Elizabeth
Added 10/9/2009
An excellant film on the life of Queen Elizabeth with a stunning performance by Cate Blanchett.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A very good film about a very great Queen
Added 8/25/2009
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
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Bad history, flawewd direction
Added 8/24/2009
The history in this movie is bad, even allowing immense latitude to a director for what is after all, intended to be entertainment, not schoolwork. However, a director who is so insensitive as to use Elgar's well-known and evocative "Nimrod" from the Enigma variations as a major piece of background music for high Eliabethan drama has no sense of history, no appreciation of music, no ear for appropriateness, no esteem for the audience, and no feeling for the period (Elizabethan England was, after all, rich in music). And that's the problem: a lavish movie can't survive aa director who chooses to be incompetent.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Well done
Added 8/16/2009
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Elizabeth
Added 10/9/2009
An excellant film on the life of Queen Elizabeth with a stunning performance by Cate Blanchett.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
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.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A very good film about a very great Queen
Added 8/25/2009
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
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
