Dargis on "The Queen"

• email this story
• read comments (13)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

The Queen is a witty, very dry Stephen Frears film about the almost-comical aloofness and generally queer behavior exhibited by Queen Elizabeth II and her family in the wake of the 1997 death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Helen Mirren, as noted in my initial review, is fairly wonderful in the title role, and the film does gain slightly after a second viewing. But if you pay to see The Queen this weekend you will notice, trust me, a difference between the projected experience that fills the screen and the one that Manohla Dargis describes and does cart- wheels over in this N.Y. Times review.

As Sigmund Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

comment #1

Kristopher Tapley says ...

You wear your professional beefs on your shoulder a lot, don't you?

comment #2

Ian Sinclair says ...

At Rotten Tomatoes THE QUEEN reigns with 100% Cream of the Crop and 96% overall, making it not only an extremely fresh tomato but at this moment in time the only probable Best Picture Oscar contender released this year with Helen Mirren the surefire Best Actress winner. Things may change, but at the moment everyone on the planet loves the picture apart from Mr. Wells, who must feel as lonely as he was when the Lord of the Rings pictures were released.

comment #3

JD says ...

Is it just me or does Jeff seem to complain way too often that other critics see TOO MUCH in particular movies? Isn't it possible, Jeff, that you don't see enough? I hate to bring up a touchy subject, but Marie-Antoinette immediately comes to mind.

comment #4

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to JD: Darn it, you nailed me...and I can't wiggle out of it. I'm not bright or observant enough to have recognized and savored the bountiful riches in Sofia Coppola's "Marie-Antoinette." I knew something was wrong, and now you've clarified. Thanks.

comment #5

Edward says ...

You people who have to get all snide and PO'd at Jeffrey should read what he said. He liked "The Queen," just not as much as other critics. He's welcome to his opinion, let the man do his job.

comment #6

JD says ...

The issue isn't whether he liked the film or not, Edward. The issue is his constant belittling of other critics as if he's THE ULTIMATE FILM JOURNALIST and they're just senseless children, unable to see the world as clearly as him. I wouldn't feel compelled to criticize Wells if he would just stick to reviewing movies and stop reviewing other critics. Don't you find his neverending pose of superiority and intolerance a little arrogant? I'd much rather read some insightful film analysis but, ever since Jeff got blacklisted by all the publicists in Hollywood, he doesn't write about movies anymore.

comment #7

Dixon Steele says ...

JD,

As critical as I can be of Jeff (and I don't hesitate), the last time I checked it's HIS blog.

If you don't like his style or methods, you can always choose not to read his posts, or ignore the ones you think will upset you.

Then you can read some insightful film analysis, which isn't always what he's about.

For better or worse (and yes, sometimes it's the latter), HE is the World According to JW. Nothing more or less.

comment #8

JD says ...

Yes, this is Jeff's blog, but THIS is his readers' comments section. Should this space be reserved for born-again true believers of the word of Wells and no one else? That's not good for the site and it's not good for its readers. Why allow a comments section to exist if it's only intended for agreement? Jeff deliberately takes polarizing, extremist positions. That being the case, I don't see why people would resist debate.

comment #9

Dixon Steele says ...

My point, JD, is that if JW wants to "review" other critics, shouldn't he have that right, especially on his own blog?

Isn't this the kind of debate you mention in your last post? Or is it only YOUR debate you're concerned with?

comment #10

JD says ...

Okay Dixon, so he can argue against critics, but I can't argue against his arguments against critics? That doesn't seem fair.

I'm not saying it should be outlawed or he should be prohibited from reviewing other critics (after all, who's gonna stop him?), I was just offering my opinion that Jeff is not at his best when engaging in these pety competitions with his rivals. If you disagree, fine. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but why are you suggesting that I'm not?

comment #11

Dixon Steele says ...

I'm not, J.D. Look at your post again.

It's YOU who's suggesting what Jeff should or shouldn't criticize, not the other way around.

Enough already...

comment #12

JD says ...

I didn't demand that Jeff stop belittling other critics, I just said that I would feel less compelled to criticize him if he did. Why are you so outraged by that?

comment #13

Dixon Steele says ...

I'm not outraged. Just feel compelled to point out your hypocracy, that's all.

Post a Comment