I took a pass on reviewing “The Queen” after my first viewing of the film because, well, it sucked. It was also boring as hell, but with the DVD hitting stores on April 24th, it seemed as good of time as any to revisit my thoughts on the Stephen Fears-directed drama.
Now, I tend to believe that I have quite the mental stamina when it comes to watching movies, but there’s not a single thing that happens in “The Queen” that even pretends to hold your interest. The Queen walks around her bazillion-yard estate, takes her dogs out for some fresh air, and does a whole lot of talking about things like British politics and such, but none of it really matters to the average moviegoer. The film is set around the Princess Diana tragedy (and how the country responds), but I would have much rather just watched a movie about Diana.
Based on the shakedown of every major (and minor) awards show of the year, it seems Helen Mirren was unbeatable. The performance definitely has its merits, but did every other actress in that category deserve such a thrashing? Not in the slightest. Plus, Michael Sheen’s turn as newly-elected British Prime Minister Tony Blair is far more remarkable than that of Mirren, so why didn’t he recieve even half as much acclaim?
Maybe it’s all part of some secret conspiracy by the Queen herself, but I’m more apt to believe that the film simply had a little luck on its side. You see, when a handful of respected film critics praise a particular film, the rest of the film critic community commonly follows suit, whether the movie deserves it or not. Unfortunately, “The Queen” doesn’t. It’s a well-made film in the tradition of BBC-produced dramas, but it would have been better off competing for an Emmy than an Oscar.

