Elizabeth

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: I'm still not over Cate Blanchett losing the Oscar to Gwyneth Paltrow the year she was nominated for Elizabeth. She was robbed, and if you see Elizabeth, you'll see why. Her performance is really powerful, but it's the best kind of powerful -- it's subtle. She says more with a slight movement of her eyes and mouth than most actors do when they're screaming at you. Ditto Geoffrey Rush and Christopher Eccleston, who offer two very different takes on ruthlessness -- neither of which is simple or black and white. If you want to be amazed by Eccleston's range, be sure to see A Price Above Rubies (a seriously flawed movie with a couple of great performances) where he plays an Orthodox Jew in NYC.

Some people have criticized this film for taking some liberties with history, but it's not really that far off from fact and no more so than any other non-documentary film. They've definitely done some creative interpreting in places, but those embellishments are hung on actual historical truths about Elizabeth and that time in England's history. If you don't know much about Tudor England, it's worth reading through the helpful DVD insert packet to get some background before watching. Just as in movies like Braveheart and The Last Emperor, things are often clearer on the second viewing than they are first time around, but that's only because they're not wasting time with too much exposition. Elizabeth's writer and director trust that you'll get the important stuff, which you will, even if the history's new to you.

I really enjoyed the director's commentary -- that can be hit or miss, but in this case, it's enlightening and chock full of interesting details about the performances, camera angles, history, and more. It doesn't get much more complicated than shooting a period piece, and Kapur does a nice job letting you in on all the chaos behind what we see onscreen. The featurettes included also provide nice interviews with all the major actors.

I'm not sure why Elizabeth didn't clean up at the Oscars in '99. Maybe because it was a British production and didn't get the obscenely heavy PR push that Miramax gave Shakespeare in Love. Truth is, Elizabeth is one of the best "big" films of the 90s. It's the story of a woman whose birthright made her powerful in a time when women rarely wielded any political power at all, and it serves up a genuinely tragic portrayal of someone who sacrificed her own innocence and passions to become what England needed. The last shot of the film is an image of what most of us recognize as Elizabeth I (the pale, stone-faced Virgin Queen), but seeing this interpretation of how she got there turns that cold image into a haunting one.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, yet historically inaccurate, film.
Review: In and of itself, as a movie, this film is superb. However, it bears little resemblance to what we know from history. There were three major aspects that struck me most: Firstly, the time frame in which the events of the movie took place. Usually tweaking in this department is permissable in film, but the script squashes together what happened over 30 years into what happened within Elizabeth's twenties. The overall effect is rather damaging to historical merit. Secondly, the portayal of Elizabeth is way off, particularly in how she viewed her rise to power. She was not naive and afraid of her power when she took the throne, but a hardened politician who KNEW her power, and how to use it. She was an extremely intelligent woman, who was fluent in many languages and who had extensive classical learning. And thirdly, her relationship with Robert is rather altered in a major way...she NEVER slept with him, she was a true virgin. There are little things too, like the dress, and the way the French prince conducted himself in front of the queen...that kind of behavior would have NEVER taken place. This can be researched indepth online or through books on the subject, such as Elizabethian biographies.

Usually a lack of accuracy will give me distaste for a film. However, as a movie, Elizabeth is too good. Dark, chilling, and at times rather terrifying, it is a pleasure to the senses and a joy for those who like their minds provoked.

Rating:
Summary: One of my Top Ten of 1998
Review: Elizabeth sweeps across the screen with a splendor and a self-assuredness rarely found in the movies these days. Unlike most historic epics, it has only an average running time. It does not need three to four hours to unfold. It races out of the gate in the first scene and stays on course through its brilliant, mesmerizing finish. It is a film to be savored, and it reminds us that, at their best, movies are truly an art form.

If you are the type of history buff who insists on accuracy, then Elizabeth will disappoint you. Even Shekhar Kapur, the gifted director whose vision this movie is, admits that this is a romantic interpretation of the early life of one of the world's greatest rulers. I feel that, unless a movie's makers claim they are being totally factual, artistic license is as permissible in this medium as it is in others. Besides, it isn't easy to take several years worth of events and cram them into two hours. One has to hit the highlights and be coherent while doing so. Kapur's plan was to capture the spirit and the feel of 16th Century England. He has succeeded brilliantly.

I can think of no young actress other than Cate Blanchett who could have played Elizabeth so well. One effect of modern times seems to be that our emotional growth is slower. While immensely talented, a Gwyneth Paltrow or a Kate Winslett doesn't yet have the maturity to play such a part. The role requires that Blanchett go from an innocent girl, who does not believe she will ever be more than a princess, to an uncertain queen in charge of a derelict, poor country, to an iron-willed, worldly monarch who would make England the world's most powerful nation. Blanchett's portrayal of Elizabeth's mental and physical transformations is acting of the highest order.

Do not think for a moment that this is a woman's picture. To quote Elizabeth, "I can think like a man if I have to." There is certainly romance. Her failed love affair with Lord Robert Dudley [Joseph Finnes] is a centerpiece of the movie. Yet Elizabeth is also filled with intrigue, betrayal, deceit, lust, power, and warfare. Scotland was not under British rule, and Queen Mary was longing to invade. Both France and Spain had plans to annex England. It had not been long since Henry the Eighth had broken with the Roman Catholic church, and the Vatican was plotting revenge. It was not the most opportune time for anyone to ascend the throne.

The supporting cast is remarkable. Joseph Finnes smartly plays Robert Dudley as an intelligent but vulnerable character. Geoffrey Rush's Sir Francis Walshingham is someone who is alone in being be utterly loyal to Elizabeth, yet who is also one of the most sinister and ruthless people imaginable. Both of these actors also starred in that other Elizabethan event, Shakespeare in Love. What a year is was for them! And what a year for movies made in the UK!

At the Oscars, Elizabeth was blown away by the delightful and far more commercial Shakespeare in Love; however,at the British Academy Awards, the Virgin Queen won in a staggering twelve categories, including Best Picture and, of course, Best Actress.

Rating:
Summary: Great Movies Still Exist. Here's Proof.
Review: Actually,I give this movie 4 1/2 stars. It's not quite Peter O Toole's "The Lion in the Winter." But it is not far behind. There is so much to be said for this movie. In today's techno world, where even some Shakespeare movies have given way to Hollywood, this is a masterfully done movie that relies on character development, a superb script, and beautiful scenery as opposed to effects. The movie grabs our attention right away with Bloody Mary's psychotic and ill use of power. Soon afterwards, we see Elizabeth's dangerous state. When Elizabeth survives her half sister and becomes queen, she sees that the game has only just started. She is faced with several decisions regarding her personal state as well as the state of England. One truth this movie reveals is that whatever the faults of her father King Henry VIII were, he was a strong and able king for those hard times. Many people seem to overlook the facts that King Henry VIII (1) Furthered constitutional governing, (2) Authorized the Bible's translation into English, (3) Built up England's navy very well, (4) Kept order in a hard time without any wars resulting, and (5) Satisfied Parliament by removing England from Rome's grip. (When he is spoken of, he is spoken of well.)It may help us to appreciate this movie more if we remember that Elizabeth's grandfather King Henry VII ended The War of the Roses; her father King Henry VIII, pulled England through the Reformation. And Bloody Mary quite undid the fine work of her father and grandfather. And it was up to Elizabeth to fix this. Another thing I must say about this movie is that the violent scenes are done well. Many movies tend to glorify in violence, and to make it worse, they add low humor at the so called 'bad guys' expense. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE AT ALL! In this movie, it is clear that the violence is quite forced. It is not delighted in, and there is no low humor involved. Also, our attention is well kept between Elizabeth's personal emotional struggles as well as her struggles to restore England to the state her father and grandfather did. It is very tragic that the simplistic "Shrek," special effects Sci Fi, low humor, no story action movies, or simplistic bood and guts movies tend to dominate the market. Yet this movie which is so masterfully done has a limited popularity.

Rating:
Summary: Wish it had been better
Review: The strength of this movie is Kate as Elizabeth. She does a fine job.

But the movie was disjointed. You never were quite sure who was who.....why did Walsingham kill the boy? How did the priest find out that the young man was a spy of Walsingham's?

There was 'way too much gloomy, gothic music and scenes of blood..who cares? who needs it?

Who was the Duke of Norfolk and why did he think he could be rude to the young Elizabeth, the Queen...

In watching the film we hear that Robert was married, but that never becomes quite clear.....

How did the priest gain entrance to see the queen? (the one with the documents that allowed anyone to kill her..)

In fact, Elizabeth I loved and cherished many men after Robert, and although she was known as the virgin, unmarried queen, she loved many men....

The sex and violence were kind of thrown in to attract the crowds.....

Very poor except for Kate's performance

Rating:
Summary: Kept me on the edge of my seat!
Review: I've always loved the history and stories of Tudor England-Henry VIII's Six Wives and children (legitimate and iligitimate alike). And of course, Elizabeth I is the most famous of all English sovereigns, so when this movie came out I was very anxious to see it. Thankfully I was not disappointed. It's very enjoyable and stimulating. WATCH IT!

Rating:
Summary: Stunning historial epic
Review: The big-screen movie adaptation of the early years of Elizabeth I starts with the arresting image of a group of preachers being burnt at the stake in the reign of Mary I. After her death the 25 year-old Elizabeth succeeds her and the movie basically chronicles the queen's loss of innocence as she learns the pressure and pain of being the monarch.

As a history student, this is hardly what you might call historically accurate. Indeed, the subtext with Robert Dudley is spiced up here. However, most of this comes to cramming such a monumentous event as a queen's reign into the running time. This is definitely a historical epic for the 21st century in that it is vibrant and full of intrigue, blood and sex. This is only too apparent in several memorable scenes, especially the ending, which sees the execution of Northumberland and Elizabeth's hair being shorn off due to her brush with smallpox. In many ways this is a kind of feminist theatre, with Elizabeth attempting to prove herself to her council, scared of subordination if she marries. The idea of a woman on the throne was of particular significance at the time, with three queens in Europe - Elizabeth, Mary Queen of Scots and Catherine deMedici effectively ruling France. If there's one scene which lingers long in the mind though, it's the pillar of strength that Elizabeth is forced to become when the film ends and we see her proclaim that she is married to her people.

Cate Blanchett's performance is extraordinary as her wide-eyed innocence gradually becomes the stern face of resilience. She turns Elizabeth into a person rather than merely a historial figure. Fiennes, as her love interest is interesting, with the audience never really knowing whether they can trust him or not. What's also impressive is the well-realised relationship between Elizabeth and Cecil, later Lord Burghley. The supporting cast is top-notch, and there's even Eric Cantona thrown in there.

The recent trend in historical epics has been a joy to watch, although there's rarely a central female performance of such power than Cate Blanchett's here.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent film, history garbled
Review: Few historical movies have been good enough to overlook the historical fact and just plain applaud the performances and the visual work. "Elizabeth" is one of those movies. The performance by Cate Blanchett is just simply amazing, and she should have won more than a Golden Globe for it. Shekhar Kapur's direction is great, and Geoffrey Rush's experience is evident as the quiet but deadly advisor. The movie moves quickly, and Blanchett is breataking. Joseph Fiennes is annoying, and Vincent Cassel is hilarious. "Elizabeth" is well written, well directed, and well acted. A definate success.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent !!
Review: I cannot say enough about this movie. As a history buff, I thought the movie very entertaining and the portrayal of Elizabeth quite fresh. The acting was terrific, the suspense wonderful. The costuming and scenery and music were also worthy of mention. Cate Blanchett is wonderful and very believable in the title role. You feel for her in every hard decision she has to make. A wonderful choice to play Elizabeth. I own this movie, and would say that any fan of history or of historical costuming should own it as well. Very worthy of watching again and again.

Rating:
Summary: Elizabethan Fiction
Review: This film is visually stunning. The costuming is terrific, the camerawork excellent, the acting superb. All of that would be the recipe for a superior film-if it wasn't touted as history.

I have watched this movie over and over just to catalogue all the points of history it gets wrong. It's impossible to write them all in a review here; it would take a full monograph. The acting is superb but the character portrayals couldn't be further from the truth.

Jeffrey Rush plays Walshingham as the suave, debonair older man who is very fond of the queen. The actual Walshingham was in fact very sophisticated and learned- otherwise he wouldn't have been a good ambassador in France- but he was also a Puritan who didn't approve of the Queen's behavior and was famous for his run-ins with her (during one of which she threw a shoe at him.) He did run the most elaborate and sophisticated spy network of his day, but he was not a murderer.

David Attenboro looks very much the part of Lord Burghley (William Cecil) but doesn't act anything like the historical person. Burghley, or William Cecil, was very careful not to criticize the queen's personal habits. It was his circumspect behavior that kept him alive during the reigns of three Tudors, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. He was Elizabeth's principal secretary advisor was extremely influential in the decision-making of the queen. This movie tries to make him look like the straight-laced, Puritan old man who is scandalized by the Queen's peccadillos. As an illustration of how non-critical the man actually was, he never complained even as the Queen flirted with his son-in-law the Earl of Oxford and kept him away from his wife, Burghley's much-loved daughter, at the expense of her own happiness.

The Queen herself is portrayed by Cate Blanchett as a young girl whose nervousness is quite visible in most scenes. The real Queen was very strong and very seldom displayed this kind of weakness. In fact it is said she suffered from illnesses that modern experts say stemmed from the fact that she kept these feelings locked inside.

It would take too long to list all the errors and fabrications in this movie. After reading 30+ books about the subject I still can't place some of the characters (who was the kid Walshingham (Jeffrey Rush) was supposed to have stabbed early on?) I can say that some of the situations border on the supernatural (how does Mary of Guise become the matriarch of the house of Valois? How does she survive so long after the War in Scotland? Where's Mary Queen of Scots in all of this?) To sum up, take this movie as entertainment; get your history elsewhere.