It should have been called 'Blair'

Rating: Null/10 (17 July 2007)

The Queen's film title is a bit misleading as this isn't a film about the Queen or her life, but about the manner in which the monarchy reacted to the untimely death of Princess Diana and of how much at odds to the mood of the public this reaction was. As such, it works very well, juxtaposing the royal family's stiff-upper-lip approach to the situation, more correctly belonging to a past generation, with the uncharacteristic public display of grief from the public. In fact, we see no real grief as such from any member of the royals (William and Harry are frequently referred to but play no major part in the film). This change in the nation's outlook and behaviour is signified by the landslide victory of Tony Blair at the general election just a few months before Diana's death, and the rejection of the conservative values under which the country had been governed for the previous eighteen years.
The story is allegedly closely based on real conversations that took place during the week following Diana's death and, it has to be said, to me it looked a little too much like an Uncle Tony love-fest. In touch with the nation, resolute in his convictions, and his own man despite the machinations on his behalf by a breezily cynical Alistair Campbell, Blair comes out of the production as a true prince. I almost ended up liking him myself, and I can't stand the bloke in real life. Cherie too, true to her own anti-royalist beliefs, while not perhaps gleaming as brightly as her husband, still comes out of the whole thing with a positive slant. For me, this has to throw into question the veracity of the maker's claims that events on screen closely mirror those in real life. The film is too pro-Blair (even to the point of fabricating his embarrassment during his first audience with the Queen to, presumably, provoke audience sympathy with his character  and to coax it away from the Queen).
Mirren is near faultless as HRH (as is Michael Sheen as Blair) and, while it has to be said that she is never treated as anything less than a fair and caring person, prone to the same self-doubts and concerns experienced by us all at some time or another, she emerges in only a slightly better light than when the film began. And even this is only because Blair helped her to see the light and get a little more in tune with the people. The rest of the royal family are treated as the stereotypical nutters the popular press would have us believe they truly are (and it's probably important to state here that I'm not a Royalist and I strongly question the relevance of any royal family in this day and age). Philip is the curmudgeonly old fart, rigidly locked into the attitudes and protocol of a bygone age, while Prince Charles is portrayed as a somewhat weak and vaguely pathetic character, allowing himself to be bullied to a degree by his mother while allying himself with Blair to ensure any fallout lands on her shoulders. He is also borderline paranoid about being shot by a sniper because of his unpopularity, apparently.
The film seems to both admire the idea of the monarchy (its passing symbolised by a stag with which the Queen comes to identify  and which is shot, not by a prince, but by a commoner staying at a nearby commercial property), while neither praising its, admittedly reluctant, willingness to change or mourning its passing. As entertainment it is passable, and anyone who remembers those remarkable days after Diana's death will have their memories of that time revived, but as a dramatic account of actual events - I would have to say it is questionable in the extreme.