Elizabeth

England. 1555. Henry VIII has snuffed it from gout or syphilis, it depends on who you read, Bloody Mary's got a tumour and the Catholics' greatest fear is Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth. Director Kapur has brought to the screen some of the most intriguing moments in English history and the result is dazzling.

Following recent grandiose French historical epics, such as the glorious Ridicule, Elizabeth more than holds its own as a no-holds barred, gripping English extravaganza. Historians across the land will no doubt pick holes in the accuracy, but it hardly matters.

The opening scene signals the film's intent. Protestant heretics are burnt mercilessly at the grisly stake, accompanied by proclamations that they should burn in Hell. It's clear that England is in a pretty gloomy state and ruled by a humourless zealot, Mary (the ubiquitous Kathy Burke), who is hell-bent on converting or murdering Elizabeth: "My sister was born a whore of that Ann Boleyn."

Cheery Mary rules a poor, remote island that is very likely to become the next possession of the growing empire of Spain. She is surrounded by rebels who want to place the Protestant Elizabeth on the throne. So, Mary gets her trusted Lord Norfolk (Eccleston cuts an impressive presence; you can imagine this man swishing on the battlefield) to arrest Lizzy and dispatch her to the Tower of London.

The camerawork and the pace of this film are breathtaking. Kapur directs with ambitious panache, whilst supplying more than a wink to Coppola's The Godfather in the process. Two scenes in particular reek of the Mafia masterpiece: one in the Vatican, the other a succession of assassinations sparked by the majesty's demand, "let it all be done". Pure Pacino.

If you shimmy past the slightly silly inclusions of the likes of Eric Cantona (the IKEA School of Acting) and Angus Deayton, and the fact that Dickie Attenborough (plays a fussy sidekick who sniffs the Queen's bedsheets and claims, "her body belongs to the State") is starting to resemble an Ewok, the acting is otherwise splendid.

Cate Blanchett not only resembles the great lady, but imparts her with enormous affection (her love of Lord Dudley, played by Fiennes, is tenderly dealt with) and delivers her lines with a steely intelligence, "I do not see why a woman must marry at all" and "I'm no man's Elizabeth" . Her performance is a revelation and if it weren't for Geoffrey Rush she would have stolen every scene. However, the Shine star, playing her demonic sidekick Walsingham, delights in creeping in the shadows and pulling the devilish strings. A positively Machiavellian turn and worthy of another Oscar.

This is a history film made at its very finest and the equal of A Man For All Seasons. Elizabeth could have unfolded in front of me all day and I would have remained enraptured. Intoxicating imagery ("English blood on French colours" the wicked Mary of Guise, Ardant, proclaims), naughty shenanigans, dastardly deeds, an epic tale and a superb cast. Stunning cinema.

Does a 'historical' film have to be accurate? The opinions might differ, but for me, the answer is no. This movie is more of a visually opulent fairy tale, great actors, great set, great cinematography, great costumes and styling. Fireworks! Visually pleasing. For accuracy you might have to look elsewhere when it comes to some details. Nevertheless highly enjoyable.

I'm not big on historical dramas, but I saw this because I'm interested in that period. The film is a thing of beauty. The cinematography, lighting, and editing are masterful. The acting is superb: refined, and not overdone as can be the case in these things. Blanchett and Rush are especially good. All in all, a wonderful film.

Making a historical biopic like "Elizabeth" is a very, very difficult thing--something many viewers would not expect. Although Elizabeth I of England was an incredibly important figure, there are two HUGE problems with a film about her. First, although she had LOTS of folks executed for treason, we really have no idea if many of these folks were actually guilty of anything. Executing potential threats and rivals back then was like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one! Untangling this mess of intrigues is impossible today, so many of the plots you see in this film might not have even existed or occurred later in her reign (the executions in the film actually occurred over a very long period of time--not all at once). Second, there is scant little written from the time about the character and personalities of the major characters you see in the film. So, the film makers either inferred or simply made up stuff for the sake of cinematic style and intrigue. For example, Sir Francis Wallsingham was a man of intrigues and operated a personal spy network--so the inferences about him in this sense in the movie are reasonable. BUT, showing him with the young man who he then viciously kills at the beginning of the film is completely fictional. There is no evidence he murdered people with his own hands and I think the scene STRONGLY implies that he's either gay or bisexual--something that is made up for the movie. Another example is Elizabeth's sex life. This is NOT something they kept records of (for obvious reasons) and there has been MUCH conjecture that she was gay, asexual or carried on affairs behind the scenes with men. No one really knows the truth. So, my advice for the film is to take it all with a grain of salt--the main points are accurate but so many of the details are fabricated in order to create a neat sort of fictional non-fiction.

As fictional non-fiction, the film looks great. The costumes and sets are wonderful. The acting is also quite good. And, the film is rather interesting and gives a good GENERAL overview of the early years of Elizabeth's reign. However, be forewarned: the film is NOT for the squeamish, prudish or easily offended. It is very bloody (beginning with an incredibly vivid opening execution scene) and there is a lot of nudity. In many ways, this film helped set the template for later historical mini series which are much like history, a soap opera and a bit of skin combined. Well made but like most biopics, short on historical accuracy.

I just watched Elizabeth, for the second time and once again I was ...what would be the word...moved? Not in the teary-eyed sense, but in a way that makes you want to read more about Elizabeth I.

However, I have read other comments and two things occurred to me. First, that many people (brilliant scholars or erudite people whom I respect) pretend that "it did not look that way" or " it did not happen that way", such and such. Who are you to tell? History is not an exact science, it is a HUMAN way to try and keep in touch with the events that shaped the world we live in. Being interested in history and costume history myself, nothing STRIKE me as BLATANTLY anachronistic. I think that Mr. Kapur primarily wanted to illustrate Elizabeth's rise to power, not her entire reign, which would take several films. His film is an account of an episode of English history, not a chronic on life in Tudor England, hence the lack of filth and lice, as someone mentioned... The second element is a more personal one, that in fact came to my mind while watching the film: how could Cate Blanchett lose the Oscar to Gwyneth Paltrow, of all people?! Her performance in Shakespeare in Love was charming, no less but no more. I think that trying to catch the conscience of a queen, to make an illustrious historic figure come to life is far more difficult than playing William Shakespeare's (fictitious) love interest.

It was my humble opinion, and I wanted to share it with other IMDB users.