FountainPen Yes, here we go again ! Hollywood hard at work putting its skew on British history. You can hear the American accents in this effort. Overall, the film is quite good, but it is NOT true to history, which MUST be taken into account. Children in particular (and viewers looking for a history lesson), need to be aware that this is a kind of partial-imaginary, made up, fictional version of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First. It is a great shame that movie-makers, in particular those in Hollywood, will not stay with the known FACTS. I prefer Cate Blanchett as QE, rather than the vastly over-used and over-rated Helen Mirren (who apparently was given a Damehood for portraying both Elizabeths: silly). In my book, this flick rates 6/10, and while it is NOT "film perfection", I can recommend it ~ but ralways bear in mind that it is NOT true history and the script should have been so much better.

valeried-04422 If we relied on this movie to pass a history exam we would be in trouble due to its inaccuracies. Robert Dudley's wife (played by Kelly Macdonald) is named Isabel Knollys in this movie. In "real life" Dudley's (second wife) was named Lettice Knolly. We see her half way through the movie dying (murdered) by a "poisoned dress". In actuality "Lettice Knolly Dudley" died of a ripe old age. She was married once before Dudley and again after Dudley passed. We are further confused by an insignificant character named Lettice Howard, (played by Amanda Ryan)who has no historical significance. In the movie the Earl of Arundel (played by Edward Hardwicke) was beheaded, with head then mounted on a pike. History tells us he died at home along "The Strand" in his own bed and being quite aged. The movie would have us believe the suggested betrothal to the Duc d'Anjou (full name was actually Francois, Duc d'Alencon and Anjou)was called off because "the duke" was a cross-dresser (like lady's clothes) and perhaps bi-sexual. In reality, Elizabeth and Francois became great friends and spent much time conversing and writing letters to one another for over four years. Francois, the poor soul was deformed from an early illness and certainly "not a catch". Elizabeth had committed herself to being married to England and did not marry anyone. At least the writers of the movie got that part of the story accurate.

macydattile England is torn; do they do everything in their power to keep Elizabeth away from the throne, or do they put her on it? Queen Mary, Elizabeth's half sister, also decides it wouldn't be wise to give a Protestant the crown. She has Elizabeth arrested and taken to the Tower of London. But after Mary's death, Elizabeth is freed and crowned queen of England.As queen, Elizabeth is faced with the responsibility of settling the country's religious disputes, her goal being to return England to its former Protestant state. Though many opposed her, she succeeded. Her ever-changing relationship with Lord Robert Dudley was a further complication. Elizabeth proves herself to be wise, selfless, and committed when she gives up her love and declares herself "married to England." After rejecting several marriage offers, relentless attempts to dethrone and even kill her are made. With neighboring countries rapidly building up their military forces, she commands to see England's increased, which has disastrous consequences. Their insufficiently trained men are quickly defeated, which proves to be part of a plan to have Elizabeth's crown taken away. But, with Sir Francis Walsingham at her side, she deceives and assassinates Mary of Guise, the leader behind the attacks. She also quells another plot involving the priests of Rome and even Lord Dudley, executing every conspirator other than him. She allows him to remain alive as a reminder to never allow herself to be blinded again.The cinematography in this movie was exquisite, with unique shots, beautiful costumes, and wonderful acting. My attention was unwavering throughout the whole film.

oOoBarracuda A reunion, of sorts, for Shakespeare in Love actors Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes, Shekhar Kapur's 1998 epic combines their talents along with Cate Blanchett's in the film Elizabeth. Telling the story of the turbulent events leading to Queen Elizabeth's rise to power and outlining the origin of the Catholic against Protestant war in Europe, Kapur's film brings to life the beginning of the Golden Age of England. Highlighting the magnitude of internal struggle one person undertakes to lead a nation, Elizabeth is a captivating story of struggle and triumph. Being born out of wedlock to Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) never expected to rise to power, but the reality of her childless sister Mary I (Fanny Ardant) dying with no heir made Elizabeth's rise the only possibility. Crippled with fear that Protestant Elizabeth would un-do Catholic reign and bring Protestantism to England. While trying to learn about and establish her monarchy, Elizabeth is aided, sometimes, by a team of advisers. Where many of the advisers have good intentions, some are there plotting to restore the Catholic line, refusing to pledge allegiance to the new queen. Another difficulty for Elizabeth is the immense pressure on her to marry and produce an heir. Her longtime lover Lord Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) is not viewed as an acceptable choice, and once Elizabeth learns that he has been carrying on an affair with her against his wife, she never speaks to him again. Elizabeth traverses the difficulties of her new reign with grace while she decides which of her advisers to keep and which to ignore all the while building an empire. Cate Blanchett is exceptional as ever playing the meek turned mighty Queen Elizabeth. She handles the difficulties of playing a woman thrust into power no one wants her to have, yet still trying to do the best for England phenomenally. She also switches from love to scorn for Robert Dudley in a believable way. The production design on this film was fantastic, so intricate and detailed one feels as though they are truly watching the royals interact. The costuming was also beautiful in this film. I greatly admire period pieces that don't take the easy/cheap way out with simple costuming. For instance, the bird's eye view shot of Queen Elizabeth's first appearance from the throne was brilliantly overtaken by her gorgeous red velvet dress. A wonderful directorial choice made by Shekhar Kapur was to show Elizabeth's transfer to power with bright white flashes of light, illustrating the drastic transformation she, and the rest of England were about to endure. Another directorial choice that added to the depth of the film was the flashback of Elizabeth's trials and troubles near the ending scene. While the film loses some of its luster and struggles with pacing in the middle of the movie, it rebounds with a strong enough beginning that one doesn't mind waiting to get re-engaged into the story. Class and sexuality are huge focal points in this film. Sexuality is under the microscope when many men doubt Elizabeth's abilities to govern as a woman. Sexuality is also an overarching issue when it comes to marrying off Elizabeth and producing an heir, as that is the primary focus of women in the 16th century. Class and nobility are central issues as well, with Elizabeth's longtime lover not being seen as regal enough to marry a queen. There is also a certain expectation of forthcoming change Elizabeth is expected to make once she takes the throne; she must be viewed as a royal and forgo peon activities. Elizabeth is a wonderful period piece and a display of directorial force from Shekhar Kapur, whose work I have not familiarized myself with.