Elizabeth

Rating:
Summary: Overated
Review: Overated as far as story or historical context goes. The conspiracy never actually makes you wonder if it's going to work or not. Sets are medieval, costumes are gorgeous. Cate is great, but you will come away confused by the story and owning a number of misconcepts about what actually happened historically.

Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: Elizabeth is deeper than might be thought on first blush, and it reverberates, but not with any simplistic answers to the human struggle, but with uncomfortable questions, disturbing allegations.

Allegation number one: a woman can rule and be the equal of a man, but she must suppress her feminine instincts.

Uncomfortable question number one: are women as vicious and murderous as our "demonic males"?

What makes Elizabeth such a wonderful movie is the uncompromising portrait it presents of a woman in a life or death struggle while in a position of enormous power. Notice that she does NOT become a man, nor take on bogus or pseudo masculine traits to achieve her ends. She remains a woman to the core, yet acts with the kind of aggressive, decisive, brutal intelligence usually assigned to men.

Next question: Is this good to know?

A great work of art should be content to ask the great questions, not presume to answer them (but see below).

Cate Blanchett is superb in the title role and wonderfully supported by Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes. Shekhar Kapur's direction is without a hint of cant or even the slightest pandering to a mass audience, and is psychologically true and without any presumption to moral or spiritual wisdom. There is no preaching or taking sides. The script is a work of scholarship fused with the most compelling dramatic development, climax and resolution. The editing is almost invisible yet we can see that exactly enough was cut away while the essence was preserved; viz., it is remarkable how we are led to experience the political growth of the young queen and see her take on the attributes of her father, as necessary, and then see her seek refuge in the church and a kind of piety as "the Virgin Queen" in such a short period of elapsed screen time. THAT is film making of the highest quality.

Not enough can be said about the subtle, charming, expansive, vivid and veracious performance of Blanchett, yet Joseph Fiennes is to be commended for achieving success in a difficult and unsympathetic role. Geoffrey Rush's restraint and control in a part that could have easily been overplayed was highly admirable and contributed strongly to the success of the film.

This is not to say that the film is without flaws. The scene where Elizabeth discovers the French duke's homosexuality is unlikely as staged, and her risque behavior with Leicester not in character. Better, I think, would have been to keep him frustrated and allow him only to play at love; however, today's audiences seem to demand coitus always. Leicester's dalliance with one of her ladies was extremely stupid, but in character. The co-incidence of her wearing the acid dress as she betrayed her queen was a delicious if implausible irony. Further it was not made clear how the queen's commands through Walsingham are made viable so that they must be carried out; indeed the under struggle among the ministers was glossed over, although her dismissal of the no longer effective Sir William Cecil was aptly done.

(Of course I can presume to answer my queries.) I think allegation number one, that a woman as a ruler must abandon her normal sexual drive is true, but the argument is too long for this space. Are women as vicious as men? They don't take the foolish chances that men take, since they can be reproductively rewarded only by staying alive and securing a stable future, whereas men can reproduce prodigiously for a while and then die successfully. But when necessary, women can be as brutal as Genghis Khan, as Elizabeth demonstrates.

Is it good to know that women are also vicious animals, when all the time we would prefer to think of them as fairy tale princesses? Well, something's lost and something's gained in growing up; but, yes, it's important to always keep that in mind when out there in the big world. I might add that it is sobering to realize that women as reproductive animals was not even addressed in this film. Therein lies another dimension of femininity that needs exploration...

Rating:
Summary: Queen Elizabeth
Review: Mary Tudor, the Catholic queen of England, is ailing of cancer, and is close to death. She fears that her more popular Protestant sister Elizabeth will take her place as queen once she has died. Mary's fears were right, and soon after her death, leaving no male heirs, her sister is put on the throne. Elizabeth is first portrayed as a somewhat immature inexperienced queen who is in love with the passionate, yet married, Robert Dudley, but as the film continues, you see her develop into a witty, animated, and appealing queen. Mary did not die without supporters, and Elizabeth's life was constantly in danger. With the help of her most trusted advisor, Walsingham, she outwits all of her would-be assasins, and gets to them first. Despite many suitors presented before her, she refuses all of them, at the end saying that she is "married to the kingdom of England". This movie is full of schemes, character development, and suspense. Wonderful scenery and costumes. An excellent and accurate portrayal of 16th century England, in the age that was named after England's beloved queen...the Elizabethan Age.

Rating:
Summary: Queen For All Time
Review: Doesn't every girl dream of being a princess or a queen, well here's your queen, Elizabeth Tudor. Two years old when her mother Anne Boleyn was beheaded on her father's orders, in mortal danger for the next 23 years, she inherited her father's (King Henry VIII) intelligence and will. She was taken under the wing of Henry's last wife Catherine Parr and well educated. Cate Blanchett (see her in a modern setting in Pushing Tin) brings the young Elizabeth vibrantly alive as she become Queen of England, Geoffrey Rush (Shine) plays her intelligence advisor Walsingham, Richard Attenborough (The Great Escape) plays her loyal Secretary of State William Cecil, Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) is her love interest Sir Robert Dudley and Christopher Eccleston (A Price Above Rubies) is Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk who sorely underestimates young Elizabeth. Shot in Durham and York Minister Cathedrals, and Warkworth, Raby, Alnwick, Chillingham, Bolton and Haddon Hall Castles; filled with wonderful costumes and music; you begin to get to know a young woman whose incredible 45 year long reign is regarded as a golden age. R rating with some (gratuitous, I think) sex and historical violence.

Rating:
Summary: Loved it--Blanchett deserved the Oscar for this one!
Review: Of course there are some inaccuracies--no one wants to watch 100% real history...yawn! That's why its a movie and not a documentary...geniuses! Everyone's a critic. Or a cynic. Or an expert. (Watch out for those know it alls...they usually don't!)

I have written and taught about Tudor history for years. I am no expert, per se, but I do applaud this rendidition. First of all, historians, without the benefit of actually travelling back in time to witness things for themselves, have always relied on secondary sources, documents, art work, and recorded hearsay to draw their conclusions. And the biographers and clerks of Elizabeth's day were, human, fallible and subject to their own prejudices and opinions. And so are modern day biographers and historians. It is all speculation...I am in agreement with the director's view that Elizabeth was no virgin. That she had a sexual relationship with Dudley, etc. And that the Virgin Queen facade was just a tool to manipulate her enemeies and pacify her allies. And a very clever one at that! (Atta girl, Liz! Brava!)

She was clearly a woman ahead of her time and knew (from the heinous death of her mother Anne Boelyn among others) how fragile a woman's role was, how giving too much love or power over to any man could be the end of her. So she stayed true to herself and wed to her country and realm. There is no clear evidence she was or was not a virgin...in the literal sense. But given her lusty nature, her closeness with Leicester, etc. it doesn't take a genius to speculate this. But since any difinitive evidence has long since disappeared (most likely during Elizabeth's reign or soon after her death, destroyed by people who feared the political havoc such evidence would cause...) no one should say who is right or wrong in regard to this issue.

And this is just scratching the surface of the 'indescrepancies' reviewers have touched upon. Get over it! It's a movie! Enjoy it and be done with it! Lighten up people!

For an interesting take on her life, read Robin Maxwell's The Secret Diary of Anne Boelyn followed by its sequel, The Queen's Bastard (which presents the case that Dudley and Elizabeth had a child out of wedlock...juicy stuff that given the circumstances could have very well happened. Fiction, but it is very believable and makes you wonder if this 'lost history' really existed! )

Rating:
Summary: Overacting; historically inaccurate; bread and circuses
Review: There is an excellent review by a reviewer Robert Jefferson, on the next page, I cannot add much to the points he made. This movie, in the worst tradition of Holliwood, is similar in approach to "Shakespeare in Love." I always wonder why the producers need totake a historical personage totally of of the context of their time and create these soap operas? Bread and circuses - yes; masterpiece - you're kidding yourself! The public seems to care little for history...just schmalz, violence, and sex, and overacting. This movie has plenty of the later. But as a classic or as history..it is pure Trash

Rating:
Summary: Holbein paintings come to life...
Review: "Elizabeth" certainly got a lot of attention when it was released in 1998. After finally seeing the movie, I wonder how many of the voices applauding it actually understood what was going on!

The plot (such as it is) simply covers the first few years of Elizabeth I's reign & the political machinations of the great magnates who surrounded her. For someone familiar with Tudor history it is an enjoyable re-creation of a world glimpsed dimly thru the portraits of Hans Holbein & others. For those who did not study their English history, I suspect this film might be incomprehensible. The Dukes, Earls, Bishops & other powerful men who make up Elizabeth's court are not introduced in any way in the film. They wear similar hair cuts, facial hair & clothing so as to make them difficult to identify upon entering a scene. The political motives of those who choose to support the Pope over Church of England (which was different from Protestantism) are not shown, nor is any clarity thrown of Mary de Guise's role. She is simply portrayed as a meddlesome seductress, & the screen writers seem to have confused her with Mary Queen of Scots (her daughter).

Of course, Cate Blanchett is luminous as Elizabeth. She certainly deserves all the accolades that were heaped upon her & it will be hard to ever picture Elizabeth I as looking any other way. Joseph Fiennes as Dudley does not share the resemblance to his historical counterpart, & I find him too modern to be believable. The interiors are dark & gloomy, which is a shame as the design seems to be excellent. It is obvious the director wanted the spotlight on his actors, not his scenery!

Personally, I found the ending ruined the rest of the movie for me. It has no basis in history, & does not even seem logical based upon the script thus far. It is nothing more than a simplistic way to bring a conclusion where none exists. Watch "Elizabeth" for production & acting, you'll probably be lost by the story anyway!

Rating:
Summary: A beautiful masterpiece
Review: "Elizabeth" is a superb film filled with wonderful acting, cinematography and directing. Cate Blanchett easily deserved the Oscar way over Gwyneth Paltrow's head. Cate portays the young Virgin Queen when she is first crowned queen after the death of her sister, Queen Mary. She is Protestant even though England was Catholic at the time. Fine performances from Geoffrey Rush, Richard Attenborough and, yes, even Joseph Fiennes, whom I'm not particularly fond of. The cinematography is gorgeous and the directing by Shekar Kappur is superb. Running alongside big blockbusters is hard but "Elizabeth" survived wonderfully and proved that it was the better one.

Rating:
Summary: Historically Weak but Still Beautiful
Review: 'Elizabeth' is a movie along the lines of 'Braveheart'- a fantastic spectacle that plays fast and loose with the historical facts in order to make a good show. Although I found it sorely lacking in the historical accuracy department, the mood, feel, scenery, costuming and lighting come close to atoning for that.

Taking place at the inception of Elizabeth I's reign, you're transported back to Elizabethan England. We're privy to some of Elizabeth's most intimate moments, and watch as she grows into an unsure young girl into a competent ruler, who ultimately becomes one of England's greatest monarchs.

The acting is superb, save for an over-the-top portrayal of a middle-aged, ill and hysterical Queen "Bloody" Mary. Cate Blanchett eerily resembles the real Elizabeth, and delivers what should have been an Oscar-winning performance. The supporting cast does an admirable job as well, and all should be congratulated for the apparent ease with which they endured being attired in Elizabethan-period clothing!

All in all, the scenery is fantastic, the costumes breathtaking, the music haunting, and the acting first-rate. The only thing which I found annoying is the disregard for real history- which, in this instance, is even more compelling than the 'fact based fictional movie'. Some stories need embellishment; that isn't the case with Elizabeth's. Yet despite that, this movie stands on its own and shouldn't be missed.

Rating:
Summary: Dark and Spellbinding
Review: After two very inappropriate previews which show how little thought is put into the studios' treatment of video releases, the story of Elizabeth starts on the ominous note of Protestant heretics being burned at the stake. I figured we were in for some rough sledding with this one!

Yes, the film is packed with sex and violence, treachery, intrigue, betrayal, more sex and more violence. Surprisingly, however, this kind of treatment is necessary to portray the raw energy and brutal circumstances of the time, and does not really seem gratuitous. I'm sure the historians will pout about the facts involved, but there is a mood presented here that if anywhere near accurate is far more telling than who really said what.

Elizabeth, lucky to live long enough to come to power, inherits an England that is bankrupt, surrounded by enemies, and under extreme internal religious strain. She has to grow up in a hurry, and begins taking seriously the threats that are being lodged against her (getting pinned to the couch by a couple of long-bowmen's arrows will do the trick every time).

I found the most fascinating element of the film the relationship between Elizabeth and her guardian/mentor, Sir Francis Walsingham. His gentle demeanor as her advisor disguises an almost maniacal willingness to do "whatever it takes" to protect her interests. Elizabeth's childlike demeanor is a wonderful foil to his worldly-wise savvy.

Elizabeth, having once dispatched all of "England's Enemies" (read: Elizabeth's Enemies) with the help of her supporters, is left somewhat adrift. Walsingham convinces her that the common people need an icon to worship, so she transforms herself into a sort of living alabaster Virgin Mary, symbolically marrying herself to the state of England. I found that one of the highpoints of the film was actually reading the afternotes stating that she ruled another 40 years, ushering in one of England's golden eras, being continuously served by the wise and faithful counsel of Sir Francis.