 "good" | 2009-09-03 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1L3VQSLWIXJ0T |
| I had to watch this movie for a history class and I must say that I really enjoyed it. All though some of the facts were not alltogether true the movie was very entertaining. |
| |
| "A very good film about a very great Queen" | 2009-08-25 |
| - Reviewed By jlind555 |
There is no question that Elizabeth I was the greatest Queen, and possibly the greatest monarch of either gender, that England ever had,and Cate Blanchett does an excellent job of bringing her vividly to life in Shekhar Kapur's film. Elizabeth assumed the throne at a very young age and ruled England for over 40 years, during which time she guided her country from poverty and turmoil to peace and unpredecented power and prosperity.
Blanchett expertly portrays Elizabeth's progress from a carefree adolescent with blooming with health and vitality, a frightened young woman expecting to be sent to the execution block at any moment by her spiteful sister Queen Mary who has been abandoned by her husband Philip of Spain and racked with pains from the cancer that is killing her, an insecure young monarch endeavoring to earn the respect of her court and her country, to a hardened woman approaching thirty, still young but no longer trusting anything but her own instincts. Am I to be made of stone, feeling nothing? she demands after she has sent a number of traitors to the headsman. And her answer to that question is to reinvent herself. She will be re-virginized, married only to England and her people, devoting her life and her love to her country and her subjects.
The film has been criticized as anti-Catholic and a good many of the villains in the movie are portrayed as Catholics trying to dethrone Elizabeth at best or kill her at worst. It is a historical fact that the Vatican tried to destabilize her reign by declaring that no Catholic in England had to obey her or her laws and referred to Elizabeth as "the heretical whore" who had no right to occupy the throne in the first place. Religion was the prime motivating force behind much of the conflict in 16th century England, with Mary Tudor burning Protestants at the stake and anti-Catholic regulations being promulgated after Mary's death. There is no real anti-Catholic bias in the movie that I could find. But the number of historical bloopers is mind-boggling, and the following are just a few of the more egregious ones:
When Elizabeth is interrogated by a group of religious inquisitors at the beginning of the film, they claim that it was Anne Boleyn's heretical Protestantism that caused her to be executed. Her religion had nothing to do with it. Henry VIII had her put out of the way on a trumped-up charge of adultery and incest because he had fallen in love with another woman.
William Cecil, portrayed as an old man in the movie, was still in his thirties at Elizabeth's accession. He was her most trusted counselor and served her faithfully for 40 years until his death. He was not put out to pasture as the film would have us believe. And Francis Walsingham was not middle-aged as portrayed in the film; he was in his mid-twenties when Elizabeth became Queen.
Lord Robert Dudley, who may or may not have been Elizabeth's lover, was a loyal friend until his death and never betrayed her in real life as he was said to have done in the film. And as a hard-line Protestant all his life, he never converted to Catholicism. The film shows Elizabeth as astounded and outraged when William Cecil breaks the news of Dudley's marriage. In real life she couldn't have been all that surprised, as she attended the wedding.
There is no evidence whatever that Walsingham was in any way involved in the death of Anne of Guise, who died only a year into Elizabeth's reign and not by poison.
And so it goes. The historical license may have made for more action and drama, but as history, "Elizabeth" falls way short of reality.
The acting, however, can't be faulted on any account. Cate Blanchett, as mentioned above, gives a knockout performance as Elizabeth, Geoffrey Rush is a compelling mixture of suavity and menace as Walsingham, Joseph Fiennes is marvelous as Robert Dudley, hopelessly in love with a woman he can never hope to have, John Gielgud and Richard Attenborough are outstanding in their respective roles as the Pope and William Cecil, and Kathy Burke is almost painful to watch as Mary Tudor, eaten up with cancer, hating and yet unable to sign the death warrant of the sister she knows will bring England back to the Protestantism she abhors and abominates. I really wish I could give this film five stars. But the appalling license taken with Elizabeth's life and reign forces me to withhold the last star and give it only four.
Judy Lind |
| |
| "Well done" | 2009-08-16 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1OYW08VVPMP3Q |
| This is Queen Elizabeth's rise to power, warts and all. The movie follows Elizabeth from her uncertain status as a spare princess to the assumption of power and, more importantly, her growth as a ruler and the niche she found for herself in history. Well-acted and well-written, the movie is unashamedly bloody but that point in English history was hardly a story of tea and crumpets... it was an age of violence and for better or worse this is what we see on the screen. |
| |
 "Excellent Acting All Around, But..." | 2009-08-16 |
| - Reviewed By shakespearefanatic |
WARNING!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!
This interesting biopic about Elizabeth I, the greatest monarch England has ever known, features excellent acting all around, but is grossly inaccurate on a lot of points. For starters, Robert Dudley, the Earl Of Leicester, WAS NEVER implicated in any plot against the Queen, and they remained close friends until his death. Secondly, at the beginning of the movie, the guard who comes to arrest Elzabeth calls out "Princess Elizabeth!" In reality, Henry VIII had Elizabeth stripped of her royal title as a public display of her illegitimacy and she was formally addressed as "Lady Elizabeth." Also, there's no evidence that Francis Walsingham (in reality in his 20's when Elizabeth ascended the throne) was involved in the death of Mary Of Guise, who in one scene, is riding in front of her troops. Back then, reigning women DID NOT ride at the front of their troops and rarely rode their horses with both legs over the side. Just some interesting historical details.
On the whole, like "Amadeus," it's an interesting biopic, but inaccurate on several points. I recommend "Elizabeth I" starring Helen Mirren and Academy Award winner Jeremy Irons instead. |
| |
 "great late review" | 2009-07-04 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3LFKST8EXRJT9 |
| amazon would not let me review until the final shipped date but all is great with this seller |
| |
| "Some Good, Some Bad" | 2009-03-24 |
| - Reviewed By User: AK0CENM3LUM28 |
Elizabeth / B000RF7XYO
I love Tudor history, but I'm realistic enough to expect a Tudor movie to not be very historically accurate, so I went into Elizabeth with a pretty open mind, knowing that "history" and "entertainment" rarely meet in Hollywood. I'd have to say that "Elizabeth" does a fair job, but the movie definitely has its faults.
Blanchett performs wonderfully as Elizabeth and seems made for the role. I would have preferred that Elizabeth be portrayed as more composed and less nervous, which would be both historically accurate and equally entertaining to me, but I suppose that the filmmakers wanted Blanchett's nervous performance to reflect Elizabeth's inner turmoil. I'm sure it is very difficult to play a calm persona whilst conveying inner uncertainty.
Similar complaints abound for Elizabeth's indiscretion in scenes where she openly sleeps with Dudley while her ladies-in-waiting watch nearby - I would venture to guess that the whole scene is supposed to be Hollywood-shorthand for their unrequited love, but the ridiculousness of the scene is a little jarring, and I cannot understand why the directors didn't at least introduce a little more secrecy to the scene.
The scenes where Elizabeth comes into her own with gentle barbs and quiet cajoling of her parliament are beautifully handled and are wonderful to behold. Blanchett manages to convey just the right amount of humility and control, humor and iron will to make the scene convincing. Elizabeth's concerns about marriage are conveyed clearly and distinctly, as she frets over the inevitability of losing her power, should she wed. And the scenes where Elizabeth struggles with the realities of power, with the necessities of ruthlessness and aloofness, are perfectly conveyed.
I do wish, however, that the movie had employed a little more cunning and subtlety on Elizabeth's part. Historically, she managed to play several suitors on a string while she quietly built her country's defenses and earned her right to independence, yet this subtlety is not conveyed here. Regularly and loudly, she protests that she will never marry, and we see almost nothing of the Spanish suitor whose armada would fare so badly and so infamously against Elizabeth's navy. I was disappointed that none of this came across.
Overall, this is a decent movie, entertaining enough and with enough kind-of-historical merit to be pleasant to Tudor lovers. I probably wouldn't watch this movie again, though, outside of a one time rental.
Oddly, the movie information on the Amazon page lists that English subtitles are included, but the version I received from Blockbuster Online did *not* have English captions for the hard of hearing, only French and Spanish subtitles, so caveat emptor. |
| |
Expedited Available
