Rating: 
Summary: "Elizabeth" Is The Queen of Period Pieces
Review: I would've had a tough time choosing between Cate Blanchett and Gwyneth Paltrow at Oscar time, since both performances were wonderful. If I had to choose, I would've chosen Cate. I don't think I've ever seen such a riveting portrayal of the most powerful queen of England ever. I don't think her performance will ever be shadowed, either. Not even Gwyneth could do better. I also give credit to an excellent director, Shehkar Kapur, who also did not receive his well-due recognition on Oscar night. The film was true to the time period, and was never out of form as far as how women and men behaved in 16th century England. Blanchett's acting was strong and effective, and the supporting roles of Geoffrey Rush (Walsingham), Joseph Fiennes (Lord Robert) and Richard Attenborough (Lord Burley) were the "royal" push that made this film reach the peak of superior performance. The costumes were wonderful, but again the Oscar for this category went elsewhere. Dialogue and character development were rich and intelligent. Very rarely does a period piece strike me as excellent entertainment, but my tastes have changed, and so has filmmaking. If you're looking for an ensemble cast and an intriguing story, then look no further than this movie. After all, it's Oscar material!
Rating: 
Summary: EMOTIONLESS
Review: If the puporse of the director was only showing history, without trying to disguise it and shine it above the truth, I could understand the way he made the movie. But that was not the purpose. He wanted to make an adapted historical movie, with drama, acting and twists in the plot. But he failed miserably. This movie is boring because you can sense the director was trying to complete take the realms of the production, not hearing suggestions from the cast or whoever.
Rating: 
Summary: I was horribly surprised.
Review: Your verdict of this movie will depend on what you think of the Wong Kar-wai school of filmmaking: Director first, editor second, actors being the last consideration.Personally, I can't stand this style of filmmaking. Taking only the most superficial of nouvelle vague stylings (jump-cuts, strange angles, stylized lighting) but applying the techniques to the most inappropriate material, this "New New Wave" tends to sacrifice the performers and all human qualities for a beautiful-looking, but dramatically inept piece. Elizabeth is such a piece. Given an actress as strong as Cate Blanchett, just why director Shekhar Kapur insists on suffocating her performance with endless arrays of camera trickery is baffling to me. In this film Kapur shows off a real knack for missing the dramatic moment. In almost any given scene, you never see the decisive moment for a character, and least of all Elizabeth. Blanchett's charm and elegance were a joy to behold, and Geoffrey Rush brilliantly injects a tinge of villainy in his ally role, creating a most interesting supporting character. But chances are when you want to see the actors, Kapur would've either cut to some overblown, poorly performed crowd shot, or an overhead where you can't see a tinge of emotion, or cut maniacally to ensure you don't really see the actors. Some cinephiles may consider this brilliant New Wave filmmaking; I consider it hogwash, the director selfishly putting himself on display while sacrificing all of the characters and story elements. Cases in point: We never see Elizabeth succumb to her council and send troops to Scotland, so her later remorse ("My father would never have made such a mistake") is completely unfounded; her giving up Lord Robert (a watery Joseph Fiennes) is done in yet another hacked up dance sequence (one of about half a dozen, all boringly choreographed and poorly edited, going for dazzle instead of momentum) so her internal change doesn't register at all; Walsingham (Rush)'s seduction of Marie de Guise (Fanny Ardant, a good performer, also strangled by Kapur's direction) is ellipsed so when you see her dead, you know what happened, but there's no impact or feeling of triumph. The script is hackneyed, with poor dialoguing and lots of unbelievably puerile jokes (especially when the French suitor comes to visit). All this serves to weaken Elizabeth's character even further, and reduces the narrative drive of this film to zilch. There's no build to the plots against Elizabeth's life and even less suspense. The greatest problem remains the direction and its disdain for all things human. In all honesty, I've never seen such a great lead performance (Blanchett's) so thoroughly sabotaged by a director. For that, I hold Elizabeth in contempt. I'm all for visual art and experimental filmmaking, but to completely forsake performance? And to lose all the sense of period flair (the vomit-inducing jump-cut sequence of Elizabeth practising her speech, and the fade to whites -- music-video techniques) which all historical dramas need, especially one on an epic scale such as this? For a successful negotiation of nouvelle vague style and drama, go for Godard's Breathless.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Performance
Review: Cate Blanchett steals the show with a breath-taking performance of Elizabeth I. I am enthralled by great people who tackle great obstacles and Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I soared over every hurdle. Watching the young princess grow into a world leader was truly amazing. I have heard some complain about historical innacurracies. I have no doubt that that is the case. You know what else? Who cares! This movie, the performance of Ms. Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Mr. Ecclestian in particular, are just too good to miss. It's a great movie that I can watch over and over.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT CAST AND HISTORY WASTED...
Review: Great cast and history were wasted the the director's heavy hand in conducting this movie. THe narrative is slow and boring, although the general plot is so good. Sad..
Rating:
Summary: JUST EXCELENT!
Review: Elizabeth is a beautiful video! it is something to own. great performances, beautiful set and costumes, interesting direction. it is a movie you can't miss and must see more than one times! (i can't stop watching some sceenes over and over!)
Rating:
Summary: we all know....
Review: I realize that this movie is historical fiction. But as fact-less as the story may be, it is an amazing story still. Cate is glorious as Elizabeth, and this movie has made her one of my all time favorites as an actress.
Rating:
Summary: DISAPPOINTING ELIZABETH
Review: Elizabeth I's life and times were spectacular enough in truth to have made an excellent movie. However, the makers of "Elizabeth" saw fit to take thefacts of her reign, blend them together and spit out the facts at incorrect times. The movie does not depict events in logical sequence, and is sometimes confusing. I did think that Cate Blanchette did an excellent job of portraying the very complex Elizabeth. However, the scene toward the end of the movie when she cuts off her hair and dons white make-up was a farce. She wore white make-up to cover smallpox scars and old-age lines; she wore elaborate red wigs to cover her own thinning red hair. It was very misleading. See it for Cate Blanchette, but realize what you are seeing is inaccurate about the life of England's greatest monarch.
Rating:
Summary: QUEEN FOR ALL TIME
Review: Very seldom in moviedom, is biography done as well as this. Cate Blanchett plays a young Elizabeth I of England, it shows the behind the scenes terror that she went through after being thrust into such a position. Unlike others who have played the role she captures better than them all, the human side to England's greatest ruler. It was history come alive, I think Blanchett was robbed of an Oscar on this one.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not personal ... it's strictly politics
Review: ELIZABETH is the biography of arguably the most famous monarch in British history. But make no mistake about it, this is no stately costume drama. Director Shekhar Kapur, in his English-language debut, makes sure of that. What we have is a very modern GODFATHER-type epic, set in 16th-century Britain, whose style reminded me of a toned down version of Baz Luhrmann's ROMEO + JULIET. Cate Blanchett is absolutely amazing to watch as she evolves from innocent youth to hardened political powerplayer. Geoffrey Rush is also extremely good as the sinister Walsingham. Joseph Fiennes, Ralph's little brother, plays Elizabeth's lover Robert Dudley in this picture. Fiennes seems to be a less intense actor than his brother, which works well for this role. He actually reminded me of a British Tom Hanks, if such a thing is possible. Vincent Cassel as the Duc D'Anjou is a hoot as well. The rest of the actors are pretty good, except for the two Sirs, Richard Attenborough and John Gielgud. Gielgud's part amounts to nothing more than a glorified cameo, but he does what he can with the role. Attenborough, on the other hand, just stands there and says his lines. One of the worst performances I've ever seen him give. The acting is not the only thing that makes ELIZABETH a delight. Director Kapur uses many modern innovations, including using jump cuts for a scene where Elizabeth rehearses a speech, and the climax, which reeked of THE GODFATHER. The subtle cinematography by Remi Adefarasin is both striking and evocative, and adds to the rich tapestry of the film, especially the sets by John Myhre and costumes by Alexandra Byrne. Although Kapur condenses and exaggerates a few facts in order to suit his vision, ELIZABETH makes for an exciting, entertaining (if somewhat fictionalized) history lesson.
|
