Elizabeth

Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the real history, but overall a good movie
Review: I really liked this movie. However, as some other reviewers have asked: did they really have to rewrite history in order to make it interesting? The answer to that is ABSOLOUTELY NOT! In fact, the real history makes for an even more enjoyable story than the one portrayed in the movie. I can't believe some of the flawed facts that in some parts even degraded the the plot. Perhaps if I didn't know the real history of the young Elizabeth I wouldn't say so, but as it is I can't stand some of the changes made to the actual events when the real events are so fascinating! I think it would have been more interesting to see into the character of the REAL Elizabeth, in my opinion the most fascinating person who ever lived, instead of having to invent a story that was in some places unbelievable. For example, why on Earth would Elizabeth send her "most trusted and loyal advisor" Walsingham to assasinate Marie de Guise when he could be killed? Anyway, Walsingham was NOT a trusted advisor at all in reality. William Cecil probably comes closer to this title than anyone else (he was also a bit of an idiot in the movie, and he wasn't as bad as that in reality, though of course still not as genius as Elizabeth)

HOWEVER, I do not believe that this was a bad movie at all. In itself it was filled with good acting and was an interesting story (even if REALLY boring and diminished when compared to history). I loved Cate's performance regardless, and that of everyone else. When I saw this movie I knew nothing about Elizabeth I at all, and it inspired me to research her, and now I find her fascinating. (I LOVED the movie at first as well, but as I said, when I knew enough of the real story I became increasingly dissapointed) I also think that this movie deserved the academy award. If you are looking for a good movie at any rate, this is a must see. The only reason I gave it only 3 stars was the amount of grevious historical errors that I wish had been amended. A more historical account of Elizabeth's life that is truly excellent (though a bit low- budget)would be Elizabeth R, with the amazing Glenda Jackson.

Rating:
Summary: Poor history excellent schmalz
Review: "Elizabeth" is an example of how movie directors, insensitive to true historical drama, will spend lavishly to create needless fiction. The reviewer wishes the lavish sums spent on this film could have been diverted to the much more satisfactory BBC Production of "Elizabet R." But then, that's Hollywood. Perhaps the costuming deserves some mention although portraying Norfolk as "leather man" is a bit much. One also wishes that Joseph Finnes could find a seamstress who can sew on top shirt buttons, a problem also apparent in "Shakespeare in Love." But then maybe some feel "grungy" is sexy, who knows. The performances are fair on the part of the principals, but in the opening scene--burning of the heretics--one wishes Bsp. Gardiner would charge the convicted with "gross over-acting" in addition to heresy; but, alas, he would be equally guilty. The gratuitous violence and sex is a sheer pander to modern puriency, not historical accuracy. There is every reason to believe Elizabeth was, in fact, a virgin. There is no evidence for Walsinghsham's homosexuality. He was, in fact, like Burghley, a devout Puritan and Calvinist, who would have winced at the impication. As a professor of Renaissance History, allow me to point out but a few of the glaring historical inaccuracies. 1. Sets: Elizabeths and all the Tudors prefered Hampton Court--a true light, wainscoted marvel, not the dingy gothic conglomerations more like a cathedral shown here. 2. Elizabeth was not shocked to hear of Leicester's marriage to Amy Robsart. Why should she be? She had attended the wedding. 3. There is no evidence that Walsingham beded or assasinated Mary of Guise, the regent. 4. Burgley remained in the service of Elizabeth until his death. He was always her favorite advisor, and even took his son, Robert Cecil (the future Lord Salisbury) into her service on Burghleys death. He was never dismissed. 5. Leicester, Robert Dudley, remained the queen's favorite until his death. he was given command of the army in the lowlands and entrusted with the defense of the realm in the years of the Great Armada, 1588. He died in that year, totally in her favor. There was never any suspicion of treason on his part. 6. Bsp. Gardiner would hardly have called the queen a "heretic bastard" in public. To do so was treason. The good bishop was too much a politician to be that stupid. 7. Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador (dressed in what looks like a parody on a torreador suit) never was killed or assasinated. he left for Spain, denouncing Elizabeth and encouraged the later Armada. I could go on..but what's the point. Americans care little for history...just schmalz, violence, and sex, and overacting. This movie has plenty of the later. But as a classic or as history..it is pure Trash!

Rating:
Summary: Utterly Superb
Review: Yes, this review is late in coming: 1998 WAS an Elizbethan year @ the box office and at the Oscars, but still... Dark, brooding, intelligent, magnifiscent in its renaissance colors, please buy this film! It deserves attention, overshadowed by "Shakespeare in Love," a silly piece of twoddle, save for Dame Jusy Dench's performance--the one saving grace of that film. Cate Blanchet WAS ROBBED of the Best Actress Oscar statuette; Gwynnie P won for breeding, not brains...The music is tremendous, the costumes appear most authentic, and again, there is Ms. Blanchet. Oscar has some serious making up to do for this oversight.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful nut not histrical
Review: OK, so Cate Blanchett looks hot as the young Elizabeth, the costumes are wonderful and the cinematography grand, but....do we have to re-write history to tell a story that is so compelling to begin with? Furthermore, the real exciting part of QEI's reign isn't her ascension to the throne, it's her keeping the throne and manipulating everyone to achieve her ends, and those of England.

The worst sin, in my opinion, is the implication that her advisor sneaks off to Scotland, beds the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots, then kills her! Do the makers of historical dramas need that much license with the truth? Not in my opinion.

So...3 stars

Rating:
Summary: SOLIDLY ENTERTAINING...
Review: which is why we watch movies anyway, right? Blanchett portrays a great Elizabeth and we watch the anguished evolution of a young naive princess to a worldly-wise Queen. Joseph Fiennes is superb as Dudley, though it's hard to sympathize with an adulterous dolt who wants to have his cake and eat it too. But Geoffrey Rush...wow...an incredible performance developing the deliciously complex character of Walsingham, (lots of lessons to be learned from the portrayal of Walsingham...lots of lessons...)It's doubtful that the real Elizabeth Tudor was this naive or this scrupulously just; but as a story in its own right this movie does a splendid job of peeling back human motivations and ignorance and the unlikely places we can find allies...

Rating:
Summary: History is dumbed down but that's to be expected
Review: Taking the complex reign of Queen Elizabeth, a woman whose power rested in being underestimated by everyone (including many people who would have had her killed if they knew her mind) and turning it into a Godfather ripoff, this movie does a bit of a disservice to most of the people in it. The villains are simply evil. The heroes are pretty nasty too, and Queen Elizabeth is more of a woman who needs rescuing by men.

Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham is like Robert Deniro from teh Godfather movies but more so. YOu think that everything he's doing is without Elizabeth's consent. Another historical figure who was nominally loyal but had to be executed because he was stupid enough to think that he could marry the imprisoned Mary, Queen of Scots without consequence, is here portrayed as a snarling surly Catholic who would do anything to get rid of teh protestant queen. Slightly insulting is the scene in which Elizabeth is having trouble at the court and she runs off to be alone and sees a picture of Henry VIII and decides that she is her father's daughter after all. Her transformation from a maiden to a matron with white make-up and wig (historically more due to fashion and smallpox than a virgin mary complex) is kind of ridiculous.

What's good about this movie is the acting. Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey RUsh are amazing and while Joseph Fiennes is little more than window dressing, the rest of the ministers have their ticks. The story is intriguing and even though it patterns itself after the Godfather (including a "everyone gets killed at once while our hero is in a religious setting" scene) it did pattern itself after something great.

The main problems I have is that Queen Elizabeth from Shakespeare in Love captured the queen more. This woman was considered "the silly queen" because she would cultivate a dippy personae that kept her from getting killed by her Catholic sister. SHe had some Catholics killed and some Catholics wanted to kill her but she certainly wasn't trying to co-opt Catholicism and she managed to neither swing too far to the protestant or the Catholic side of the spectrum and England prospered because of her. She could be a vain and petty woman surrounding herself with sycophants but she still knew how to see through the games and intrigues and played her own very well (especially the marriage game in which her goal was to be single her life with an entire country expecting a king at any moment.)

So great movie on its own. THe only reason why I'm taking off a star is becase the historical facts had so much more potential for storytelling than this movie would suggest.

If you are interested in other Elizabeth stuff read Alison Weir's books includnig The Children of Henry VII which goes from Henry VIII's death to Elizabeth's acension to the throne with all the court intrigues swirling around her. It's one of the best books written about English history.

Rating:
Summary: New look at the Virgin Queen
Review: Beautiful, rich, exquisite, exciting and just plain superb. Cate Blanchet earned a much-deserved Oscar nomination for best actress for her portrayal of England's most famous Matriarch, Elizabeth I.

The movie gives insights into what was going on with Elizabeth's half-sister, Mary Queen of Scots and her apparent dementia resulting from multiple tumors and probably a touch of syphillis to boot. The persecution of Protestants under the reign of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots plainly shows what a harsh time this was and how much danger Elizabeth was in when it was clear that her sister had not produced an heir to the throne and her death was imminent.

The acting and scenery are breath-taking and you quickly forget you're watching a movie, but feel like you're right there as an observer in time, watching historical events unfold.

The movie is riddled with brute violence, but not violence for its own sake. Likewise, there is nudity and at least one sex scene that leaves nothing to the imagination... so this is not for young viewers. Nevertheless, this is a spectacular piece of filmmaking.

You get a deeper respect and awe for the historical person of Elizabeth, realizing what she overcame despite being a woman in a time when women were only accessories to men. A true leader and a queen passionate about her very important role - not satisfied with sitting on her laurels and just enjoying royal treatment... she was fervently involved in all aspects of government and was probably driven to be so involved due to the volitile time in which she reigned.

I'm not a history buff, but I loved this film. The DVD is splendid and includes trailers, behind the scenes footage, cast bios and a featurette about the film. The menus on the DVD are in the same caliber as the film itself. If you're going to get this film, this is the format in which to view it. This is the type of film of which other films of this genre can be measured against. If you liked "Anne of a Thousand Days" with Richard Burton and "The Virgin Queen" with Bette Davis, this film will blow you away.

Rating:
Summary: Not the strongest cinema of its kind
Review: I liked the way this film started and ended. The middle, on the other hand, was filled (at times) with filler. By that I mean obligatory scenes which really lent nothing of major interest to the main story. In so doing, the film also managed to lose itself historically, so that you had to be a very well-informed viewer to keep up with who was who and what was happening and why. I can imagine the director saying to himself, "I'll make it an historically accurate piece....No, I won't, I'll make it into a love story and let the history stand aside a little....On second thoughts, I'd better keep the history strong....," and so on, never really deciding one way or the other. For a time, it was obvious that the temptation of rewriting history and according Lord Dudley Robert a greater place than was in fact his, passed through the director's mind. Shades of "Shakespeare in Love," indeed, where Joseph Fiennes played a somewhat similar role, but one which was more in keeping with the type of script, if not with the actual history.

It must have been difficult to avoid giving centre-stage time to characters like Norfolk and Walsingham. The latter, in the guise (if you will forgive me for saying so) of Elizabeth's eminence grise, was definitely overdone. Norfolk, besides acting out of character (I felt) on more than one occasion, gave up the ghost rather too easily, further strengthening the reputation of the "heretic" living at the queen's right arm. As for Gielgud's Pope, I think he must have enjoyed every minute of it (there were about four), but I didn't buy it at all.

I must say I especially liked the end of the film. After having proclaimed herself "mistress," there was, in a sense, nothing more to say. The final scene was very well done. Certainly, Elizabeth the First's subsequent reign was such that you could make several more movies about it. Overall, the film was pleasing without being great cinema. For its history, it's of some interest, but not if you are trying to peer into Elizabethan England for the first time. You really have to have some background to be able to appreciate the ins and outs of that particular court. Of recent films dealing with British royalty, "The Madness of King George" and "Mrs Brown" were both superior to this, with more depth and fewer unnecessary charades. "Elizabeth" is a four-star cinematic experience, I think, but not a strong one.

Rating:
Summary: Cate is great, but...
Review: If you get this video and love the performance by Cate Blanchett, or the clothes, or the beauty of the cinematography you're on the right track. If you want a really good and brilliant portrayal of the life of Elizabeth I, get Elizabeth R starring Glenda Jackson. Because, let's face it, this story is wildly inaccurate. It's clear the director wanted to have a beautiful, young leading lady but liked the skulduggery of Queen Elizabeth's middle age. So--he slapped the two together. The result is a very muddled account of one of the most fascinating women in history. Which is a shame, because the real story doesn't need much jazzing up to make it great.

Still, if you like costume dramas and Cate Blanchett you can't go wrong with this video. Just don't tell your friends any "facts" about Elizabeth based on watching it...

Rating:
Summary: Form over Function
Review: In the balance, this film is disappointing. Highlights are the beautiful sets and the wonderful and multiple costumes and hair styles on Ms. Blanchet, who gives a very good performance.

But the screenplay is weak and incomplete. Although the intent is to focus on the woman and not the historical pretext, in the end, one is not moved at all by the development of Elizabeth's character. She progresses through the disjointed (and someties pointlessly bloody) plot like a puppet, constantly transforming, but never actually displaying the greatness one is assumed to be in awe of. By the end of the movie, Elizabeth has changed dramatically, but has achieved nothing .

The direction, meant to make a bold statement with its odd camera angles and rapid fire edits, gives the movie a music video feel that ultimately detracts from any attempt to take the viewer to a distant and exotic place.

This movie has all of the ingredients for success, but is in the end very frustrating. It neither tells a good story nor provides a compelling portrait of personal transformation. One will have to look elsewhere to learn about this incredible woman and the Golden Age she created.