Elizabeth

Rating:
Summary: "God Save Queen Blanchett!"
Review: Probably the best period piece ever, Elizabeth is the most artistic movie I've ever seen. It brings out in a dark and obscure, yet elegant way, the mysteries, intritigues, dangers and betrayal of the Elizabethan court. Set in England in the mid 1500's, it begins with a majestic look at the persecution and confrontation between catholics, led by their queen, Mary Tudor, and the protestants, unprotected, who's only hope is the princess Elizabeth, (majestically played by a scene stealing Cate Blanchett), who subsequently rises to the thrown. Excelenty produced, acted and directed, very underappreciated in the Oscars. But that's show biz.

Rating:
Summary: Cate, Cate, Cate
Review: Somewhat monotonous screenplay has been saved thanks to Cate's incredibly carismatic portrayal of Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. Other than her, Jeffrey Rush deserves acclaim. Joseph Fiennes is a bit disappointing though.. Once you start playing this video, you will be captured by the sheer charm of Cate. My opinion is.. the Oscar found a wrong owner this year..

Rating:
Summary: Hail to the Queen!
Review: During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Rating:
Summary: CATE BLANCHETT DESERVED THE OSCAR
Review: "Elizabeth", though an excellent film, was really Cate Blanchett's film.She deserved to win the Academy Award for Best Actress, instead of Gwyneth Paltrow for "Shakespeare in Love" (who was great in that, but let's face it: the Oscars shouldn't be a popularity contest, should they.They should be based on talent and merit).

Rating:
Summary: The movie of the year!
Review: Forget Saving Private Ryan! Elizabeth is a perfect blend of superb acting, beautiful scenery, and a compelling plot. It keeps you on the edge of your seat for 2 hours straight, without the overuse of gore and blood! This movie is a must-see, don't overlook it!

Rating:
Summary: Elizabeth is a visually stunning and historical adventure.
Review: Elizabeth is just so wonderful! When I saw it, I was struck speechless. I recommend it to anyone. This movie featured my man Joseph Fiennes, and a truly brilliant actress, Cate Blanchett. She portrays Queen Elizabeth 1 with excellence and accuracy. See this video, I hope that Cate wins Best Actress!!

Rating:
Summary: Great movie, but not so great music
Review: This is such a beautiful movie - every scene is like a renaissance painting, this alone make's this movie well worth every single dime. The only hangup I've got on this movie is the music. This movie is based upon the history of England in the late 16th century, why isn't the music? there were ofcourse a few places where they used early music, but then only as "party music" (or rather - Dance music - VOLTA). I think that a Pavane for solo lute would have been extremely expressive in this movie, instead we got some "fat" string arrangements with a guitar ?!?!? playing melody ?? completely out of place. I wonder how such a missmatch possibly occured ?!?!!? Why didn't we get to hear John Dowland's "The most sacred queen Elizabeth, her Galliard" ?? I've to admit, that the use of Mozart's requiem in the end of the movie was great, but Thomas Tallis (or any other renaissance composer for that reason), wrote some beautiful pieces, why didn't the makes of the movie bother to talk to someone with knowledge of this eras music.

After all, one of the better movies I've seen in a long time. A must see (and a MUST OWN !!!)

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
Review: If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Rating:
Summary: Totally Fictional Film
Review: There is nothing historical about this movie. I could go into a long list of the details, but here are just a few of the problems:

1) There was no dominating mood of rising Protestantism in England. Mary Tudor was EXTREMELY POPULAR with the English people, who were almost entirely Catholic and hated the newfangled protestant heresies. The only areas where protestant schism had any hold whatsoever was London and a few smaller cities. The general population had no problem with Mary and her council's execution of heretical rebels.

2) Mary DID NOT try to keep Elizabeth from the throne. Elizabeth was involved in an early plot to overthrow Catholicism in England, but when that plot was foiled, Elizabeth swore to her elder sister that she was firmly Catholic. Mary believed her, and died happily thinking that she'd left the throne to a strong Catholic heir.

3) Elizabeth was virtually impotent as queen. Most of the time, her orders were simply ignored. The country was essentially run by her chancellor William Cecil. A few examples provided by Hillaire Belloc:
A: She had personally given her royal assurance to the Spanish Minister that the Spanish treasure ships bearing the pay for Alva's soldiers in the Netherlands, the ships which had taken refuge from pirates in English harbors, should be released and the money taken under safeguards to its proper destination. Cecil simply overruled her. He ordered the money to be confiscated and his orders were obeyed, not hers.
B: She desired to save Norfolk. Three separate times she tried to stop the execution. Cecil overruled and had him put to death.
C: She tried to recall Drake and stop England from declaring war on Spain. No one thought to heed her orders.
D: The supreme example is the murder of Mary, Queen of Scots. We are often led to believe that Elizabeth faked remorse at having her cousin executed. This is totally false. Elizabeth was horrified. She did everything she could to stop Ceil from having Mary beheaded. Again, no one paid attention to England great, powerful, wise Queen Elizabeth, so legendary for her strength of will and character.

4) Elizabeth secretly held deep sympathy for the Catholic Church. As a young girl, she grew up amidst the cynical, elitist class of intellectuals who doubted Catholicism mainly because they wanted its wealth. Elizabeth was naturally influenced by such propaganda. But in time, she grew to understand just how villainous was the plundering of England's great abbeys and churches so that greedy nobles, disguised as religious reformers, could grow wealthier. It is said that if the King of Spain had launched an attack and seized England, she would have helped him.

Rating:
Summary: The "Cliffs Notes" version of the life of Elizabeth I.
Review: Queen Elizabeth I of England is one of the most impressive figures in European history. She came to the throne in 1558 at the age of twenty-five, upon the death of her half sister, Mary I. It was a time of much political instability, and the young Queen's task was made even more difficult by the fact that her legitimacy was by no means universally acknowledged (many saw her father Henry VIII's marriage to Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn, as being invalid, since he was never granted a Papal dispensation for the annulment of his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Mary's mother), and by the fact that Elizabeth was a Protestant. And on top of all this, many of the English people were far from jubilant at the prospect of another female ruler, after the disastrous reign of her sister Mary. The years immediately following Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, therefore, were fraught with uncertainty and danger. In order to retain her crown and win the hearts of her people, Elizabeth would have to become a strong, almost superhuman figure, and it is this formative process that the film "Elizabeth" seeks to show us.

Unfortunately, the film does not entirely succeed. Elizabeth reigned for 44 years, an extremely long time. Her maturation and the development of her status as a national icon were shaped by a series of trials, both political and personal, that took place over the course of multiple decades. It would be nearly impossible to accurately show all this in a 2-hour movie. "Elizabeth" suffers from the fact that the makers of the film simply tried to cram too much material into the 124 minutes they had to work with. It could be called a "Cliffs Notes" version of Elizabeth's story - the film provides a sketchy overview, but you wouldn't want to rely on this as your primary source of information. Many events are truncated, jumbled together, and even shown out of historical order, with the effect that they make very little sense. One would have to have considerable knowledge of Elizabeth's life before seeing the movie to really understand what is supposed to be happening in many of the scenes. The relationship between events is not readily apparent from the movie itself. But the problem, for those that come to the movie with previous knowledge if Elizabeth, is that they will also notice all the historical inaccuracies in the film. And there are many.

For one, there is no evidence whatsoever that the relationship between Elizabeth and Robert Dudley was ever sexual, yet very early on in the film there is a sex scene between the two. That they loved each other very much is undisputed, but Elizabeth was rarely left alone, even in her private chambers, being almost constantly attended by her ladies in waiting, and there would have been very little opportunity for her to let the relationship go so far. Furthermore, Elizabeth would have been aware of the inherent risks in having a sexual relationship - primarily that of becoming pregnant. In addition, she knew she could never marry Lord Robert, for he was already married to Amy Robsart (and she did indeed know of this, though the film seems to imply that she was unaware of it prior to Cecil's announcement of the fact), and Dudley was also extremely unpopular with most of the members of court, and it is unlikely that Elizabeth would have risked her throne - a very real danger - by carrying out a sexual affair with him.

Even more confusing, the latter part of the film implicates Dudley as a co-conspirator in a plot against Elizabeth. This makes no sense at all. Though there were times when the real Dudley incurred the Queen's displeasure, and fell temporarily out of favor, their disagreements were usually short-lived, and the two remained good friends their entire lives. Dudley's last letter to Elizabeth was a love letter, and when Elizabeth herself died years later, this letter was found on the table beside her bed. Another discrepancy is the fact that the Duke of Anjou shown in the film is the wrong Duke of Anjou. Elizabeth was indeed courted by Henry, Duke of Anjou, and he did indeed cross-dress, but he never visited her. Much later his younger brother Francis, who took on the title after Henry ascended the throne of France as Henry III, took up the suit of Elizabeth, and he was the one who travelled to England. But he was never known to cross-dress. The film also implies that Francis Walsingham conspired to assassinate Mary of Guise, regent of Scotland. First of all, it was Cecil and not Walsingham who was sent to Scotland, and secondly, Mary of Guise died of dropsy. There are numerous other, more minor inaccuracies, but it would be tedious to list them all here. For more information on the real Elizabeth, I highly recommend the biography "The Life of Elizabeth I" by Alison Weir.

On the flipside, the film is saved by Cate Blanchett's magnificent portrayal of Elizabeth herself. Blanchett definitely deserved her Golden Globe Award for Best Actress, and she alone is the reason I actually added this movie to my collection. She is also the only reason I would ever have even watched this movie more than once. Blanchett has a very strong screen presence, and really captures the intricacies of Elizabeth's character. She is the backbone of the film, without which it would undoubtedly have crumpled into a shapeless mess. The other actors - primarily Joseph Fiennes as Robert Dudley, Richard Attenborough as William Cecil, Geoffrey Rush as Sir Francis Walsingham, and Christopher Eccleston as the Duke of Norfolk - do admirable jobs, but the ways in which the film skews their characters undermine their performances. The only other thing I would really commend this film for is its costuming, which is magnificent. Elizabeth's wardrobe alone is stunning. The DVD Special Features are decent, though not overly impressive. There are two trailers, two featurettes on the making of the film, a photo gallery, and information on cast and crew.