The Queen (2006)

Director: Stephen Frears

Cast: Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen, James Cromwell, Helen McCrory

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, yes. And yet, why revisit it now? I’ve slipped hard into a period of Anglophilia recently, and as long as Netflix stays stingy with seasons of The Crown, I have to find my fix elsewhere. Thankfully, there are any number of movies that can fill the gaps between seasons. Spencer (2021) filled in nicely between seasons 4 and 5. This one—also written by Crown primary writer Peter Morgan, picks up almost perfectly from the end of the recently released season 5. I suppose it’s only a matter of time before I feel the need to take in The King’s Speech (2010) again as some kind of prequel to the whole affair.

Did I Like It:  There’s a delightful, understated quality to this, especially when compared with its episodic spiritual successor. TV imbues the House of Windsor with a bombast that necessitates a Hans Zimmer score, here moments—even, oddly, the moments leading up to Diana’s death—are given a quaint, pointedly British, almost comedic, feel of an independent movie. Mirren and the rest of the cast never so much as flirt with a natural inclination toward impersonation or self-parody. The juxtaposition of real footage with the fictionalized narrative also more easily leads me to suspend my disbelief. Everything about the film which could be controlled is executed at the highest level.

But, as with any historical drama, there’s a few limitations that lead the film not to age as well as one might hope. Moments of the infamous Panorama interview don’t ring true, because I have a devil of a time believing that the Queen (Mirren) ever watched the interview, and the fact that the interview was used at all (given what we know now about how the interview was originally obtained) feels a little gross. Additionally, the ominous dwelling on the fact that Blair’s (Sheen) popularity may not last forever seems a little beside the point, especially in an era where the idea that Blair was ever popular seems a little ridiculous, and the shelf life of a current Prime Ministers are negatively compared to produce.

RKO 281 (1999)

Director: Benjamin Ross

Cast: Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, Melanie Griffith, John Malkovich

Have I Seen it Before: I was probably the only 15 year old on the planet who practically gasped when he saw an ad for the film on HBO, and then ensured he stayed home on a Friday night to watch it as it first aired. It was shortly after first seeing this film that the idea occurred to me of trying to graft a fantastical adventure onto the War of the Worlds broadcast. Twenty-plus years later, I’m just now culminating those flitting ideas that this movie put in my head.

Did I Like It: Ultimately, trying to force this story, with all of the implications for Welles (Schreiber) future and the support of Hearst’s (Cromwell) life diminishes things a little bit. Despite ominous hints that he’ll never top the achievement of Citizen Kane (1941), it largely paints Welles as triumphant at the end of the picture. Mank (2020) tries its level-headed best to take Mankiewicz’s (Malkovich) side in the conflict. The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996) covers the topic more thoroughly, and more hauntingly.

But I can’t not love this film. So many depictions of Welles depict him as a pillar of pure—some times tragic, sometimes conniving—genius. This film occasionally has the gall (let’s face it, honesty) to depict him as a fairly young kid who can’t help but doubt his own ability to get the job done. That makes Welles as depicted by Schreiber feel close to what I imagine a twenty-five year old kid with self-destructive impulses given the freedom to do whatever he wanted in Hollywood, however briefly. That feeling helps to offset the unavoidable reality that of all the people to depict Welles on film, Schreiber looks and sounds like the imminently recognizable Welles the least. Come to think of it, only Cromwell and Griffith have any resemblance to the people they depict. Does it really count as a weakness? By all rights it should take me out of the film, but the proceedings manage to hold up just fine.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Director: Jonathan Frakes

Cast*: Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner, James Cromwell**, Alfre Woodard

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, yes… I have the most vivd memory of coming out of the theater in November 1996 getting picked up by my parents. When they asked me how it was, I said, “The greatest two hours*** of my life.” They said, “You’re young yet.” Nearly twenty-five years later, I’m still not entirely sure what they were talking about.

Did I Like It: See the above comment.

At their core, the four films based on The Next Generation are a mixed bag. The producers behind the various television series of the era maybe never quite got out of their television mindset, so one could argue that we just got four feature-length new episodes featuring an A-plot for Picard (Stewart) and a B-plot for Data (Spiner). The rest of the cast—the main draw for that section of the audience that was likely to buy multiple tickets—got a few pieces of business here and there.

But in 1996—the thirtieth anniversary of the franchise—all of the cylinders were firing, and thus, we were treated to Picard and company’s undisputedly greatest film. Like The Wrath of Khan (1982) before it, First Contact wisely mines one of the better television entries and makes a more epic sequel, while at the same time not vapidly mimicking the structure of that earlier, GOAT movie, like they did in the near-unwatchable Nemesis (2002). There are also plenty of references to Moby Dick.

And still, my opinion of the film has morphed considerably over the years. As I have with most Trek films, I walked out of the theater thinking it was perfect. I’ve been wrong every time. For years afterward, I came to think Picard’s plot on the starship exacting his revenge on the Borg was the real story, while the prepping of the flight of the Phoenix down on Earth was filler. I now think of Picard’s Ahab-ing as mostly fine, if a little redundant of action star schtick which feels ill-fitting for Stewart. The real genius of the film is with Cochrane (Cromwell).

He’s a lout. A drinker. A low-level sex maniac. He has a passing interest in his work and legacy, but only in how much it will keep him in the company of his vices.

By most honest accounts, Gene Roddenberry—the creator of Star Trek—was the same way. Producer Rick Berman stated that the idea behind the film was to do something about the creation of Star Trek (i.e., the first meeting of Vulcan and Human, and the introduction of FTL flight).

He wasn’t kidding. This movie is about the genesis of the notion of Star Trek, and at the helm of this great idea is a creator history would lionize, but who was just as imperfect as the rest of us.

*It’s one of the near-fatal flaws of the Next Generation films that they never quite found enough for the rest of the cast—especially the funnier-than-she-gets-credit-for Gates McFadden—to do in their four entries into the canon.

**So I’m sitting at my computer, and for the life of me my mind is blanking on the actor who played the father of warp drive. It eventually came to me, but it has to be a testament to the actor that I don’t think of his name or any of the other numerous roles he’s played. He simply is Zefram Cochrane. Which is all the more impressive as legend has it the first choice for the role was none other than admitted Star Trek mega fan Tom Hanks, but he sadly had to back out as he was focused on directing That Thing You Do (1996). He would have been great, too, but here we are.

***The runtime is 111 minutes, but I’m sure the trailers were top-notch.