Elizabeth

To devalue a tale of this magnitude with the Cantona cuckoo beggars belief, might as well have had Vinnie Jones playing Norfolk! I'm unconvinced of Vincent Cassel's legitimacy in this as well.

That aside, there's only one character and one actor of note to be found here and that is the magnificent Cate Blanchett who plays several divisions or leagues above even the most accomplished thespians in support. A woman born to play the role if ever there was one. She allows us to forgive some of the historical anomalies and interactions, in return we consume a performance that convinces us, albeit for only a couple of hours, that we are in the company of majesty!

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.

In a year overwhelmed with reminiscent films, Elizabeth rises above the rest to become one of few stunning manifestations of the Hollywood Renaissance. Certainly acknowledged by the Oscars garnering 7 nominations, Shekhar Kapur's intimate portrait of a young Elizabeth further expands the modern view on a distant monarch, whose maturing reign as well as taming nature continued to dazzle the 20th century viewers.

Presented here by a superb cast led by Golden-Globe winner Cate Blanchett, early Elizabethean era turmoil and upheaval are captured brilliantly. The lush set itself is a feast for the eye as the audience is drawn to follow a passionate young Elizabeth's path. Against the dark setting of medieval stone castles, a blooming Golden Age approaches as England expands to take control in a world of great unrest after Catholic Queen Mary's death. Her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth daughter of Anne Bolyne is placed on a throne of a kingdom torn between religion. Cate Blanchett does a fabulous job capturing the details of a frustrated young woman waking to the merciless reality of queenhood--surrounded by enemies such as Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston). Constantly by her side is her reverent adviser Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) who advises Elizabeth to marry for convenience choosing from a "pool" of ready political candidates--while Elizabeth herself is long set on her lover from the past Sir Robert Dudley (a charming Joseph Fiennes). Yet just as England learns to wake up from the medieval dream, Elizabeth learns the bitterness of betrayal as she looks to Sir Francis Walsingham (Jeffrey Rush)'s counsel.

Focusing on Elizabeth's subtle changes of phase from fire to ice at a distant in the midst of a grander panorama beautifully shot, the audience gradually distinguishes her footsteps from the shedding of innocence to a tough ruler that dares to strike first against her enemies, to ultimately become the Virgin Queen to reign above all men.

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.

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.