Elizabeth

Rating:
Summary: Lavish And Entertaining
Review: It takes orbs of brass to walk where Sarah Bernhardt, Bette Davis, Judith Anderson, and Glenda Jackson have ruled before. Yet here's blissfully unactressy Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth," embracing the role of England's legendary 16th-century Virgin Queen with luminous, spirited, style.

Indian director Shekhar Kapur's retelling of the crowning of 25-year-old Queen Bess, who survived conspiracies and assassination attempts -- and, in the bargain, had to forfeit her womanly desires for love and sex -- tags all the period-piece bases. But there's more hot blood running through the veins of this opulent production than its A&E-style subject matter might suggest.

This is a sensual, psychologically modern costume drama influenced by both "The Godfather" and gals' guides to empowerment; beneath the finery of these schemers beat hearts as up-to-date as any on a TV drama, assuming a TV story line allows for beheadings.

The Australian-born Blanchett, whose starring role in "Oscar and Lucinda" has nevertheless kept her relatively unknown here, is the queen of this tony entertainment, pure and simple; without her, Kapur's extravagant history lesson (written by Michael Hirst) blurs into dark doings among men in tights. But when Blanchett announces her feminist declaration, "I am no man's Elizabeth," we're thrilled because she makes us know that she most definitely is not.

A fine period piece of deep reflections.

Rating:
Summary: Elizabeth Tudor, from Imprisoned Princess to Virgin Queen
Review: Most films featuring Elizabeth has focused on the mature queen, dealing with the threat of the Spanish Armada or the problematic presence of Mary Queen of Scots, so a film focusing on the young Elizabeth in the early days of her reign is certainly a worthwhile perspective. Unlike 1953's "Young Bess," where Jean Simmons' Elizabeth still had to contend with the daunting presence of Henry VIII (Charles Laughton reprising his Oscar winning role), "Elizabeth" presents a princess in danger of losing her life and a young Queen whose throne is very much at risk.

Cate Blanchet's performance has more depth than the scenes and dialogues allow. What probably kept her from winning the Oscar was that she really does not have . The closest is when she prepares for her speech to Parliament, which was certainly set up to be the moment where she proves her worthiness to the audience if not her people, but the scene does not provide the anticipated payoff. Nor are there any choice lines that are burned into your mind while watching the film, although there certainly could have been something along the lines that everyone was so concerned with who her mother was that they forgot her father was Henry VIII. Simply compare the opportunities Blanchet has in this film with what Katharine Hepburn was given in "The Lion in Winter" and you will see that this performance in "Elizabeth" transcends the limitations of the script. The supporting cast features such illuminaries as John Gielgu and Richard Attenborough, but it is Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston and Jospeh Finnes who stand out and give the story its true gravity.

Shekhur Kapur's direction does not stand out as much as the art direction and costume design, which makes "Elizabeth" one of the most stunning period pieces since "Restoration." It is rather interesting that for the most part the good guys have traditional bears and semi-flowing locks while the bad guys have buzz cuts, which lend a severity to their appearances. You do have nice symmetry between the opening of the film where the Protestant heretics are being shaved and the closing sequence where Elizabeth's own hair is shaved as she is transformed into the stunning Virgin Queen.

The DVD offers directors commentary from Kapur that is certainly above average as such things go and a making of "Elizabeth" featurette that is actually not as good as the notes in the enclosed booklet. The film is more emotionally true than historically accurate, but Elizabeth Tudor is one of the most important figures in the political history of what would eventually become the American republic. Hopefully watching this film will inspire you to find out more about her.

Rating:
Summary: Not My Cup Of Tea
Review: My motivation to watch this flick was the fact that Joseph Fiennes was in it. I'm not a huge history buff, so this just couldn't capture my attention. After the first 30 minutes or so, even the fact that Joseph Fiennes was in it couldn't keep my attention. My advice: For the history buffs, or those interested in Elizabeth. Otherwise, it's a snore.

Rating:
Summary: Thrilling!
Review: Of course, the producers of this motion picture didn't follow history exactly to the letter, but this was probably not their intention anyway ... they just wanted to make a great movie against the backdrop of some highly interesting history and they accomplished this the best way anyone could. And in fact, the rough framework of history is still covered in this flick as it shows how Christians were burned at the stake, which did happen, and it shows the tremendous obstacles Queen Elizabeth I had to face to obtain the throne of England. And it was this Queen who led England during her reign from near bankruptcy to extraordinary prosperity. The movie is a great movie and it's actually an intriguing thriller. The costumes are just perfect and Cate Blanchett delivers an excellent performance. This motion picture doesn't have the usual glamour of similar movies set in this era, but instead the set was kept pretty authentic and that makes this movie even more interesting and enjoyable.

Rating:
Summary: A Stunning Visual Masterpeice
Review: This film is one of the best movies ever made. From start to finish it will completly hold your attention. Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth the first gave the best female performance of the 1990's and one of the best of all time. Every scene with her is worth mentioning. The Parliament scene. The scene where she gets the Mary I (Kathy Burke) ring. Her practicing her parliament speech scene. The scenes she has with Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush). Her "I am my father's daughter speech." The scene at the end where she walks to her throne-riveting. She gives an amazingly nuanced and remarkable performance that can not be over-praised. The fact that she lost best Actress is one of the biggest robberies in Oscar history. Fanny Ardant gives an amazingly real performance as Mary Of Guise. An astonishing example of a small role that is made big by a remarkable performance- 100% Oscar worhty. Kathy Burke is great as Mary I ("Bloody Mary.")Her plea to Elizabeth to uphold Catholicism in England was Oscar Worthy. Geoffrey Rush is ruthless and conniving as Walsingham. His scene where he describes to Elizabeth how she should be seen as a ruler made him deserve the Oscar for best Supporting actor of 1998. Also worth mentioning are Richard Attenborough and Christpher Eccleston. The direction job by Shekhar Kapur is one of the best of the 1990's and ever. The angles, the close-ups, brilliant. The editing by Jill Bilcock is remarkably done and adds tremendously to the story. The script by Michael Hirst has some of the best lines ever written-an amazing job. The costumes, cinematography, score and sets are by far some of the best of the 1990's and of all time. Especially the costumes and the cinematography. Overall Elizabeth is the definition of a masterpeice, one of the best movies ever made. Script, performance, technically its all there. A MASTERPEICE.

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS A "MOVIE" - NOT A HISTORICAL BIOGRAPHY
Review: I am somewhat amused at the enraged remarks made by some of the previous reviewers. If you are looking for factual history, read a book; there are scores of exceptional ones on Elizabeth and her reign. This is a MOVIE, not a historical rendering of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne. And as such, it was made for its entertainment, not factual, value. Not being a member of MENSA, I was still able to follow the "plotline" of the film at my first "partial" viewing. I missed the opening sequences, and caught bits and pieces of it on cable before seeing the film in full. After doing so, I was delighted to have found another film I could watch repeatedly. First, the casting was brilliant: I agree with the previous reviewer who felt Cate Blanchett was "robbed" of her Oscar. Joseph Fiennes's "Dudley" was able to gain my sympathy despite his treachery and Geoffrey Rush was superb as always. The film's additional casting, direction, costuming, editing and intricate story captivated me. I was not looking for flaws in these areas, or to catch some "historical mistake." I was utterly entertained, and was afraid to leave the room in fear that I would miss one "essential" line, as the characters were multi-dimensional. If I want to learn, I go to books; I own thousands. When I want to be entertained, or escape reality, I watch a movie. And that is why "Elizabeth" worked for me. It took me out of my living room into another world, no matter how "factually flawed" others found that world to be. And is it not the purpose of movies to entertain? I don't think anyone EVER attempted to advertise this film as an accurate, factual portrayal of Elizabeth's reign. But it was good enough to make me want to know those facts, and I think that is the value of movies as entertainment. So I'm heading to the nearest bookstore to get the very best historical and factual accounting of Elizabeth's reign, in all its complex splendour.

Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: As someone who studied Tudor history at college, this may not be the most historically accurate film ever made but the ones that always are accurate are usually pretty boring and really belong on the History channel. This is basically a thriller set against the backdrop of one of the most dramatic periods in European History.

One reviewer mentioned that Stephen Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor and Bishop who rebelled against Elizabeth died 12 years before she came to the throne. Well actually he died 3 years before she came to the throne, but who cares? This was an enjoyable, entertaining film with some superb performances especially from Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush as her close adviser, torturer and Assassin Sir Francis Walsingham. The film makes some assumptions about her relationship with the Earl of Leicester played by Fiennes but why not?

Braveheart is one of the least historically accurate films about British history ever made but it didn't stop it from being enjoyable and exciting. As a historian I think that if any film makes you want to go to your history books after you've seen it then it has definitely been worthwhile.

Just one correction from what an earlier reviewer mentioned. The Mary's featured in this film were Queen Mary of England, who went mad killing protestants and died making Elizabeth Queen. The other Mary was Mary of Guise who was the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary, Queen of Scots herself was not actually portrayed in this film at all. Too many Mary's!

Rating:
Summary: This is History?
Review: Hardly. Shekhar Kapur has taken a personality that has fascinated historians and writers since the 16th century, and turned it into an mush that portrays Elizabeth I as weak, vacillating, and completely dependent on her counselors for guidance.

That is not to say there is not good in this film -- Cate Blanchett gives a compelling performance despite a highly flawed script, well worth the Oscar nomination she received. Geoffrey Rush as Francis Walsingham is cold, calculating, and absolutely determined to pursue the path he feels is best for England and his queen without a thought to the consequences for those around him.

Other actors do not fair so well, however. Joseph Fiennes, so endearing in "Shakespeare in Love," is wooden and plodding here as Robert Dudley, the man Elizabeth loves. Richard Attenborough is poorly served with his role as William Cecil, and summarily dismissed from the action halfway through the picture.

You never learn your history from Hollywood, and I do not expect any production to be absolutely historically accurate, but when a director and writer willfully throw easily checked historical facts to the wind -- the bishop shown rebelling against Elizabeth in the climax of the film had died some 12 years previously, before Elizabeth even came to the throne! -- and then brag about how much detail and research has been included...well, let's just say they are being somewhat disingenuous.

"The Virgin Queen" with Bette Davis as Elizabeth and Joan Collins as a Maid of Honor is just about as accurate as this film -- and a lot more entertaining in the long run!

Rating:
Summary: Exquisite
Review: This is a brief opinion of the film Elizabeth--you can read detailed synopsis elsewhere if you're interested. Cate Blanchett's performance, as well as the screenwriter's care with her complicated character, are a marvel to behold. The film itself is not perfect, but this film is well worth your time just for this exquisite performance by Ms. Blanchett. (By the way, try "Oscar & Lucinda" for another wonderful performance by Cate.)

Rating:
Summary: A Good Movie
Review: I would have considered this movie to have been very well done if half the plot had been based on fact. Yes, the events in the movie COULD HAVE HAPPENED BUT THERE IS NO FACTUAL EVIDANCE TO SAY THAT THEY DID. However, even though some plot elements like Elizabeth's affair with what's-his-face are questionable, the movie was well done. The acting was wonderful and the costumes were just stunning. Other than the historical discrepancies which I will overlook the movie was great and entertaining.