Amazing script, even more amazing performances, this film reveals a fundamental truth.

Rating: 10/10 (8 December 2008)

DEFINITE SPOILERS
This film captured not just the essence of the British Monarchy, but the relationship the British people have with it, and even the national character, not to mention putting everything the public has gleaned (or could have gleaned, had they/we cared to look beyond the immediate) of the British Royal Family, itself.
If you ask the casual observer about the Windsors, s/he may very well parrot Cherie Blair's virulent anti-monarchy remarks about how soulless/shallow/parasitical they are. And the film absolutely shows how out of touch HM is (or, perhaps, seemed) with the thoughts/views/feelings of the modern-day British subject.
However, we must look closer - and the film not just allows us to do so, it does so for us: it is Tony Blair who becomes the vehicle for revealing the truth. He starts off the film feeling as others do, but after seeing HM close up, hearing what she has to say on the subject of propriety & guidance - the 2 things which are demanded most of her - he comes to see not just HM's point of view, but the worth of the Monarchy itself. He starts off by all-but-agreeing with his wife on the subject of the Royal Family - and ends the film by lambasting those who dare to criticize the Queen.
Another way in which HM's vision of Britain is portrayed is through the stag. Prince Philip et al are seen treating the stag as centuries of Britons have treated them: stalking carefully over days, taking care to keep the "contest" as level as possible (even if you hate hunting as much as I do, you must understand that this is the intent). And what happens to the stag? A "commercial guest" of a once-proud neighboring manor is all-but handed the stag through the careful staging of beaters, still manages to botch the job, and the beaters must finish off the poor animal. I used to think that the stag was Diana, killed through her courting the vulturazzis, who could then not be "turned off", but I have come to see that the stag as a metaphor of the British character, damaged through abandoning traditional British ways. Anyone doubting my interpretation has only to look at the undisputed historical facts of the film: even while mourning the woman who seemingly rejected everything for which the Monarchy stands (and mourning her because of that stance), what did the people want? Or, more tellingly, who? They wanted their Queen. Exactly in the manner of grieving children wanting Mommy to come tell them everything will be all right (& this is not meant as an insult to those who felt that way: it is a human condition).
(NOTE: it has come to my attention that the director, himself, has spoken out on the reaction to the film, & particularly this part of it. He has said that the stag was meant to signify the Monarchy, itself, and that the use of an old stag, with an astonishing number of points was deliberate, because, as was made clear in the dialogue, it would normally have been shot long before. But he has also said that this, as well as his entire portrayal of HM & the Monarchy, was NOT meant to be positive, & that he is amazed by how many people felt "sympathetic" to the Queen after viewing the movie. So even if I did not grasp what he wanted to say, neither did the bulk of his viewers: What this says to me is that there are some fundamental truths that no movie maker can ever destroy if he is honest in his subjects.)
Helen Mirren, of course, was spectacular. James Cromwell was luckily very good - he looks as much like Prince Philip as any actor could get, so it's a good thing he could pull it off. Michael Sheen was also aided by physical resemblance. One hopes for Cherie Blair's sake that Helen McCrory's interpretation of her was terrible! Prince Charles was captured very well by Alex Jennings: the indecisiveness brought on by years of the Establishment contradicting his thoughts/views/ideas, the frustration at not just that, but in dealing with Diana, or getting anyone to believe his side of the story (that one anguished outburst of "Now they see what it was like!", & that Diana's public and private personnae were maddeningly disparate, cut right to the heart of it). Sylvia Sims also evoked the Queen Mother very thoroughly - and I am extremely grateful for and admiring of the director's decision never to show the younger princes in any real detail. It's bad enough we eavesdrop on the elders - they should be allowed as much privacy as possible. After all, a good deal of film was about their privacy - and what lack of privacy can do to a person.
I watch this film over and over - it's riveting.