Movie Review Marshall

Marshall (2017) 

Directed by Reginald Hudlin 

Written by Michael Koskoff, Jacob Koskoff 

Starring Chadwick Boseman, Sterling K. Brown, Josh Gad, Kate Hudson, Dan Stevens, James Cromwell

Release Date October 13th, 2017 

Marshall stars rising superstar Chadwick Boseman in the role of legendary Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Set years before Marshall rose to be one of the most respected judges in the country, at a time when black people were still fighting for civil rights, Marshall is a terrific introduction to the man. Boseman, future star of Marvel’s Black Panther, demonstrates the supreme intelligence and charisma that Marshall no doubt possessed as he came up through the ranks of the NAACP to become a leader.

Marshall is set in 1940 when Thurgood Marshall was just getting started with the NAACP. In Bridgeport, Connecticut a black man named Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown) stands accused of raping the wife of his employer, a woman named Eleanor Strubing (Kate Hudson). The story being told is that Spell raped Strubing twice before forcing her into a vehicle and driving her to a bridge where he threw her over the side. Strubing survived and managed to swim to shore and flag down a passing vehicle to take her to the police.

Marshall arrives in Bridgeport with plans of representing Spell but first he needs a lawyer to sponsor him with the Connecticut bar. Sam Friedman (Josh Gad) had no intention of being that lawyer, but when his brother volunteers him to help, Friedman finds himself thrust into the limelight. Things get further complicated for Friedman when a racist judge, James Cromwell, decides not to allow Marshall to be Spell’s lawyer and instead assigns the case to Friedman, who’d never tried a criminal case before.

With the odds stacked against them, Marshall and Friedman must become a team and find some way to defend their client against a system eager to wrap up the case and move on. As you can imagine, the fate of black man in court in 1940 accused of raping a white woman probably seemed like a lost cause, even in the supposedly progressive Northern states. A racist judge and prosecutor, who have a personal connection to one another that should disqualify them, only stack the odds further against our heroes.

Find my full length review in the Geeks Community on Vocal

Movie Review: W

W. (2008) 

Directed by Oliver Stone 

Written by Stanley Weiser

Starring Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks, Ellen Burstyn, Scott Glenn, Thandie Newton

Release Date October 17th, 2008

Published October 18th, 2008

The best satire that Oliver Stone could bring to his latest controversial effort, W., was to quote his subject accurately. President George W. Bush is as well known for his verbal gaffes as he is for his Bush doctine of pre-emptive war. Quoting the President accurately Stone gets unintentional humor from a situation that isn't really funny in context.

The first ever film biography of a sitting President, W. stars Josh Brolin as both the young brash alcoholic George Bush and the faithful man who fought to get out of his father's shadow and become first Governor of Texas and then President of the United States.

It's a performance of great humor, warmth and humanity that, though it will not change perceptions of the President, it will give even his most ardent critics a look at a man they might not have expected. Directed by Oliver Stone, W. cuts back and forth in time from a young George Bush at Harvard to a confident chief executive who makes gut decisions he believes in without second guessing himself.

If you are someone who believed that Dick Cheney pulled the strings behind the scenes you will be surprised how the President kept the man he refers to simply as Vice in line. Richard Dreyfuss captures the Vice President with a perfect Cheney sneer and without any hint of the mustache twirling villain that so many perceive him to be.

Jeffrey Wright has the most dramatic turn in the film. Playing General Colin Powell, Wright is the voice of reason on the war in Iraq. A good soldier who does his President's work at the UN but privately argued vigorously over the propriety of a pre-emptive war including a dramatic rendering of his "You break it, you bought" analogy to the Iraq war.

Thandie Newton earns some of the films biggest laughs as Condoleeza Rice without ever actually saying anything funny. Her exceptional impression of Rice's voice is both an impressive piece of mimickry and a very funny unintentional send up. Scott Glenn, Bruce McGill and Toby Jones round out the main cast with spot on takes on Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet and Karl Rove respectively.

For those who presume W. is an attack on the President you likely can't be swayed. All I can tell you is what I believe and I believe that W. is relatively fair to the President even at its most satiric and biting. The best satire of President Bush is to quote him accurately and many of his most famous quotes are in the movie and get the biggest laughs. "Misunderestimate", "Strategery", "Fool me once shame on you Fool me twice.. you shouldn't fool people".

The best example of of Oliver Stone's fair appraisal of George W. Bush comes in the demonstration of the President's faith which is dealt with head on, without commentary. Stacey Keach is tremendous in the role of President Bush's spiritual advisor Earl Hudd.

The President turned his life around after being born again and it created in him the drive and determination to rise from a troubled youth to commander in chief. Oliver Stone observes the change without mocking, without commentary but with the same clear eyed take on faith that the President himself likely carries.

The most controversial aspect and the one with the most artistic licence is Stone's psychoanalytic approach to George W's relationship with his father, the man he calls Poppy. Stone portrays much of George W. Bush's life being driven by being in and trying to escape from George H.W Bush's shadow.

Whether the President has daddy issues is debatable but James Cromwell and Josh Brolin strike extraordinary chemistry in their father and son exchanges. The relationship is realistic if not historically accurate. It's also undeniably compelling and dramatic.

W. will not change anyone's position on President Bush, whose legacy is likely sealed with most of us. What it does is take the history of the Bush administration from insider accounts and public records and condense them into a believable ordering of history and in that is valuable,

That it is also quite humorous without trying is a byproduct of that history. President Bush's foibles are as much apart of the man as his faith and his father and Oliver Stone brings it all together with great artistry and craftsmanship.

Movie Review Secretariat

Secretariat (2010) 

Directed by Randall Wallace

Written by Mike Rich, Sheldon Turner

Starring Diane Lane, John Malkovich, Dylan Walsh, James Cromwell, Margo Martindale

Release Date October 8th, 2010

Published October 7th, 2010

“Secretariat” is a shockingly square movie, even by the standards of the modern family movie. There is nothing remotely cool or modestly subversive about “Secretariat,” even as the film is set in 1973 the time of the Vietnam War, the beginnings of the Women's movement and the end of the Nixon Administration.

It was a time, ironically enough, when movies like “Secretariat” were rendered irrelevant by a gang of drug fueled visionaries who today craft blockbusters and award winners and have inspired a new generation of less drug fueled but equally visionary creative types who would sooner adapt videogames to the big screen than look twice at something like Secretariat.

There is nothing wrong with the story of Secretariat, the true story of Penny Tweedy and her amazing super horse which won horse racing's Triple Crown while captivating the sports world. Rather, it's an issue of style and approach, a boring, conventional approach that is crafted to be comfortable, warm and never for a moment cause the audience to do any of that awkward thinking stuff that other better movies do.

No, it's better instead to lull them into a pleasant, popcorn sated stupor than remind them of the actual history of the time in which Secretariat became a needed distraction for a weary nation. Weary of what? The filmmakers would rather you didn't ask.  

Diane Lane stars in “Secretariat” as Penny Tweedy, formerly Penny Chenery, daughter of a famed stable owning family in Virginia. Penny's mother has passed away leaving behind her ailing father (Scott Glenn) and no one to run the family's stables. Returning to Virginia with her impatient husband Jack (Dylan Walsh) and their four cute, indiscernible children, Penny reunites with Miss Hamm (Margo Martindale), her father's loyal secretary, and Eddie Sweatt (Nelson Ellis), the family's long time stable hand.

The return to Virginia finds the family finances bleeding red ink. The only hope is a rather unusual one, a coin toss. Years earlier, Penny's father made a long standing deal with the world's richest man, Ogden Phipps (James Cromwell), their prized horses would breed together and a coin toss would decide which man got his choice of the prize offspring.

Penny may have left her horse knowledge behind when she ditched Virginia for family life in Denver years ago, but her instincts remain and she knows which horse she wants and she knows she wants to lose the coin toss to get it. The scene with Lane and Cromwell is cute and effective and nicely lulls the audience into the overall feel of “Secretariat” a good natured, entirely square movie that would be boring if it weren't so pleasantly clueless.

The key for scenes like the coin toss or the obligatory celebration montages or the obligatory everybody dance and wash the horse scene or the obligatory dramatic roadblock to success scene seems to be the ability of director Randall Wallace to set these scenes without a hint of self consciousness as if no one would notice they are watching a scene of two millionaires flipping coin over who gets a horse. To his astonishing credit, no one in the audience did seem to notice or care. It was all so gentle and pleasant.

There is nary a moment of discord or discomfort in “Secretariat” as the film side steps it's true life setting in the early 1970's by quietly having Penny's daughter Kate (Amanda Mischalka) act out a play of war protest in front of an audience that seemed as passive as the one watching “Secretariat.” It's easily the most pleasant and passive war protest ever brought to the big screen.

One should see “Secretariat” if only for the shots of passive hippies, the somehow non-dope smoking types whose only connection to being a hippie is a hippie uniform, watching and loving Secretariat right alongside the proletariat parents of the film's likely target audience. It's a serene, almost Leave it to Beaver-esque pastiche of what the era would have been like had Dad and the Beav gone into the documentary film business and left out all of the supposed unpleasantness of the time.

The average episode of The Brady Bunch offers a more subversive view of the early 1970's than does “Secretariat.”

Now, before you howl that this is a horse racing movie and not a documentary about the tumultuous year of 1973, I will point out that the film itself brings up Vietnam by having the daughter be a protester, thus opening the vein for my line of criticism of the films portrayal of this actual period in our shared American history.

For the howlers, let's get into the horse racing stuff; it's not bad. Director Wallace takes us into the starting gate and puts us right in the action as the big ol' horses make their sinewy, snorting way around the track. It can come as little surprise that the audience, lulled by the pleasant passivity of the characters and the story, would be compelled to cheer the action of the horse racing scenes.

What was a little surprising was the cheering at the end of each of the races in the film, save the Wood Memorial which Secretariat lost. (If one of you mentions spoiler alert I will come through this computer screen) Secretariat lost the Wood but bounced back to win the Triple Crown in a dominant fashion that would seem to rob the final hour of real tension. Again, I have to credit director Randall Wallace for the effective staging of the racing scenes; they are compelling and even moving, even Secretariat's 30 odd length victory at the Belmont sealing his triple crown.

The racing scenes stand at odds with the rest of “Secretariat” which is depressingly square. Critic Andrew O' Hehir of Salon.com alleges an honest to god, Christian, right wing ideological conspiracy as to why “Secretariat” so blithely ignores the radical elements of its era.  O'Hehir calls the film 'a creepy American myth' and he's not far off. There is what feels like a creepy intent to all of the boring pleasantness of “Secretariat.”

I cannot truly assign any agenda to “Secretariat” however, aside from that of Disney and its desire to make a profitable sports film. “Secretariat” is merely a sports movie directly from the mold of “Miracle” and “The Rookie” and like those films, bled of all life beyond their uplifting finishes and obstacles overcome, Secretariat is a boring, well crafted machine of a sports movie fashioned from the Disney factory floor.

These movies are made with the intent to offend no one and somehow entertain all. They are meant as all things to all audiences and no one can really complain aside from whiny film critics who decry anything that isn’t some challenging drama or quirky indie romance. Hey, wait a minute!

To be serious for a moment; someone at Disney clearly believes that movies can be made that will sell to every possible audience, from red state to blue state. The conventions of the sports movie provide a safe place to try to find that all encompassing audience and with a horse story you can even appeal to women. “Secretariat” even has a female protagonist, a mother of four, women, family audiences, sports fans and kids! Kids like horses and their parents who are tired of cartoons will be able to drag them to the horse movie. Throw in John Malkovich as a clown and you have a movie with the potential to please all.

Sure, all of this market sensitivity makes my soul hurt but Disney is a business not a movie company. One can only guess that if “Secretariat” somehow fails, they will move on to the next soul crunching market driven bit of saccharine sports movie. For now, at least “Secretariat” is pleasant and hey, who needs to think.

Movie Review I, Robot

I, Robot (2004) 

Directed by Alex Proyas 

Written by Jeff Vintar, Akiva Goldsman

Starring Will Smith, Bridget Moynihan, Bruce Greenwood, James Cromwell, Alan Tudyk 

Release Date July 16th, 2004

Published July 14th, 2004

Will Smith says he only has a few more years of running, jumping and shooting before he needs to find another niche. Let’s hope it’s more than a few years because he is one of that genre's most-welcome stars. Yes Bad Boys 2 stunk but his latest film I, Robot, makes up for that piece of trash with a smart stylish Sci-Fi action movie.

Smith stars as Detective Del Spooner, your average everyday Chicago Police Detective. Looking around his messy apartment and his old school casual clothes you would never guess he lives in the year 2035. That is until he steps out into the streets that teem with commuters and their walking, talking robot counterparts.

In 2035 robots will be an important part of everyday society, assisting in everyday activities such as cooking, cleaning and various menial jobs that humans would prefer not to do. This might sound good to most people but Del hates it and he hates robots. His prejudice stems from an accident that is hinted at in his dreams.

It is ironic then with Del’s dislike of robots that he would be the detective forced to investigate the apparent suicide of the top robot creator in the world, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell). Spooner knows Dr. Lanning, how they know each other is explained later in the film, and Lanning has left him a holographic projection that may hold an important clue to something even bigger than his own suicide.

Spooner, ever suspicious of robots, chooses to investigate the case as murder. He is allowed into Dr. Lanning’s labs under the watchful eye of the company’s owner Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) and Dr. Lanning’s assistant Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynihan). It’s preposterous of course that a robot could commit a murder because they are implanted with Dr. Lanning’s three laws of robotics (They are of course the creation of writer Isaac Asimov who wrote the short story “I , Robot” which is part of this film’s inspiration but not it’s direct source).

The three laws are:

1. A Robot may not harm a human being or through inaction allow a human being to be harmed.

2. A Robot must obey the orders of a human being unless those orders violate the first law.

3. A Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not violate the first two laws.

Of course as Detective Spooner cleverly points out, rules are meant to be broken. Dr. Lanning must have agreed because prior to his death he created a robot he called Sonny (Voice by Alan Tudyk) who can think, feel and make choices that may allow it to reconsider the three laws. The Robots, especially Sonny, are some of the most spectacular examples of CGI that we have ever seen. Lifelike and eminently believable, the robots of I, Robot stand alongside Spider-man and the creatures of George Lucas as examples of what amazing things CGI can do

Director Alex Proyas may be the best director working in the science fiction genre today. If you haven’t seen his Dark City, finish reading this and run to the video store because that film is a must see masterpiece. I, Robot is not a masterpiece but as a genre piece and a Will Smith movie, it is spectacular.

Smith’s charisma continues to mature as he does as an actor. Smith is such a welcome reassuring presence that you can forgive a few screenplay contrivances that manipulate his character into particular situations. You can also forgive a few of those all-to-well-timed one-liners that occasionally feel out of place in this straight-faced film.

Many critics have complained that this film strays too far from Isaac Asimov’s brilliant short story written as part of his Robot Dreams collection. Indeed this is Asimov’s “I, Robot” in name only. This I, Robot is cynical about technology, robots specifically, where Asimov always played the robots as conflicted good guys that may have occasionally struggled with the three laws but protected humanity.

The script for this I, Robot written by Jeff Vintar and Oscar winner Akiva Goldsman has an almost Luddite view of technology. The script shows a fear of technology more in the vein of Osamu Rezuka’s Metropolis than Asimov, though both ask similar questions. Can robots think, feel, or love?

I, Robot, doesn't have the time to answer those questions. It’s a little too busy being an action movie, but it does have its thoughtful moments and the banter between Smith’s cop and Moynihan’s scientist does offer moments of good debate about the nature of humans and robots. The film is not exactly deep but it has more interesting ideas than most big summer blockbusters and for that we should cheer.

Movie Review: The Sum of All Fears

The Sum of All Fears (2002) 

Directed by Phil Alden Robinson

Written by Paul Attanasio, Daniel Pyne 

Starring Ben Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Bridget Moynihan, James Cromwell, Liev Schreiber 

Release Date May 31st, 2002 

Published May 29th, 2002 

SPOILER WARNING!!! 

The City of Baltimore gets blown up by a nuclear in the new Jack Ryan adventure, The Sum of All Fears, during the Super Bowl in Baltimore, and no one cares. That's the spoiler. Aside from this truly bizarre occurrence, The Sum of All Fears is a serviceable action movie with the wrong leading man. It's a fine action thriller bogged down by a performance by Ben Affleck that simply doesn't work. 

Tom Clancy's signature character Jack Ryan has become a sort of everyman version of Batman. He's your average, workaday CIA agent who, on occasion, is called upon to single-handedly prevent catastrophic world tragedies. The parallels extend off the big screen as well with the Ryan character having the same revolving door casting. The role originated with Alec Baldwin and then to its iconic image, Harrison Ford, and now to Ben Affleck. Sadly, Affleck's Ryan is reminiscent of George Clooney's Batman.

Trying to make sense of how Jack has actually gotten younger since his last adventure is a waste of time, just suspend disbelief and absorb yourself in the intrigue of espionage and politics. After the death of the Russian President, CIA analyst Jack Ryan is called upon to profile the new president named Nemarov, well played by the heretofore-unknown Ciaran Hinds. Ryan is an expert on Nemarov, having predicted his ascendancy to the presidency years before. 

CIA head Cabot (Morgan Freeman) has Jack accompany him on a trip to Russia to meet the president and inspect a nuclear weapons plant. While inspecting the plant Ryan notices three scientists are missing. The disappearance of the scientists leads to the discovery of a plot to smuggle a black market nuclear weapon into the U.S. Ryan is then teamed with an undercover operative named John Clark (Liev Schreiber, surprisingly effective). While Clark tracks the weapon, Ryan must convince his superiors that the Russians aren't involved in the plot.

Ryan and Clark are too late and the bomb explodes in the middle of the Super bowl, killing millions and nearly killing President Fowler, played by James Cromwell. Once the bomb explodes, our worst fears are nearly realized as the two super powers amp up their arsenals for worldwide nuclear war. The films nuclear explosion and its aftermath are jarringly realistic in wake of real life events, but the producers bow to political correctness making the terrorists Nazi's instead of Clancy's use of Arabs. I can see the producers point, that maybe Arab terrorists might be insensitive, but then blowing up the city of Baltimore in the middle of the Super Bowl isn't exactly comforting.

Jack Ryan not only has explosions and terrorists to deal with, he is also saddled with a lame subplot romance with Bridget Moynihan, playing the role once held by Anne Archer. In the previous films, Ryan is married to her. In Sum of All Fears it's a burgeoning relationship that lacks depth and purpose. Moynihan's character is entirely unnecessary, she adds nothing to the film except lead to the joke in the trailer where Freeman tells Ben to tell her why he has to cancel their date and she doesn't believe him. 

She also participates in the films tacked on happy ending where evil is punished and our hero picnics in the park across from the White House. The scene is rather casual considering the City of Baltimore was erased from the planet just days before traumatizing the entire country amid The Super Bowl. Despite those problems, director Phil Alden Robinson deftly handles action and suspense and does an admirable job of translating Clancy's mixture of military fact and dramatic fiction. Paul Attanasio no doubt helped the adapted screenplay along with a rewrite by Oscar winner Akiva Goldsman.

The weakest link in Sum Of All Fears is Ben Affleck, one of my favorite actors. Ben just doesn't carry the dramatic weight to be taken seriously as a guy consulting the President of the United States and the President of Russia. Harrison Ford benefited from his past action hero glory as iconic characters Han Solo and Indiana Jones, those roles gave Ford credibility as a guy who could be trusted to save the world and scream at the President, the iconic retort, 'How dare you, Sir!' 

The fact of the matter is there is no reason for Affleck's character to be called Jack Ryan. The name is merely a marketing tool. Just a way to put butts in the seats via something they find familiar. With the character growing younger and Affleck's lack of Ford-like credibility, the film might have been better served by giving him a different name. Keep the title and call him Jim Taylor or some other bland name and keep Jack Ryan for some other story. 

The Sum Of All Fears is a suspenseful action ride that suffers only for it's poor choice in leading man. Though again I must point out that Affleck is one of my favorites, he is just not right for Jack Ryan. Affleck is best known as a smartass romantic from Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy and as the deeply flawed but likable character’s from Bounce, Good Will Hunting and Changing Lanes. In Sum Of All Fears he's called upon to do things that just don't fit what we know of him. The passion for the part is there but not the “save the world” credibility of Ford.

The Sum Of All Fears with Harrison Ford could have been an exciting summer blockbuster but with Affleck it's a rentable movie if you have nothing else to do.

Movie Review: The Queen

The Queen (2006)

Directed by Stephen Frears 

Written by Peter Morgan 

Starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell, Helen McCrory, Roger Allam 

Release Date September 15th, 2006 

Published November 1st, 2006 

My memory of the death of Princess Diana begins with me being at work. It was after midnight and I was on the radio on Mix 96 a popular adult contemporary radio station. An employee watching the news wires at a news radio station in the same building brought me the breaking news about the car accident and the eventual pronouncement of death. I was in my second year as a broadcaster and had never broken into programming before.

I made the call to forgo waking my boss to ask permission and went ahead and went on the air with the tragic news. Then I made another editorial decision, I removed Billy Joel's "Only The Good Die Young" from my playlist. I wasn't supposed to, it was and remains against protocol for anyone to remove songs from the playlist. I made the decision I felt was appropriate and stuck by it.

My decision was extraordinarily minor in the grand scheme of things but appropriate responses to this tragedy are very much apart of the discussion that takes place in the movie The Queen, starring Helen Mirren, which details the seemingly inappropriate response of the monarchy to the death of the former Princess. The Royal Family was already clinging to relevance when Princess Di was tragically killed in a Paris car accident, in the wake of Di's death, the question of relevance gave way to questions of necessity and desire. 

In the five days between when Diana the Princess of Whales was killed in a car accident in Paris and the time she was laid to rest in a funeral at Westminster Abbey, England held vigil outside Buckingham Palace awaiting a response from their Queen, Queen Elizabeth the 2nd (Helen Mirren). There was none. The Queen along with husband Prince Philip (James Cromwell), the Queen Mum (Sylvia Sims), Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) and his and Diana's sons remained sequestered at the royal palace at Balmorel.

The non-response was roundly roasted throughout the British press and lead to articles and polls touting the fact that many Britons were coming around to the idea of ending the monarchy altogether. Watching this spectacle, with more than a little vested interest, was the newly installed British Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen). It was Blair who took the pulse of the people and lead the public mourning of Diana; he dubbed her the People's Princess.

Blair's response to the tragedy was lauded by the people and the press because it felt un-calculated and yet it managed to heighten pressure on the Queen who remained in a cocoon of royal propriety, unwilling to issue even a statement and, at a critical moment, refusing fly a flag over Buckingham Palace at half staff as so many had called on her to do. Even seemingly minor gestures of public grieving over Diana appeared impossible for the cold-hearted Queen. 

The achievement of Stephen Frears' The Queen is to give context and reason to Queen Elizabeth's non-response. At no point are those of us who liked Princess Diana going to agree with the cold and detached way Queen Elizabeth reacted to Diana's death but we can be understanding and even, possibly, cut the Queen a little slack based on the complicated and strained standards upheld by the Royal Family. Tradition may seem rather silly to outsiders, but inside the palace, protocol is a religion. 

The film doesn't intend to criticize the Queen, deify Diana, or make excuses for either. The Queen presents the facts and allows us to make up our own minds about these people. Thus when the Queen says Diana isn't even royalty anymore we are rightly taken aback. However, as we learn a little more of the Queen's background and we cut deeper into this factory sealed world of royalty, we can come to understand how such detachment and such an unbending attachment to protocol and propriety might lead to exactly the response the Queen has.

Essentially, chilly, dispassionate, detachment is part of the breeding of a Queen and to expect anything else is simply dishonest. Does this excuse such inhumanity as the Queen being unwilling to make any compromise or even acknowledge the obvious, growing need of her people for an emotional response to the tragedy? No, but it does explain it.

The movie The Queen turns on the brilliant, Oscar worthy work of Helen Mirren. This is by far the best performance by any actress this year. Mirren captures the icy demeanor we all know of Queen Elizabeth and then infuses her with a withering intelligence, self awareness, and, by the end, a certain poignancy as she must come to terms with how the times and her subjects have passed her by.

Michael Sheen as Tony Blair borders at times on making the Prime Minister a toadying stooge to the monarchy but, for the most part, the movie captures the popular Blair, the one who was the chief mourner of Diana. Michael Sheen's conception of Blair is a man of the people who knew just how to react to tragedy. Keep in mind, Blair was squarely in the middle of a battle of wills that few realized was happening. On one side was the monarchy whose detachment was reaching a critical point and on the other side were the people who, without a royal response to the tragedy, were coming  around to the idea of no monarchy at all.

Sheen deftly plays Blair's conflict as he must manage the entirely unmanageable Queen while members of his own staff, and even his wife, Cherie Blair, well played by Helen McRory, talked openly about whether the time of the monarchy had passed. This is award level work by Sheen who slowly works Blair's golden boy charm into the smart, savvy persona that Blair held until recently when his decision to join the American adventure in Iraq began eroding his standing with the British people.

Before seeing The Queen I watched Emilio Estevez's supremely flawed movie Bobby another movie that is at least sort of about the tragic death of a beloved public figure. Watching Bobby made me look a little deeper at the death of Princess Diana and the overwhelming response people had to it. The death of Bobby Kennedy effected history, literally. He could have gone on to become the most powerful man in the world and made decisions that would have rippled through history even today.

Princess Diana, on the other hand, her death, though tragic did not effect history. I'm not meaning in anyway to demean the Princess whose good works and charity effected millions of lives, but there is a difference between the effect of her life and that of Bobby Kennedy that makes the response to her death a little puzzling.

For five days the crowds of mourners swelled into the millions and the public outcry over the non-response of the monarchy nearly called for a storming of castles. The out sized response was a testament to how much the people loved Princess Diana but to an outsider like myself it seemed a little much. The Queen portrays Queen Elizabeth as something of an outsider herself, in relation to her people and this allowed me, at the very least, to identify with her and respect her decision not to engage in the public wringing of emotion.

Queen Elizabeth was wrong to be so cold to someone who had borne her two grandchildren, one of whom is the future King, and there is no question that she could have made a couple of compromises to placate the public. Many were right to criticize her detachment and inability to change with the times. What the movie The Queen effectively offers however is an opportunity, if you are so inclined, to identify with Queen Elizabeth and her more than fair unwillingness to engage in the public's outpouring of emotion.

The Queen is a sensational film with academy notable performances from Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen. The Queen is also smart, entertaining and endlessly watchable for what might on the surface seem like another British chamber piece; impenetrable to the average American moviegoer. The Queen has the gravitas of masterpiece theater but a story that engages all audiences. The Queen is a true must see picture.