Rating: 
Summary: One for the girls - men beware
Review: I was forced to see this by a woman I was with. It bored me to death. I was hoping for something gritty and violent but it was just another chance for Cate Blanchett to prance about in pretty frocks with men in tights to god-awful medieval minstrel music. I'm sure that woman just loved dressing up in her mommy's clothes when she was a little girl and she's never grown out of it. I'm convinced her decision on whether or not to take a role is simply "do I get to wear pretty frocks?". Yawn-o-rama.
Rating: 
Summary: You shall never rule England...
Review: "You have had...and you will have to come, many greater and wiser princes to sit upon this throne...but you shall have none that love you more".
Queen Elizabeth I 'Golden speech' at her coronation and the only thing that I noticed missing really. Still...a golden picture of a golden age painted in gold leaf by the light of a golden sun rise, gold thread weaving throughout and resting at last upon a golden sunset is what this film is...so how can I complain.
Rating:
Summary: wonderful to watch
Review: I loved this film. I understand that some of the reviewers thought that this film was not historicaly accurate. Blah Blah Blah! The movie never said that it was, otherwise it would have been a documentary. It is entertaining, engrossing and flawless when it comes to the costumes,acting and sets. If you want to be truly entertained, then watch this movie. You will not be dissappointed!
Rating:
Summary: Perfect.
Review: It is not easy to make a perfect movie but they did it. I give it a five.
Rating:
Summary: Ummmmm.........
Review: I agree with the reviewer before me who listed the problems with this movie. Though the general atmosphere and Cate Blanchett's preformances are great, the rest is grossly inaccurate. To cite one of the many wrongs of this movie: The Duke of Norfolk, the presumed "villian" of this movie, was 80 years old at the time of MARY's coronation. I'm not sure if he died before Elizabeth's reign, I'll have to check my facts, but the Dukes of Norfolk were related to Elizabeth I through Anne Boleyn. They would PREFER to have Elizabeth on the throne. Someone should definatly crack open a history book. What's sad is that this movie deludes the public (who perhaps aren't as enlightened as Tudor history professors) from realizing the truth...
Rating:
Summary: beauty in motion
Review: This movie was a surge of emotional and spectacularly vivid images. The choice of actors in this movie are top-notch, and the realism blew me away. This is definitly a success story where others have failed, especially in the "period-piece" genra.
When watching this film I felt what Elizabeth might have felt. It will remain as one of my top-ten favorites.
Rating:
Summary: The movie that started it all...
Review: Because of this particular film, I have been extremely interested in the Renaissance era of Europe. This movie was very finely acted and the footage was gorgeous. Cate Blanchett was superb. Sticks to general facts quite well.
Rating:
Summary: Historically inaccurate, but PHENOMENAL!...
Review: This film quickly became on of my very favorites. It clearly falls within the genre of costume drama, but manages to portray the intrigues of the period in sufficiently byzantine fashion as to keep the viewer riveted and in suspense DESPITE the fact that all of us know Elizabeth "wins" in the end. Cate Blanchett is truly one amazing actress, and demonstrates an incredible range of emotion in what must have been a very difficult part to play. She cleverly reflects Elizabeth, threatened by her fanatical and mad sister, Bloody Mary. During this interview with the dying queen, Blanchett reflects terror, integrity and apprehension at the death warrant in her sister's hands, while at the same time showing a calculating ambition and desire for the throne using her eyes alone. During the early days of Elizabeth's reign, we see a queen who is incredibly inexperienced and niaive, but at the same time Blanchett's performance laces that character with steel, such that her emergence in later days as a iron fist does not seem a sudden and unbelievable transition minus the velvet. Her Walsingham, played to perfection by Geoffrey Rush, seems written 1/3 historical character, 1/3 John Dee, and 1/3 Nicolo Machiavelli. This must be the finest performance of Rush's career to date, and there is some contest as to whether he, or Blanchett, truly dominates this film. Fanny Ardant, playing Mary of Guise with vile yet sweet seductiveness as only she can, is another powerful performance, despite her limited time on the screen in the film. Kathy Burke's mad Queen Mary is vilely terrifying in her Catholic devotion and desire to eradicate the protestant threat, and the comedienne shows herself made of greater stuff than past given credit for. There are some disappointing performances. Christopher Eccleston's Duke Norfolk lacks depth, coming over as a smug bully without the mental agility to perform the political feats we see him accomplish in the film. Joseph Fiennes, one of the most overrated of actors, again shows his ability to portray emotion limited exclusively to eyebrows and facial expressions. Im not sure whether the role was written with "cute, cocky toy-boy" in mind, but as this is all that J. Fiennes seems capable of, its what you see. What is truly amazing about this film is the fact that, despite an almost total lack of "action" until the last few minutes, and the fact that it focuses on plots, counter-plots, intrigues and counter-intrigues, it still more than manages to keep the viewer engrossed and rivetted. Yes, historical events were modified to make the film more engrossing (the "bloodbath" at the end actually took decades to complete, and many of those "removed" were done so through exile, rather than assassination/execution). However, the film relies substantially on the ability of its performers to carry the effect off, and Rush/Blanchett and others do this with magnificent grace and eloquence. These performances manage to keep you mentally engaged throughout. Bearing in mind that Elizabeth has been synonamous with Glenda Jackson in most minds, it is great to finally have a performance by yet another brilliant actress which not only compares favorably, but perhaps supercedes that of Dame Jackson in the role.
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: I wish to begin my review with what I found positive. "Elizabeth" did bring the great actress Cate Blanchett to prominence, and that she could deliver such a powerful performance in this dreadful production is proof that we have decades of her fine acting to look forward to. I found this film nearly unwatchable. A more minor complaint is that director Shekhar Kapur indulges himself with unusual camera work that is very distracting. Did we really always want to see an overhead view of condemned prisoners burning at the stake? Still, strange photography is far less annoying than bad history. "Elizabeth" is not even close to being historically accurate, and its fabricated plot is far less interesting than the actual history of Elizabeth I's early reign. I will cite only a few of the most egregious inaccuracies: (1) There is no evidence that Elizabeth and Robert Dudley ever consumated their relationship. The real Elizabeth was far too shrewd to take such a political risk. (2) The war with Scotland portrayed as a defeat that forced Elizabeth to consider political marriage was in fact English military triumph, one that some historians rate as even greater than the later English victory over the Armada. (3) No English noble or bishop ever conspired against Elizabeth's throne or life, and the one real plot against her occurred late in her reign and was so feeble that Walsingham allowed it to progress in order to implicate Mary Queen of Scots. (4) Elizabeth met the Duke of Anjou for the first time in her mid 40s, and their relationship was in reality one of mutual admiration. (5) Walsingham never killed anyone! Perhaps this parade of fabricated events could be justified for the purposes of making a film if they constituted a worthy story. In fact, the real relationships between Elizabeth, Dudley and Anjou were far more interesting than the story that unfolds in this film. I am forced to conclude that the makers of this film preferred to take the lazy way out and develop a plot with plenty of sex and brutality but little intelligence. In fact, they produced a terrible bore. Most of the cast seem well aware that they had signed onto a disappointing project. When actors as fine as Geoffrey Rush and Richard Attenborourgh deliver boring performances, somethiung has indeed gone wrong. Only Ms. Blanchett is able to deliver a compelling performance, which underscores her acting brilliance. Both conservatives and liberals who look for political messages in films will find ample material to anger them, from the (historically false) portrayal of the pope as actively conspiring towards Elizabeth's death to a silly and offensive gay stereotype I won't bother to describe. In summation, this film insults both the intelligence and the sensibilities of its audience. ...
Rating:
Summary: Not Your Average Costume Drama
Review: Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music. The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon. If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.
|
