Rating: 
Summary: alas
Review: Visually opulent, but, sad to say, ponderous and overlong....a triumph of style over substance...pity, because the Elizabethan era is one of the most interesting political periods in history....see "Elizabeth R." instead, or even "Lady Jane" (which depicts an earlier time in English history, but much better captures the nasty backstabbing of the Catholic/Protestant struggle in England in the 1500s) ..."Elizabeth" does benefit from some fine performances and has many splendid scenes (especially the closing one)... if only things had been done in 90 minutes or so...
Rating: 
Summary: hollywood
Review: this is a great movie, as long as you realize it is not historically accurate. it's hollywood at their best. wonderfully entertaining and Cate Blanchett is awesome, but key concepts are left out.
Rating:
Summary: Does anyone read History
Review: I felt this was a very good move, good acting and I think Cate Blanchett is a excellent actress. I saw the Gift and she did an excellent job. However, any history bluff knows that Mary Queen of Scots was Elizabeth R cousin, not her half sister. I once took an history class and the professor had the same opinion. One has only to read any history book to find that Mary was the daughter of Henry the VIII's beloved Sister. I find it hard to believe in this day and age a Producer would film a file without checking into History. However, aside from that, I still am rating this movie a 4 due to the acting and also because I LOVE history. What I find scary is the fact that many people just accept as fact that Mary and Elizabeth were half sisters, when in fact Mary was a threat to Elizabeth and her claim to the throne of England due to the fact that Henry VIII disowned Elizabeth most of her life. In fact when her older sister, the real bloody Mary, gained the throne, she locked Elizabeth in the tower fom many years. She appeared to die from some sort of growth such as a tumor and Elizabeth came to the throne when she was 25 years old. She was one of the greatest rulers of England. In fact, she decided that no man would rule her and thus rule England in her place. However, i still rate this move at least a 4 for the very good acting.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent.
Review: Excellent in every aspect. Very entertaining film. And it is inconceivable that they gave the Oscar to Gwyneth Paltrow instead of Cate Blanchett. You can't even compare their performances, Blanchett is ten times more gifted than an "OK" actress such as Paltrow. I don't understand how they make decisions. The Oscar is very depreciated and overvalued award. I mean, if they give it to Russell Crowe in Gladiator -they should have gave it to him in The Insider, now there is an astounding performance.
Rating:
Summary: A frozen heart, not melted by warmth or love....
Review: An ominious start to a dark tale of love, lust and power. Protestants are burned at the stake in the opening scenes. The succession of Mary's Protestant half-sister is feared, yet occurs. Henry VIII is dead and the country is divided. Catholic against Protestant. Elizabeth is portrayed at first as a woman of the world who takes great pleasure in playful, sensual dancing with her lover. She seems willing to take risks to be with the man she supposedly loves. After becoming Queen, she takes on such responsibility that she loses herself in her realm of power. "If you think to rule me, you are mistaken." -Queen Elizabeth she tells "Joseph Fiennes" who was absolutely brilliant in this movie and every woman will just wish she was the one being persued so pationately. When she is still a Princess, she is accused of treason, this throws her into a world where evil men are consumed with the need for power and cloak their sins in a guise of piety. She sees the horrors and wants to make one church the rule. This is rated R mostly for violence and a few love scenes which are hardly a minute long. The torture scenes are rather awful and I wish they would have done away with all the heads on stakes, etc. However, they don't look "that" real. Through this movie you begin to really dislike Queen Elizabeth and as her heart freezes, so does yours. I am still wondering what her lover saw in her...she looks rather pasty in that makeup as if with her heart, her face lost all blood as well. ;> Brilliantly acted by all and a royal feast for the eyes. The costumes are stunning and Joseph Fiennes is SO adorable, you just want to hug him and tell him it will be ok, he is such a sad little puppy in this movie. Sigh....I'm in the tower..come save me...
Rating: 
Summary: MORONIC!
Review: Pretty, yes. And Cate Blanchett acts well, but this screenplay was moronic. I'm an adult. I don't want to see a film that resembles a 2-hour MTV video. I don't want to see history so utterly ignored and vulgarized that the subject no longer bears even a passing resemblence to Elizabeth 1. Watch the PBS miniseries "Elizabeth R" if you want to see an interesting drama about Elizabeth 1. This film has got nothing to do with her, not even remotely. It was certainly a sexually obsessed film. I'm getting really tired of that in normal films, but to make these suggestions in a film about Elizabeth 1 is just stupid. Again, this just goes to the MTV aspect of this so-called movie. As someone said, this is history like Mel Brooks' "History of the World" is history. I appreciate that facts have to be altered for the sake of drama, but I do not believe they have to be removed entirely. I mean, if you do THAT, then why call the film "Elizabeth" at all? NO ONE would have said to Elizabeth, "But my lady, you're only a woman." Their head would have rolled immediately. The filmmakers probably felt they had to put this in to bow to feminists and p.c. types. But it's just absurd. No one would have said that to her face especially. ELIZABETH DID NOT use white led makeup in the 2nd year of her reign, she didn't do that for decades and decades until she was an old woman. She DID NOT attempt to become some sort of metaphor for the Virgin Mary either. As one viewer noted, she banned all statues of the Virgin because she was Protestant. She WOULD NOT have said to a gathering of clergy (a la Rodney King) "Why can't we, Catholics and Protestants, all just get along; we're really not so different." The differences between Catholics and Protestants were in the minds of people of that time, HUGE! It was just a ridiculous statement. She never would have said that. This was the 16th Century, not the 20th. HENRY VIII, her father, brought her to Court as a girl and had her educated. She would not have been a stranger to the Court the way she was depticted in the film. She would not have been so unsure of herself and clueless. If ANYTHING marks Elizabeth 1, it was that she was very sharp and cunning. I would have given this travesty a 0 if such a rating was available. See the mini-series Elizabeth R if you want drama about Elizabeth. See The Gift if you want to see Cate Blanchett in an entertaining movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Costume drama without the drama
Review: Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth was engaging enough, and it would have been an excellent film if they'd bothered, at any time, to make it clear what was going on. There were gripping bits, but then the plot would inevitably wander off into the fens somewhere and leave me squinting at the screen in confusion, and if I hadn't already known quite a bit about Elizabeth, I'd have been hopelessly lost. A visually stunning movie, but completely opaque.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Production, but a historical scramble
Review: Being a fan of the great "Queen Bess", I think Ms. Blanchett did an outstanding job as Elizabeth and the movie was well acted, though confusing at times. For those looking for a entertaining production with a romanticized, faintly historical look at her life, then this should not prove to be disappointing. If you are looking for an truly accurate, complete account of this outstanding woman's life, her times, and the historical figures associated with it, I would suggest Elizabeth R or a good book. A lot of "creative license" was taken in the screen play, making an entertaining production but not a historical drama. In fact, some of the scenes/events where total fabrication!
Rating:
Summary: Queen Elizabeth I
Review: Although the film plays with history a bit, Shekhar Kapur and staff did a fabulous job with cinematography, costumes, and choosing the actors. The film recounts Elizabeth's conspirated rise to her thrown as well as the very beginning of her reign. After ridding England of her enemies, she vows not to be the same vulnerable girl she once was; and to make herself an icon to not only her people, but her court. This sudden shift of personality seems like she is saying "Noone can touch me anymore." I give the film an A+ just for the camera angles, music and actors. If anything could be better, it would be complete historical accuracy. Outstanding film!
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent Tale of the Renaissance Woman
Review: Cinema audiences do not look to Hollywood for an accurate portrayal of anything, much less History. We do not want them to. We want entertainment: the full splendour of magic as woven by intriguing plots, sumptuously designed sets, and an over-indulgence of inspired acting. Nothing less. The rebirth of Human Thought of the past millenium was ushered into the world fraught with pain and many false starts. History witnessed the end of the Middle Ages three quarters into those thousand years, and although it claims Florence as its embroiled center of emergence, England was certainly one of Europe's greatest proponents of the Renaissance. One finds an excellent treatment of the ascendance to the British throne of this film's title subject. Shekhar Kapur is an expert magician, carefully managing into a fluid package the steamiest bits of the Queen's early reign, deftly helming the ship round an elaborate and exquisite set, and orchestrating the magnificent cast to a fine-tuned performance. One is offered a musing and attractive interpretation of the famous story, and the result is wholly enthralling. Chief among its many wonders is its star performer, Cate Blanchett. If not a direct descendant of the Muses, she then comes scandalously close to the claim by steeling the entire show; and it is nothing short of what she, whether by accident or design, is wont to do. She is a fascinating actor. Her credits prove it. Go to PARADISE ROAD, OSCAR AND LUCINDA, or her contribution to THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY, and it is obvious why she was awarded this role. That she was not awarded the Academy honour is yet another scandal, but we are patient. She shall be granted a place in that stellar coterie, and that with lavish and deserved praise. Great advances in the Age of Discovery came to the world as brought forth by the English and their Queen. She was a staunch patron of the Arts (theatre, the fine arts, artisanry), the maritime sciences, and certainly Literature. By her leave and her purse, the world was bequeathed the jewels of the one of the greatest languages of the West, giving England a proper place in the enlightening advance of the Renaissance. Look to ELIZABETH, not for the important development of that story, but for a glimpse into how it started. This telling is as diverting and encompassing a version as the whole tale.
| 
