Voting
Quality
Age
 
Voting
Quality
Age

Сomments

This movie has some great actors who do amazing jobs but it just isn't a story that I found very easy to get into. It is completely appropriate for all ages but is very hard to understand even for young teens. This movie is meant for someone that has followed the story very closely from the beggining since it doesn't give many factors on what actualy happened in the accident. But I would recommend this film anyhow just to show the way that the people reacted to their loss, and to see the reaction of the English Queen. We recommend this film for a day that you have nothing better to do then to sit infront of the T.V

:rolleyes: :confused:
An imaginary tale of how Queen Elizabeth of England coped with Princess Diana's death.

Excellent casting, and some studied their real life characters so well, that the persona resemblance was uncanny. Nevertheless, it was palpable that this was a reenactment drama, and each talent brought a new dimension to the characters.

Such exemplar performances was only made possible because of a fantastic script that shed layers off the characters in its plot progression. Very well written, and plot evolved at just the right speed for audience to contemplate the fate of the royals as the characters did in the film.

The script also included motifs and props that symbolized the monarchy, its heiress and its stance within society. Taking a subject so sensational in the UK and across the world to dissect it sociologically and psychologically, the film succeeds in giving the story a depth that none of the paparazzi/media accounts were able to illustrate.

Corny ending does take away a bit from the whole experience, but not too gravely. Some of the reenactments I can not even fathom producing on set...production design accounted well for mis en scene, but must have proved to be an expensive production.

June 28, 2007
...Hm, I don't know. I think pretty much everyone will agree with me when I say 2006 was a pretty bad year for movies. In that sense, this quite good movie could very well be the best movie of last year. However, despite the fact that I am indeed giving it a 9, it wasn't quite as good as I imagined. The Queen's ending came rather suddenly, and it seemed a lot shorter than it actually was.

I suppose the main forte was the acting. Helen Mirren was flawless as Queen Elizabeth II. Truly flawless. She looks very very similar to her, she got the accent right as well, and she is just a great actress in general. This movie rather adroitly straddled the line between apathy and sympathy, concerning the queen, and I think only Helen Mirren could have portrayed the queen in the middle ground. It would have been far too easy for another actress to overbalance and portray the queen in entirely the wrong light. So while the queen did some questionable things at this point in history, Helen Mirren made them seem sensible and, if not sensible, at least understandable.

Michael Sheen also made a great Tony Blair. It was him and Helen that made me appreciate of the movie's accuracy. They both look shockingly like the characters they're playing. In docudramas, that's a pretty important standard to meet, because if you just hire some good actor who doesn't fit the part, then you aren't as convinced that you're watching real people making real decisions. But the casting was dead on, and I'm happy that it was. Plus Michael Sheen also played the part just as perfectly as he looked it.

Interestingly enough, I didn't even know what I was expecting when this movie came along. It was some Indie movie back in 2006, and then it began gaining enormous critical acclaim. Then it was released outward, and my interest in it had grown considerably. I asked my family if they wanted to see it, and they didn't. I asked my friends if they wanted to see it...and they didn't. So I had to wait and wait for it to come out on DVD before I could see it. Meanwhile, I kept hearing about all the awards the movies won/should have won. It was borderline tormentuous. Not because I really really wanted to see it, necessarily, but more because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about but was unable to. Obviously I expected it to be great, but I was more curious than impatient. And then finally it came out on DVD, and I put it on Netflix immediately. It was only when the opening credits began popping up that I realized I had no idea what I was about to see. I was half inclined to check RT to see exactly what was going on in this movie, but I decided not to.

My presupposition was that it would involve the queen and her day to day life. I figured that sounded like a good concept for the film, since just about everyone on Earth has no idea what it's like to be a queen of any country. But as it turns out, this movie focused more on the queen's reaction to the death of Princess Diana. The movie was more about that event than the queen herself. But that doesn't mean the queen wasn't a major part of the movie. The death of Princess Diana served as a springboard of sorts for her, and it was her reaction to the tragedy that the film was highlighting most of the time.

As I said before, this movie did a marvelous job of juggling emotions and perspectives. The queen herself didn't let on much, but it was still fairly easy to see what was going on in her mind. The camera centered on her a lot of the time, following her around as she struggled to cope with the event. Her face had no real dynamic changes, but her tone of voice and the words she used spoke much louder than her body language. It's this sort of subtlety that tends to ward off some moviegoers, because it's a lot easier to read an angry face than judge angry words. To lesser minds, this must indeed seem like a boring film to watch. I thought it was a welcome change, though, to have the queen so reserved, especially in contrast to some of the more exuberant characters around her. Even her own husband was much more outspoken.

However, that didn't stop the queen from having a sense of humor and a sharp wit. When the movie first started, I found myself laughing at some funny parts. I wondered if I even should be laughing; I had assumed this would be a much more serious movie. But there was no mistaking it; the queen was deliberately being funny. I suppose that clued me in on what I was supposed to be seeing. Maybe I was a little blind after having seen The Remains of the Day, but I expected something a little similar to happen here. I had no idea what I was supposed to get out of this film, but my best guess would have been that I was going to see the stresses of being the queen of a whole country. That's what happened, in a way, but the movie was also saying more than that. I wasn't watching a strict, intelligent, logical figure that I expected to be watching. I was watching Queen Elizabeth II. She is indeed queen of England, but she's a person just like myself or anyone else. She makes mistakes, she can have fun, she can be stubborn, and she can display any given emotion at any given time. Maybe that was partially the point of the film, or maybe I just think it was. Either way, I was freed of my preconceptions.

The mistakes of the queen played a big part in this movie's story. I'm not all that up-to-date on the workings of the British monarchy, so I never knew all that friction existed between the queen and Princess Diana. When the princess died, I expected the queen to completely break down. But it soon became apparent to me that their relationship was a rather bitter one, far from what I expected. Anger is a powerful emotion; it can blind a person more easily than any other emotion (except perhaps love). The queen makes the mistake of thinking all of her subjects thought what she thought of Princess Diana. She didn't understand all the crying and the memorials being held for the woman, because it just didn't make sense to her.

And here we have some more shattering of illusions. The queen maintained that she mustn't show any weakness in this time of grief for her people. But by completely avoiding the subject, her message of strength was quite misinterpreted by the people. They believed she didn't care about Princess Diana's death, and this was the catalyst that started something of a rebellion amongst the British folks. In her ivory tower, the queen didn't seem to realize this. It was up to Mr. Blair to let the queen know how the public was taking all of this. A lot of the time, though, Blair's simple suggestions, such as raising the flag at half mast, were met with stubbornness on behalf of the queen, who refused to do such a thing when it hadn't been done in centuries and centuries. Her belief in tradition was, in essence, digging her own grave, and as the days passed, more and more people felt resentment toward the allegedly coldhearted queen.

In writing, it actually doesn't seem like a compelling or interesting story. But there's a lot more to it when you see it on screen. From my summary, it must look as though the queen is some witch who didn't even care that the Princess had been killed. Well, the film does a much better job of recounting this tragedy than I do. While that was indeed the belief of the people, and Mr. Blair as well, at some points, the movie follows the queen through the entire event, and it shows what the people couldn't see behind the closed doors. The queen isn't just single-minded and indifferent; she simply has a somewhat skewed vision of what her country believes. By the film's end, you view the queen as more of a victim than anything. And that's why the movie earns a 9 from me. I think there actually are a couple of superior films that came from last year, but this one definitely does rank among the best of them. It's a great movie. It's not for everyone, as docudramas always are, but for those who enjoy this sort of movie, you can't get much better than The Queen.
I cannot believe this film has got 97% on this site. And the list of awards is endless. It's absolutely pathetic, because this is a truly dreadful, stupid film, and I find it simply ridiculous that anyone could be taken in by it. It's 90 minutes of propaganda. It might as well be a Nazi recruitment video.

Let me first draw your attention to this quote, from the film's scriptwriter, Peter Morgan. "As far as I am aware, I wrote about a cold, emotionally detached, haughty, difficult, prickly, private, uncommunicative, out-of-touch bigot. But people adore her i.e., because they think it was written with compassion and integrity rather than being a hatchet job." He's also stated that the film was not intended to as an historically accurate representation of the Queen's role.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You're making a film about the Queen of England, and you're not making it accurate? You're making up a REAL-LIFE PERSON. Not just any person. The head of state of the United Kingdom. This man is an absolute fool, and he doesn't deserve to work again. I just cannot believe any scriptwriter could be so stupid. And yet he's sitting on millions of pounds, while I sit on my bed writing this. The world is mad.

The film is all about the events after Diana's death in 1997.

First of all, it's completely historically inaccurate. The most obvious being the glaring error of date. Diana's crash occured on Sunday, 31st August 1997. NOT Sunday, 30th August 1997, as the film so 'accurately' informs us. There's also a couple of people who are being portrayed in incorrect roles

There's the constant digs at the government. The film depicts Tony Blair wearing a football shirt on the day of Diana's death. There's the sole mention of Gordon Brown. 'Gordon's on the phone.' Blair - 'Tell him to hold on.' I assume that's an attempt at a joke. It doesn't work.

Then there's Blair on the phone with the Queen's personal secretary. 'Was that it?' They have portrayed Blair like a commoner in some parts, like anybody could walk off the street and fill his place. Might I suggest, given Blair's young age and inexperience, that he may have said something along the lines of 'Was there anything else?' or 'Can I help you with anything else?'

There's Cherie Blair, who could easily be the Queen based on this. Constantly criticising the Queen and Royal Family, and bossing Tony about. And what rubbish to come out her mouth. 'We have no constitution.' Britain is a democracy, of course there's a bloody constitution. Just because it's uncodified doesn't mean it isn't there. How on earth does Britain have any laws if there's no constitution? The scriptwriters really have got to sort this stuff out if they don't want to get ridiculed. What a stupid line to put in.

Then there's this pathetic Blair versus Queen conflict. During a phone call between the two, the Queen decides to clean her glasses and put her pens parallel to one another. She has more interest in cleaning and moving things around than paying attention to what Blair is saying.

Then there's the attitude of the Royal Family. The TVs and jeeps are all very old, mirroring their opinions. Old and out of date. Philip - 'I thought you were going to a get a new one (jeep).' Queen - 'There's nothing wrong with this one.'

Then there's this tiny fact. These conversations are all made up, with probably around 70% of the events also fabricated. This is such a stupid film which really doesn't deserve to be in cinemas.

The film has no idea at all what it supports. Does it support Blair, who is depicted as a rude, football supporter? Or does it support the Queen, portrayed as a stiff upper lipped block of ice?

Stephen Frears directs, and I'm a fan of his, since he's done High Fidelity and Dangerous Liasons, two very good films, but this Queen nonsense is ludicrous. He did the TV Movie 'The Deal' in 2003, something I haven't seen, nor do I wish to see if it's the same as this awful political movie.

Scott Rudin produces, with Peter Morgan doing the screenplay, the same chap that did The Last King of Scotland. There's a lot of talent behind this film, but it falls on its face because it's all SPECULATIVE.

This is not based on a true story. The only thing that is known for sure is that Diana died and that the Queen stayed in Balmoral for a few days after the event to great public outcry. That's as far as it goes. Everything else is made up.

Yes Helen Mirren does a good job, but it's absolutely pathetic that anybody in such a poor film should get an Oscar. And it's absolutely pathetic that this film has received so many awards simply because it's about Princess Diana. It's utterly absurd. People will wince at that line, but it's true. The film is used as propaganda to gain more support for Diana. If the film had nothing to do with Diana, it wouldn't have won a single award. If it was based on the Iraq war for instance.

You'll succeed only in wasting time by watching this garbage. It's 90 minutes of political garbage, serving only to weaken the Queen's popularity, and strengthen Blair's, while also weakening it. It's not a good job. In fact it's a long way away from a good job.

Don't get me wrong I love summer blockbuster movies. In fact it is my favorite time to dish out ten bucks to go see a movie. However with all the explosions, special effects, transforming robots, animated rats and yellow-skin hygincs. It's nice to sit down a watch a film that is purely story driven, that relies on the actors to push things forward and not a billon-dollar budget. And that is exactly what The Queen does. Now I know that I am catching this captavating flim a bit late, but hey better late then never right? I can see why Heneln Mirren won best actress for her role(at least I think she did?), she truly transformed into the queen. Also I was quite a bit younger when the whole Princess Di thing was going on and I never really realized what an impact her life and death had over England and indeed the whole world, The Queen may not be for the hardcore action movie fans, it does move at fairly slow pace. But with such a great cast and story it may be slow but far from boring.:fresh:

THE QUEEN
(STEPHEN FREARS, 2006)
PG-13
1 HOUR 43 MINUTES


I really didn�t want to see this movie, because films about royalty or any sort of outdated customs tend to bore me and piss me off, even if it�s critical. But I wanted to check out Mirren�s performance, and I also like almost everything I�ve seen from Stephen Frears. His direction definitely saves the film, and keeps it interesting and different enough to sit through without much effort. But I certainly wouldn�t call it required viewing, and it�s ultimately pretty forgettable. Mirren is definitely believable, and I wouldn�t call all the hype outrageous, but personally, I didn�t get much of hard-on for it. Usually I find this sort of fare overly intellectual (which is never good for me, as I am 90% retarded) but surprisingly, I thought this was almost too spoonfed, and that its point was made practically before the credits rolled and then it just kept hammering it in. Read the tagline on the poster, and you�ve already pretty much waded as deep into the thought pool as this movie dares to take you.
I actually feel guilty about not really liking this movie all that much. I found it rather dull. I do think Helen Mirren played an excellent Queen, though a rather dull Queen. And I fell asleep near the end so I am not sure what happened though I am pretty certain it wasn't very profound.

The whole movie is about how the Royals dealt with the death of Princess Diana. How newly appointed Prime Minister Tony Blair felt about it all & his advice to the Queen. Etc.....
Best in Show: Helen Mirren
One for the future: Michael Sheen
Stand-out scene: Queen and the stag
Brainer or no-brainer: Brainer
Stands up to one viewing or repeated?: Repeated
DVD commentary any good?: n/a

TV
A partly reconstructed, partly imagined account of the Royal Family's reaction to the death of Diana, this engaging and engrossing drama rightfully rewarded Helen Mirren with the Best Actress Oscar. The Queen's relationship with the newly elected Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) makes for a fascinating sub-plot and Sheen clearly relishes the chance to play Blair again following the massive success of the TV single drama The Deal. With her anti-monarchist background, Mirren would seem an unlikely choice to deliver a sympathetic portrayal of Her Majesty, but you'll find little to fault in the actresses' performance which garnered her her third Oscar nomination (the first two nods were for her Best Supporting roles in Gosford Park and The Madness of King George).

With a fair smattering of archive footage, this has an authentic feel about it, even if you're constantly questioning whether the fictional areas of the story could be fact. The pivotal scene for me came when The Queen stops by to view the body of a slayed magnificent stag she had previously encountered at Balmoral. The filmmakers deny that there is any symbolism in the animal's presence and looking on message boards, many have interpreted the stag as representing Diana. I took a different view however, and drew much from the fact that that while in this story the Queen seemed profoundly moved by the death of the animal, she was cold and unfeeling when the news of Diana's death broke. Of course her first concerns were for the two princes, Harry and William and who's to know the reality except for Her Majesty herself. As a means to get you thinking more about the surrounding circumstances and the widespread outpouring of grief that carried through to the end of 1997 this movie more than justifies its existence.

As a Granada movie, this took less than a year to reach UK TV screens and the presence of the likes of Sylvia Syms, James Cromwell and Helen McCrory (as Cherie Blair) enhances the project's credibility. A right Royal treat.
The Queen
:fresh: 8/10


Being a movie geek I've seen some 'great' on film performances in my lifetime. There are few times however that some rise above that 'great' level to the extraordinary... the absolutely astonishingly brilliant. Helen Mirren starring as Elizabeth II give us such a performance here in The Queen... a smartly crafted, fascinating character study of the Royal Family the week Princess Diana passed on.

Michael Sheen who stars here as Tony Blair the new (at that time) Prime Minister of England must be complimented as well. His performance was spot on. This is a highly entertaining and surprisingly witty, humorous film that needs to be seen and appreciated by more folks out there. Kudos to Director Stephen Frears for piecing together such a fine film.


The Queen Photos: Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell, Stephen Frears.
Report a problem