphysema. or so we're told. But i admired him, and i adored his wife, the late Queen Consort Elizabeth. Don't get me wrong; i really feel no moral criticism about cousins marrying; but i do believe in hybrid vitality. And then there's the Hapsburgs! Her relationship with Tony Blair was believable and quite likely very close to the truth. I do believe i recently watched Mr. Sheen portray the insane emperor Nero... This is a glorious, tasteful film with an unbelievable performance by Helen Mirren. It may not be everybody's "cup of tea", but it is a gem. *I wish i could have had a better look at those portraits hanging behind The Queen. There were her grandparents, her great grandparents, and Victoria, i believe, who was her great great great grandmother...spectacular collection of art and portraits...some were cut off at the waist, headless..like that magnificent stag....
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Queen Helen Mirren
Chrysanthepop21 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.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
I'm impressed!
hotaroo15 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm impressed. The movie is good, and truthful. I'm not to judge how close to the truth were Balmoral scenes, but behavior of public and tabloids was perfectly recreated.

Warning, SPOILERS ahead.

The cast is wonderful. Hellen Mirren as Her Majesty The Queen and Michael Sheen as labor Prime Minister Tony Blair are as good as perfect. During the Queen's speech to the nation on live TV I wasn't able to determine if it was Mirren's voice, or the real Queen speaking. Often I found myself thinking that I'm watching archive material from that period's news, but then it turned out that the actors recreated everything! Wow! Both of them carry the movie and Mirren's award from Venice is well deserved. What's interesting, is that there are practically no right or wrong sides of the conflict here. At the beginning Blair is trying to mate with the public, but realizing that by doing this he undermines the monarchy, he is trying to correct the error. The Queen is keeping her ground, not bending to the tabloids demanding royal tributes paid to Diana (lower the royal flag on the mast above the Buckingham Palace, go back to London, live TV speech to the nation – something that wasn't done even when the previous king died!); while the Queen wishes to keep the matter private, to deal with it as a family, not The Royal Family, because Diana was no longer a part of it. The ending is very straightforward. Ironically, each side is presenting the other's point of view: Blair is bashing his adviser demanding respect for the Queen and talking about all the sacrifices she had to commit. The Queen is pointing out to Blair why he had changed his attitude and prophets the same treating from tabloids as the one she got. The most powerful scene for me was the one when the Queen returns to Buckingham Palace and takes a walk by the gate, looking at the flowers and cards left there by the public. No one really realized until now, that the Queen really must have seen what was written on these cards! And I felt ashamed… "Diana, you were too good for them" or "Your blood is on their hands". There are fragments of interviews with Diana where she indirectly accuses the Queen of what bad had happened to her. Only today I realized, that Diana was attacking a person unable to defend herself! We don't really expect the Queen to appear on Jonathan Ross' to present her part of the story, do we? And there is a second face of this coin. The subplot of hunting and killing of a deer is script writer's comment on the monarchy. And a prophecy - very sad, at that. I know that it makes this movie a little bit more fictional, but the message had to be sent.

I loved it. Made me realize something that I thought I knew – the Queen is a living and breathing person. And that Diana was not the only victim of the media then. So was the Queen, and the monarchy.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Howling Hysterical Sorrow
James Hitchcock11 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
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The monarchy survives
Andrew Marshall5 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The People's Princess, The Prime Minister and The Queen
Claudio Carvalho4 February 2008
In 1997, after the death of Lady Di in a car accident in Paris, the reluctant Queen (Helen Mirren) and The Establishment do not accept to honor the "People's Princess" as a member of the Royal Family. However, the public and the media question the utility of the monarchy and the just-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) advises the Queen to make a public speech mourning the loss of Diana.

"The Queen" is probably the best performance of Helen Mirren in the cinema. This film reconstitutes the days after the death of Lady Di, showing the conservative and cold behavior of the Royal Family, and how the people questioned the reason for being of the parasite monarchy. Stephen Frears entwines archive footages with his filming and the result is a good movie, especially for those viewers that followed carefully those days. I am not sure whether the attention (and grieving) of the Queen with the stag shot by a guest is real or fictional to know whether this scene was manipulative or really happened, but it is very impressive. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Rainha" ("The Queen")
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Please Understand: This Is A Work Of Fiction
saintorr18 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.
34 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Rare insights and an emotionally rewarding film
Chris_Docker18 September 2006
Imagine for a moment you are newly elected landslide Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and your modernising beliefs don't really welcome obeisance to an outdated monarchy. Princess Diana dies, and the nation turns with venomous tooth and claw (aided perhaps by a certain spin doctor) against the Royals. A golden opportunity? But Blair feels there is something unseemly about tearing the Queen to bits and, in the middle of the crisis, kicks in some damage control.

This is the dynamic of power that bounces back and forth, aided by shrewish asides from Cherie Blair ("Off to see the girlfriend, then?") and her hilarious curtsy that manages to be respectful while still taking the p*ss. Delivering a sparkly dialogue and an especially witty battle between monarch and minister, director Stephen Frears' central accomplishment still has to be casting Helen Mirren as the Queen. No hard-line royalist, Mirren has said she thought twice before accepting her honours as a Dame of the British Empire in 2003, but her portrait here is convincingly astute, supporting a remarkable physical transformation with a sensitive characterisation that endears the Queen to us and renders her majesty's charisma all the more apparent.

In an early scene where the Queen is chatting to her portrait artist, she mentions the coming election and expresses a longing to vote, just once, for "the sheer joy of being partial." The artist reminds her that it is, after all, her government, and Queen Elizabeth retorts, "Yes, I suppose that's some consolation." Obviously there's some things money can't buy.

The film examines her character, her stoical dignity born of years of tolerance not of her choosing, and is maybe so gripping because previous portraits have been little more than a regal cipher. At the end, we feel that we have been privy to the private life of a person who, like her or not, is a feature of everyone's life in the UK. It maybe lacks the grandeur that is traditionally associated with the Queen, but is nevertheless a fairly sympathetic portrait. When Blair tells her how her ratings have dropped to an all time low, she is genuinely upset that she has failed to read her public - to whom she has devoted her life. The film, with all its light-hearted touches, maybe even assists the process of 'modernisation' that the Monarchy now believes is inevitable.

Much of the power in the performances is from unexpressed emotion. All the players are in such important positions that displays of feeling are usually taboo, publicly and sometimes privately as well. After her husband takes her grandchildren stag hunting to 'take their mind off things', the Queen is privately close to shedding a tear for the stag. A moment in the Balmoral countryside when she is alone with the creature reveals a sense of wonder in her that she cannot communicate to the human companions of her world, and she visits the body of the beast (when it is later killed by a neighbour) with more alacrity than she feels towards a dead daughter-in-law who has been her near ruin. Diana, in life, was perhaps also isolated, and we are reminded of her devotion to causes such as banning land-mines - causes to which she could unleash her emotion and, fortunately for her, to which the public could also identify.

The film evokes strong feelings - not least in bringing back the sense of national mourning that followed Diana's death (actual footage is used and the moments leading to the car crash are movingly re-created) even if this goes on to an almost sugary excess. Add to that the crisis of feelings within the Royal Family itself, the sense of isolation felt by the Queen, and the release of the film near the end of Blair's career, and you have a movie that presents a whirlwind of emotion that will thrill public tastes.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews