Benutzerrezensionen

I've watched this movie at least half a dozen times while adapting and directing my own stage version of this brilliant, but somewhat long-winded and un-focused Marlowe play. That said (and my bias revealed), I have to admit that I don't care much for this film- though I do admit it has some strengths- namely the visual elements, which reflect the director's background as a painter (he knows how to frame and arrange a shot, and he picks beautiful lines and colors to illustrate his story). Tilda Swenton's performance is amazing (has she ever been bad?) and provides the emotional thrust of the movie- we believe she wants Edward so badly that she's willing to kill him so no one else will have him. Unfortuneately, Gaveston just comes off as a twisted psychotic and Waddington's performance as Edward renders the king weaker than Marlowe writes him, and yet devoid of the inner vulnerability that ultimately makes the King sympathetic- I never once believe they really love each other, let alone madly enough to topple a whole nation. But plot and character don't seem to be a priority of the film as much as statements about gay rights and strange, arty and really heavy-handed intrusions. Too bad, really. There's so much to be dug out of the script- and some of those gems DO appear in this film... but so many seem not only undiscovered, but lost in a lot of camp, confusion, violence and raw, un-erotic sex. Don't get me wrong- the film is worth seeing... I just hope that one day, I get to make a new interpretation.

Wearing his gay-right crusading heart on his sleeve, Derek Jarman's antepenultimate work EDWARD II is a post-modern interpretation of Christopher Marlowe's play about the eponymous Plantagenet sovereign (Waddington, a celluloid debutant), whose partiality towards his male lover Piers Gaveston (newcomer Tiernan), raises Cain in the court and prompts his wife Queen Isabella (Swinton), in league with Lord Mortimer (Terry), to usurp his throne.

Shot in Jarman's characteristic sparse, claustrophobic setting which avails itself of minimal indoor lighting and cherry-picked iconography to great effect (striking use of refraction, a quasi-black-box theater intimacy, etc.), EDWARD II radically strews anachronistic items into its theatrical foreground: a slick modern dance, characters sporting contemporary costumes and its trimmings (business suits for the members of the court and for Queen Isabella, a Hermes bag accompanies her entrance), brandishing modern weapons, notably a band of rioting gay right activists constitutes the king's army, Jarman has economically, but also impressively warps its source play's temporality and gives its story an exigency and immediacy that elicits strong topicality, when cruelty is wantonly lashed out at the beleaguered gay lovers.

Among the cast, every single one of the main cast robustly sinks his or her teeth into Marlowe's florid wording, a savage-looking Tiernan flouts the traditional aesthetics of a rakish lotus eater and brings about a fierce ugliness that contests for a basic human right which goes beyond its often beautified physicality and narcissism (a self-seeking whippersnapper still has his inviolable right to love someone of his own sex); both Swinton and Terry grandly chew the scenery of lofty operatics, but in a commendable way which resoundingly adds the dramatic tension and heft of their sinister collusion, and by comparison Waddington, looks unfavorably bland and wishy-washy in a role who pluckily hazards his monarchial reign in favor of one single mortal that he holds dearest.

As Annie Lennox's belts out "EV'RY TIME WE SAY GOODBYE" in her cameo appearance, Jarman's EDWARD II is a soulful transposition to exclaim his cri de coeur, and steeped in his sui generis idiom that sublimes a tenacious beauty out of its rough-hewn components, but with a proviso that an acquired taste is requisite.

I love Elizabethan drama. I had been on a Kenneth Branagh and William Shakespeare kick(and I guess I still am)when on a whim I bought this film based on the play of the same name by Shakespeare-contemporary Christopher Marlowe. I am very glad I did. Edward II(Steven Waddington of SLEEPY HOLLOW) ditches one icey, repressed Queen Isabella(Tilda Swinton) for another hot and uninhibited queen, gay lover Gaveston. But the romance is doomed when the nobility rises up with Isabella to end the affair. Director Derek Jarman's adaptation is one of those rare films that succeeds set in a time other than in its original setting. He moves the setting and action of the movie to the modern era, and this serves as a more timely backdrop for the movie's pro-gay stance, which seems to me to be its central theme. I really liked Steven Waddington, who was very, very good. And an unexpected surprise came from Tilda Swinton, an actress with whom I am not familiar but whose other work I'd like to see, based on the quality of her performance here. Strongly recommended!!!

Edward II makes a brilliant hodge-podge of history by vaulting a sixteenth century play about a fourteenth century English king onto a dark, abstract twentieth century stage. Iconoclastic, yes; anachronistic, yes; imbecilic, no. While on the page Marlowe's poetry speaks for itself, in director Derek Jarman's hands it provides a counterpoint to the film's daring, elegant, eloquent visuals. King Edward and his lover, Piers Gaveston, are attacked by the raving heteronormative toffs for their homosexuality and Gaveston's less-than-aristocratic background. Great moments include a cameo by Annie Lennox and a bull's-eye by Tilda Swinton.

This film is stunning to watch, constantly odd and surprising visually. Verging on expressionistic many times. However, I found the substance of the film somewhat weak. The themes are interesting, how Edward turns his back on power for the sake of the people he loves, Who end up being sacrificed because of it. Mortimer craves power only, and achieves it at a brutal cost. Edward's brother is in the middle, loving both his brother and country. The middle does not hold. Well these themes are interesting the production lacks much new ones in presenting them. I don't know if this is the fault of the play or the director. In general I have found Marlow's plays to be good but not exceptional in the waybid Shakespeare is.

This beautifully filmed, strangely erotic minor masterwork is Derek Jarman at his best. Dark and brooding, Jarman draws the viewer into the world of medieval England while still being his unusual, original self. Homoerotic without being blatant about its pro-gay leanings, Jarman tells a story of doomed love in a time where certain loves were life threatening.

My advice is to avoid this film and try and see a stage version instead.

It is highly unfair, I think, to criticise Marlowe's writing capabilities based on this rather terrible rendition of his play Edward II, as another user has commented on. In this film lines are swapped between characters, scenes are drastically changed, new scenes are added in and key scenes and characters are omitted. The whole film stands as a rather disfigured version of the original play.

Of course perhaps it could be said also to be unfair to criticise it's lack of loyalty to Marlowe's script, after all it is an adaptation. Looking at it simply as a movie it still creates rather laughable viewing. The actors talents are wasted on the directors odd obsession with the surreal and abstract, which is just simply random and out of place. And an odd musical cameo from Annie Lennox just adds to the madness.

To look at the positives yes there are some imaginative shots and several scenes are performed and presented well but as a whole it appears as a rather flimsy and hastily put together film that would be more suited as a three part drama on ITV.

What an exhilarating, entrancing, searing piece of work. Oh, it did cost me a bit to go along with the dialogue so easily, but the whole thing was just fantastic. The ensemble cast seems to be having the time of their lives speaking all of these juicy dramatic lines. Tilda Swinton, especially, manages to go beyond my expectations to deliver an all-time worthy performance. This is what she's best at, this sort of icy, hypnotizing, ethereal role, and she more than delivers. In a film full of wonderful performances, she stands at the very top. The whole thing is just completely and utterly mesmerizing, impossible to look away.

Tilda Swinton is great, and the Act Up/Gay is good message is great, but what's not so good is the portrayal of Piers and the King. They're obnoxious, rude, and hurtful. It's sad because it seems there are perfectly valid reasons to hate and overthrow them that have nothing to do with heterosexism. Oh, and Annie Lennox is great too, but interrupting the movie for a fawning music video was a strange move.

I think a couple of cinema school students have met to create this film, trying to make something "different". It makes a strange mixture of present and past, not 100% convincing. They seems to me more concentrated in the costumes, than in the film itself, it was like a mode parade. Symbology too pretentious.

Definitely Derek Jarman's most refined film. That said, refined for Jarman is bizarre for most.

Based VERY loosely on Christopher Marlowe's play from 1592, however, should be view in its own light / right. Whereas it does tend to capture the wonderful Marlow language, this is no "Shakespeare" here! It's a brilliantly acted ensemble piece, set in Jarman's abstract vision of the world, with a core message that is as valid today as it must have been shocking then.

Jarman "paints" his film - as he always did - not in any logical manner or order, but like a mosaic of images, creating a whole and a statement - a strong statement about intolerance in this case.

This one might even be palatable for non-Jarman fans.

This gay adaptation of Christopher Marlowe play about the passion of the British King Edward II for a plebeian made by Derek Jarman, who died of AIDS in 1994, is very boring and confused. The film was shot on a stage, but the screenplay is very unpleasant and I could not wait for the end of the movie. I was attracted by the names of Tilda Swinton, John Lynch and Annie Lennox, and in the end, only the Lennox singing Cole Porter's "Every Time We Say Goodbye" was worthwhile. The DVD released in Brazil is unbelievably dubbed in Spanish, i.e., a British movie dubbed in Spanish to make it worse. In my opinion, "Edward II" might be mainly recommended for gay and very specific audiences. I had the displeasure of watching this flick on DVD on 27 August 2005. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Eduardo II" ("Edward II")

I should start off by mentioning that Edward II is a very strange movie. All the sets look the same, most of the actors aren't young and glamorous, and everyone speaks Elizabethan English even though it takes place in 1991.

There were times that I felt I just wasn't "getting" it. But after a while I realized I was getting it -- it's just that I wasn't offered very much to begin with.

This movie is so completely visually dull with its dirt floors and bare concrete walls (did I mention this takes place in 1991?) that I felt my eyes getting heavy. Would I have missed much if I had closed them? Well, a couple of softcore man-on-man sex scenes (did I mention that the actors aren't young and glamorous?) but other than that, looking at the inside of my eyelids wouldn't have been much less interesting.

Edward II's script is also quite lacking. I don't know if this is the case with the play (the only Marlowe play I've ever actually read is Dr. Faust) but in any case, I see no sense in making a movie from the script. I can't imagine someone reading the script and saying, "this looks good." The characters are all so coldly obsessed with whining about their own petty problems that there's no way someone could really care about them. Even their bratty children have their own agendas. Anytime someone was killed, I wasn't sure whether to be glad a character I hated was gone, or to be unhappy that another character I also hated had succeeded.

My only praise for this movie is the acting. Given what these actors had to work with, I think they made a good attempt. Unfortunately, this was not enough to make this particular movie worth watching.

Being one of only two movies (as opposed to stage productions) based on the works of Christopher Marlowe (the other is the Richard Burton 1967 DOCTOR FAUSTUS), Derek Jarman's 1991 film of EDWARD II would be important for that reason alone. However there is more to the film than that. It's not only what meets the eye but what meets the ear that really counts. Like most of his films, Jarman shot EDWARD II on a shoestring and like many a theatre director turned filmmaker, he follows the time honored tradition of re-interpreting a classic play for the screen.

The minimal settings and modern costumes, which were partially budgetary concerns, take some getting used to as does the overtly gay overtone that Jarman brings out which is not for the easily offended even though it can clearly be found in Marlowe's text. However, if you can get past that, then this EDWARD II can be a surprisingly rich and rewarding experience especially on repeated viewings.

After I have watched a film version of a Shakespeare play or in this case Marlowe, I like to run it through my sound system without the picture and just listen to the words and how the actors speak them. The cast for EDWARD II is very strong and their theatrical background comes through with most of Marlowe's lines. Shakespeare was regarded as a playwright when he died in 1616 while Marlowe was considered a poet when he was murdered in 1593. There is poetry in Marlowe's blank verse that even Shakespeare couldn't aspire to although he was the better writer overall. But I digress.

With a trio of strong performances from Stephen Waddington, Tilda Swinton, and Nigel Terry, this version of EDWARD II has a raw power that is accentuated by Jarman's visuals and Simon Fisher-Turner's music. Forget the anachronisms like Annie Lennox or the appearance of Queer Nation and focus on the story of a flawed individual who like Othello, "loved not wisely, but too well"...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

A history / political science major, I usually enjoy seeing "period" films of historical significance. This film would not qualify as a "period" film. However, it definitely drew my interest.

Both Steven Waddington and Tilda Swinton performed beautifully as Edward and Isabelle.

Although Derek Jarman is sadly no longer with us, I LQQK forward in viewing other films made by those directors who approximate his vision.

Ya know that scene in Being John Malkovich, where he goes into his own mind and everyone inside says nothing but "Malkovich Malkovich, Malkovich?" I felt that way watching this movie. Through the whole movie, I heard pretty much nothing but "Gaveston? Gaveston, Gaveston? Gaveston!" It's not that the movie's difficult to understand because of the Elizabethean language. I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare's plays, having read a number of them and seen plenty of film adaptations of them, so I can follow Elizabethean dialogue. But this... well, it ain't Shakespeare. Christopher Marlowe's style doesn't have the poetry or fluidity of Shakespeare. He didn't have Shakespeare's genius. Which makes this movie tough on the ear: boring, in fact.

I'm occasionally tempted to watch this movie again, just to see if maybe it DOES have something to redeem itself, perhaps something I missed... and maybe I will, someday. But for now, I'll stick with Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing.

I found this movie nice, but somehow strange. I would have found it better if they had either really modernized the script and the settings, as they did it with "Romeo and Julia" starring Leonardo DiCaprio, or they had set it completely in a medieval world, with big sets etc (possibly they hadn't the budget for that), but I didn't like the simple way the sets and the film was made. Still, Edward II is a play that should get the respect it deserves (=more adaptions into movies)