mrjarndyce

I fear that some unhappy comments made about this film arise from disappointment in that it wasn't a 'typical' Scorcese movie. No sympathy, though - any fan of the man has to be aware of the range he commands.

That said, this is a wonderful movie. It is astoundingly faithful to the subtleties of the novel; it is magnificent to see; and it manages to make very alive the people of another world. Day-Lewis is at his best. Note the scene with Pfeiffer when both are laughing at a Christopher Columbus spin. His barely restrained glee in the woman's presence is perfect. But the woman! Pfeiffer has been cursed with great beauty. Too bad, that it obfuscates for many a brilliant, brilliant actor. She is ideal as the countess, cultured, intelligent, passionate and highly moral. Best of all, Scorcese orchestrates the entire thing with the sure hand of a director who knows his craft absolutely.

Had to see this again, after reading other reviews here.

Oh, but I wish I hadn't. I'm now left with a stronger sense than ever that Mr. Cooper was stiffly moving through a choreography alien to him; the only remaining joy is Neal's performance. On repeated viewing, the script is less easy to stomach. It has all the nuance, all the subtlety, all the art of a pro-German propaganda flick made in the late '30's. The philosophy spouted by the cast is the usual, facile, pseudo-intellectualism of the Rand tribe - a school founded on a premise which got wrong the concept of selflessness from the very outset (that is, that 'selflessness' is never utterly literal; even in biblical terms, it is used to define a state of self strong enough to give much without abandoning its essence). Thus the actors - and some fine ones, too - are reduced to trying to shape performances out of street corner didactics.

I do believe this movie is a milestone of sorts; how did Hollywood permit such blatant (and puerile) agitprop to slip through its gilded doors? Ah, well. See it, by all means. Just keep the sound off.

Blanchett resembles what we know of Elizabeth Tudor's looks. The costumes are very good, too. Everything else in this production fails as a movie and doubly fails as one purporting to tell a real story. Blanchett's character in no way reflects what we know of Elizabeth's own, and we know a lot. Scene after scene is filled with fantastic and untrue scenarios: e.g., the assassination attempt; the ridiculous arrival of the French suitor and the more preposterous notion that the Duc d'Anjou (I assume this was meant to be him; as he never came to England, one can't be sure) would have a cross-dressing orgy as a guest of the queen he sought political marriage with, in a court riddled, as he would well know, with English spies; and the downright laughable end, wherein the queen consciously adopts a white mask to set herself up as a Protestant icon of virginity. Fifteen years before she entertained the most serious marriage proposal of her life. The real disgrace here is that Elizabeth's life and reign were rife with authentic, highly dramatic incidents which would have made for gripping story-telling. Shame on all concerned for presenting the public with such a travesty.