Rating: 
Summary: Virgin Queen?
Review: It wasn't a bad movie - historically correct? Nah, but it was entertaining. Cate Blanchett, brings Elizabeth to life, I thought she did a great job acting it (the resemblance to the queen is scary). The writer, should try to stick with history though. I don't understand why he tried to rewrite history, since it is such a fascinating time period anyways. A little confusing, if I didn't study it - it would have left me totally lost. It went from frame to frame to fast without explaining characters and such and it was hurling storylines and characters at you so quickly. It could have been done much better.
Rating: 
Summary: Elizabeth R -- (Not "Rex"; "Revisionist")
Review: *Elizabeth* is, as the Reviewer of the Day correctly noted, *The Godfather* in tights. In place of Al Pacino's Michael Corleone, we have Cate Blanchett's young princess Elizabeth, and the movie traces her gradual hardening into glittering, ruthless Queen of England. Except that the movie doesn't really do this gradually; it foists the change upon us in a series of unconvincing set-pieces. Early in the film, the Princess is a frolicsome young thang, and it would seem, no virgin. Joseph Fiennes' young nobleman is unequivocally her lover. So far so good, and pointlessly revisionist. But whatever. Later she's an imperious young queen who, unaccountably, now spurns her former lover. (Unaccountable because history tells a much different story. As a result of too much dramatic license, Shekhar Kapur's film is often rendered incomprehensible.) At the end, Elizabeth glides across Westminster Hall, apparelled like a really haughty mime. None of it makes much sense.Nor does the court intrigue. I've seen this movie twice, and perhaps I'm dumb but I still don't quite understand the details of the Duke of Norfolk's (?) plot to do away with Elizabeth. There are vengeful monks, poisoned bodices, and Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham, whose role in all this is rather unclear. And who is Norfolk (am I getting the name right?) sleeping with? Mary Queen of Scots? Or someone else? Did I miss something? There's a gratuitous amount of erotic heat in *Elizabeth* coupled with a deplorable lack of clarity. You know something? Considering how well-documented this time-period is in English history, I find the lack of concern for historical accuracy pretty annoying. The fascinating materials are already there; why invent? For a more absorbing take on this stuff, I recommend the miniseries *Elizabeth R* starring Glenda Jackson.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant!!
Review: A great from director Shekhar Kapur with the amazing talents of Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes, Elizabeth is one of the best movies from the 1999 Oscar rush, (deserving the Oscar, but trapped in a very tight race with Shakespeare in Love, yet another fine Elizabethian story line) and wowing me with the outstanding script and direction. Based on the first years of Elizabeth I reign, every moment and emotion is captured with perfection by each character. Although gruesome at times, the story was very true to most historical documents from the time period. The hardship to keep ones throne, and the bias against women is gently, but deeply outlined by the perils Queen Elizabeth is forced to face. With ease, Kapur brings out the reality of Elizabeth and her England. A must see with extremely romantic and historic undertones, it is well written and beautifully pieced together. Brilliant!!!
Rating:
Summary: Cate Was Great
Review: Cate Blanchett, Golden Globe winner for Best Actress in a Drama, along with Geoffrey Rush, Richard Attenborough and John Gielgud lead a remarkable cast in a thriller of intrigue in the court of one of history's greatest monarchs, Queen Elizabeth I. England, 1554. Young, passionate Elizabeth Tudor (Cate Blanchett) comes to the throne amidst bloody turmoil. Among her courtiers are the venerable Sir William Cecil (Attenborough), her lover the Earl of Leicester (Joseph Fiennes), the imperious Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), and her advisor Walsingham (Rush). She must learn to weigh her counsel carefully and ignore her private yearnings if she is to keep her crown - and her head.
Rating:
Summary: Elizabeth - A Pristine View of the Virgin Queen
Review: Cate Blanchett's performance was magnificent. Her portrayal of Elizabeth made the movie into so much more than a history lesson. She carried this wonderful movie into the land of classics. The supporting cast were excellent. Elizabeth's musical score stirred the soul and embraced each scene with grace and emotion. Playing the devil's advocate, I will say that with about one more hour in length some of the finer points of the movie could have been more clearly defined.
Rating:
Summary: Grand Epic Film
Review: Beautifully filmed epic film with gorgeous locations - check out those authentic castles! Pretty accurate as history goes but not totally. I believe Liz had a relationship of sorts with Dudley until his death. Also Mary was known for her great beauty(granddaughter of Queen Isabela of Spain with jet black hair & blue eyes). Why she is depicted as such a TROLL is a mystery even if she was at death's door! PS - check out TROLL # 2 - Mary's fool! Cast is all excellent particularly Joe Fiennes in another sensitive performance & Vincent Cassel as a different kind of queen - a bit more flaming then Liz! DVD quality is tops - pic & sound. Some good extras as well.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning Film
Review: I discovered this film on DVD about a year ago and bought it despite mixed reviews, some claiming how the movie was inept in its attempt to accurately portray Queen Elizabeth 1's reign. While watching this film, that's not what I was thinking about at all. The entire drama is an interpretation of the uncertain early reign of this young, brave queen. And things have been altered but only to enhance artistically an actual historical time and place. The way director Shekhar Kapur used his sets, filming his lead characters through grates and red veils, framing each scene so equisitely is breathtaking. He uses everything around the characters in order to give an emotional charge and electricity to an otherwise over-trodden stale tale of her steady and absolute monarchial power. And enough cannot be said of Cate Blanchett's performance! She was delicate and then suddenly powerful, and the way she always has another emotion lurking behind her eyes is marvelous. You see how these four different men in her life struggle to protect, love, serve, and destroy her. The relationship between Elizabeth and Dudley is wonderful. It displays themes of how power, trust, and love coincide. Enough said! The casting is perfect, the locations are sumptous, and the costumes and sets are lavish and beautiful. One of the best films I have, I've seen it about 15 times. Stunning!!
Rating: 
Summary: Maybee not history but great film
Review: Most period films tend to have actors in beautiful costumes spouting dreadful dialogue of the "farsooth fair nave where might they though wander" type yelled out at maxim volume to cover how bad it is. Over acting becomes a substitute for script and plot construction. Elizabeth by comparison is delightful if slightly grim at the beginning. It covers the last year of Mary Tudors reign and Elizabeth's succession to the throne. Mary historically was concerned about Elizabeth's succession. Mary was Henry the VIII's first wife and he had left her for Elizabeth's mother. In addition Elizabeth was seen as a person who was committed to the continuing split from Rome. Mary had tried to end the split. The film deals with the question of whether Elizabeth will survive at all and then when she becomes Queen her fight to have meaningful authority. Geoffrey Rush is great as a highly fictitious intelligent agent. Kate Blanchett is brilliant in the title role. She portrays well the initial trust that she has with her courtiers something which gradually changes to a steely hardness. She deserved an Oscar for the performance. Some have criticized the film for playing loose and hard with the truth but it is at least as historically accurate as Shakespeare.
Rating: 
Summary: My humble opion
Review: This film would be an acceptable piece if it were not for the gross historical inaccuracies. This movie turned Elizabeth's life into a nothing but a torrid love affair and forbidden trysts. It cheapens who this amazing woman actually was. And to top it all off it's not that well done for what it is. If you want a Tudor romance try Anne of a Thousand Days
Rating:
Summary: A strong motion picture marred by poor digitization
Review: Once again, the age old situation rears it's ugly head. In the interest of fitting a full length motion picture in several different incarnations, plus additional materials and programming fun all onto one DVD disc, someone decided that sacrificing video quality was okay. ELIZABETH, a solidly made motion picture by Shakar Kapur (director of BANDIT QUEEN), featuring breakout performances by Cate Blanchett and Christopher Eccolston, provides us with technical problems that distract from the beauty of the images that were so compelling on the big screen. Digial ghosting, bleed between hi-contrast borders, digital misshaping, all of these classic lower quality MPEG encoding problems show up in this disc. Admittedly, not as pronounced as in other examples of poor DVD encoding like Bryan Singer's USUAL SUSPECTS, but enough to annoy any cinephile from getting the most out of that brand spanking new DVD player they just got. Go out and find a Widescreen VHS version in the meantime.
|
