Elizabeth (1998) User Reviews

A small nudge in the direction of romanticism

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 4 October 2008]

And Elizabeth did whisper Robert Dudley's name on her deathbed… The movie is an imaginative interpretation of the way that things could have been…

Shekhar Kapur's film explores the instabilities of her reign, and the absolute horror and terror that surrounded the early part of her royal office without neglecting her relationship with her terminally ill sister… So it's a glimpse of her girlhood into statehood, and the shedding that occurs, with the people who expended in her life along the way…

The film shows Elizabeth growing up in an incredibly unstable, tumultuous environment… But she's an absolute survivor... Someone who has got no solid ground on which she walks… So one minute she's a bastard, the next minute she's a princess, then one moment she's an illegitimate daughter, then she's a queen… And it's a very relevant period of her life, because she was 25 when she became a female monarch…

There are four men in Elizabeth's life and all have quite different influences on what it means for a young woman to run the country so young, given that she comes to the throne under very difficult political circumstances…

There's Sir Cecil (Attenborough) who's from an older regime giving her the traditions and the conventions that are the most orthodox; Sir Francis (Geoffrey Rush) Elizabeth's great spy master, very astute, almost puritanical and rather dry bureaucrat; Robert Dudley (Fiennes) with whom the film suggests that she has quite a passionate, private relationship; and Norfolk (Eccleston), a major rival who doesn't regard that she is suitable to rule his England…

The motion picture succeeds in developing Elizabeth's change and, basically, locks off parts of herself, and dehumanizes herself in order to wield her power among men

A Coucou in the Court...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 23 September 2020]

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!

What does this film and Yankee Doodle Dandy have in common?

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 28 February 2017]

They are both great films that take so much liberty with the truth that I doubt the real people upon which they are based would recognize their own lives! We'll never know about Queen Elizabeth I who died 400 years before the motion picture was born, but George M. Cohen, whose life is on display in Yankee Doodle Dandy, did screen the picture before release and his comment was - "Great film, who is it about?". But I digress.

Cate Blanchett is every inch a queen in this film. Elizabeth surely was in danger during her half sister Mary's rule who wasn't called "Bloody Mary" for nothing. Robert Dudley was the love of Elizabeth's life, and she likely didn't marry for good reason, especially if you look at what happened to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, who lost her throne by becoming vulnerable through affairs and marriages of the heart. Dudley's first wife did die conveniently in 1560, leaving him free to marry Elizabeth if she had so wanted. But tongues wagged about the suspicious manner of Robert's first wife's death, as she died by falling down a flight of stairs. Dudley did remain a loyal friend to Elizabeth throughout the rest of his life, angering the queen when he married a second time in secret after waiting twenty years for Elizabeth. But life must go on right?

But this last paragraph is largely the truth, now for the movie. In this film Robert Dudley is still first in Elizabeth's heart, and he is shown to be a two faced horndog unworthy of that affection. Her biggest threat is shown to be Mary of Guise, French born and Catholic ruler of Scotland who plays this role completely over the top, but is delightful nonetheless. She is taken down in a James Bond style operation by Walsingham, trusted adviser and head of a network of international spies who is not against getting his hands dirty himself. Walsingham was indeed a trusted adviser, although years later than shown, and Geoffrey Rush plays this part to perfection, although the actual Walsingham was not nearly as interesting as the character shown here. In fact Walsingham was only a year older than Elizabeth, and a happily married homebody. I think they gave the part to an actor in middle age so that he looked as experienced as he seemed. The cross dressing Duke of Anjou never came to England and never sought Elizabeth's hand, but it makes for a great theater.

Then there is William Cecil, played by Richard Attenborough, whose heart is in the right place - as in for England and for Elizabeth - but has ideas that constrain England as a second hand power looking to France or Spain for protection. Elizabeth retires him with honors in the film and looks more and more to Walsingham. In fact, Cecil was only 13 years Elizabeth's senior, not a very old man as shown here. Elizabeth never retired him. Only death did that, and then only less than five years before her own.

So enjoy the great acting, the perfect art direction and cinematography, the intrigue and the plots, and a...poisoned dress? But most of all enjoy Cate Blanchett's performance as she portrays Elizabeth as she evolves from a young girl uncertain of what to say before parliament to the point where she practices her speeches haltingly in private, into an iron maiden who shears her hair, wears a wig, and paints herself with lead in an attempt to become a symbol of power, not the woman who has been looked upon as vulnerable to plots both at home and abroad. She gives up all hopes of personal happiness to be secure on her throne to tend to her first love, England, with all of this happening in a very compressed time period compared to what really happened, if it happened at all.

Queen Blanchett

[MaxBorg89 · 9/10 · 13 January 2008]

The Academy Awards ceremony of 1999 angered many people: Shakespeare in Love, albeit a very smart and funny film, robbed the superior Saving Private Ryan of the Best Picture Oscar; Roberto Benigni beat Edward Norton in the Best Actor category (though it was the Italian star's behavior, rather than his performance, that irritated those attending the event); and Gwyneth Paltrow, who wasn't actually bad in Shakespeare, walked away with the Best Actress award, depriving Cate Blanchett of the recognition she should have received for her revelatory work in Elizabeth.

This film, the first in what the director hopes will be a trilogy (the second installment was released in 2007), covers the early years of Elizabeth I's reign, from her harsh upbringing to the decision to call herself "the Virgin Queen". To describe her situation as tough is an understatement: she was a Protestant monarch in a largely Catholic kingdom, several covert groups wanted her dead and foreign sovereigns kept asking for her hand in marriage, without ever succeeding, for the only man she loved was also the only one she couldn't have.

Conspiracies and unhappy romances: two unusual ingredients for a period drama. And that is exactly why the film succeeds: in the mind of director Shekhar Kapur, this is not the usual costume film where events are observed with a static eye and what might be perceived by some as excessive slowness (Quentin Tarantino's infamous rant about "Merchant-Ivory sh*t" is aimed at those productions); instead, we get a lively, vibrant piece of work, with the camera sweeping through the gorgeous sets and leering at the exquisite costumes while recounting the grand story. And what a story: the thriller aspect aims to please viewers who find the genre a bit lacking in the tension department, whereas the Queen's doomed love affair with Joseph Fiennes' Earl of Leicester (a plot element to which the BBC miniseries from 2005, starring Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons, is a sort of sequel) is the polar opposite of the sanitized, passionless romantic tales that tend to feature in other period films.

Good-looking technique and strong storytelling would, however, be useless if the title role wasn't played by an equally great actress, and Pakur found the perfect Elizabeth in Blanchett: an odd choice she may have seemed (she was a complete unknown in Hollywood prior to being cast in this movie), but the performance she delivers is nothing short of astonishing. Doubtful, determined, passionate, naive, heartbroken, firm and charismatic - she is quite simply the best on-screen incarnation of Elizabeth in the long history of biopics. The supporting cast (Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston, Richard Attenborough) is also excellent, as expected from British and Australian thespians, but it is Blanchett who dominates the entire picture. Shame the Academy didn't take notice.

Elizabeth could have unfolded in front of me all day and I would have remained enraptured.

[walshio · 15 December 1998]

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.

One of the finest historical dramas in years.

[EThompsonUMD · 9/10 · 29 August 2001]

As far as Academy Award recognition is concerned, 'Elizabeth' was unfortunately released in the same year (1998) as the much slicker, more crowd-pleasing 'Shakespeare in Love,' a fine comic film but as much over-praised as 'Elizabeth' was overlooked. It certainly borders on the absurd, if not the criminal, that Gwyneth Paltrow's simpering, one-note performance as Viola was handed the Best Actress Award over Cate Blanchett's truly magnificent performance in the title role of 'Elizabeth,' a film whose tracing of Elizabeth's transformation from teenage frolicker to commanding 'Virgin Queen' presented an enormous challenge of acting range that Blanchett met with aplomb.

Curiously, 'Shakespeare in Love' and 'Elizabeth' not only share the presence of Elizabeth I as an historical character, albeit at opposite ends of her nearly 50 year reign, but also two prominent cast members: Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush. Although Fiennes' role as the Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth's lover prior to her Virgin Queen persona days, is smaller (and far less winning) than his lead role in 'Shakespeare in Love,' he again cuts a convincing figure in 16th century costume. On the other hand, Geoffrey Rush's performance as Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's utterly ruthless yet completely loyal bodyguard and Machiavellian tutor, is endlessly and hypnotically fascinating – a performance that steals movies in movies whose leads are less arresting than Ms. Blanchett.

Yet, in an ironic reversal of Hollywood's usual denigration of comedy in favor of 'serious' drama, it was Rush's much smaller comic performance in 'Shakespeare' that secured him the 1998 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Ordinarily, I'd applaud such recognition of comic art and talent, but in this instance it represents another miscarriage of justice. Rush's tone and bearing as he delivers line after line of blood-chilling dialog make Walsingham a character I expect never to forget. 'You were Norfolk,' he responds to the protests of the insufferably arrogant Duke of Norfolk, Elizabeth's chief nemesis, as he leads him away to the Tower, 'the dead have no titles.'

Of course, Elizabeth gets off many a great line of her own, as in her unforgettable final rejection of Leicester: 'I am not your Elizabeth. I am no man's Elizabeth. I shall have one mistress here. And no master!' A little later she gives license to Walsingham to proceed with the political cleansing of the realm with a laconic transcendence of her 'womanly' emotions: 'let it all be done.' Still another memorable line marks the final stage of her political education and her departure from the wishy-washy diplomacy represented by Lord Burleigh (her former chief minister, finely played by Sir Richard Attenborough in his final film role): 'Observe, Lord Burleigh, I am married … to England.'

Elizabeth ultimately forges a political philosophy that combines elements of Walsingham's cynical wariness with an ideal of self-abnegating service to England ('my people'). She envisions a strong, secular England capable of rising above the internecine religious strife initiated by her father's departure from the Roman Catholic Church and depicted in graphic horror in the film's opening sequence. In so doing she succeeds in mapping out England's course toward a stable, advanced society whose history would include a lengthy period of world domination. This film does full justice to the dilemmas of church-state conflict, to the complex character of the queen herself, and to the rich historical milieu that produced her. It is one of the finest historical dramas to have appeared in decades.

Well made though not exactly great history.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 11 December 2013]

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.

Creative camera work

[CCO-3 · 10/10 · 15 December 1998]

During the opening credits the camera hovers high above three people being burned at the stake, what an angle, as the fire consumes them in a maelstrom. The cineamatography was so incredibly creative, very Hitchcockian. One need not possess any knowledge of history to make sense of the plot and story. Like a good mystery there were subtle nuances. Glances between characters that foreshadowed events and interactions to come, such as the woman that betrays Norfolk, and the child that inadvertently reveals his father's hiding place. The story wasn't exactly historically accurate, but it got my 15-year-old interested in Elizabethen England. Call it artistic license. The movie was so lush, so complex that I easily saw it twice without becoming bored. Terrific acting, fabulous costumes, great staging.

A very good try

[LeTiss · 6/10 · 3 June 1999]

As soccer legend Eric Cantona's former colleagues might say this is a film of two halves. Despite an intimidating opening scene, the first half soon settles down to establishing who everyone is - the bad guys drip malevolence, while the good guys dance in gay meadows. It is not until the second half that the politics and intrigue really get going.

The film opens in England, circa 1550s. The country is divided, half of the population pledging allegiance to the childless catholic Queen Mary who is dying, while the other half attempt to place their protestant liege, Elizabeth, on the throne.

Mary dies before providing an heir so the monarchy automatically passes to Elizabeth. However, she inherits a rebellious court keen to see her removed and a catholic monarch installed. Fortunately for Elizabeth, there are not enough candidates for the job. While, the evil Duke of Norfolk plots to put himself and Mary, Queen of Scots on the English throne, Elizabeth's supporters rush around trying to find her a suitable international king.

The crux comes when she declares she is only interested in her English lover, Lord Robert Dudley. When her enemies learn of this, they try to drive a wedge between them. And from this premise the real intrigue flows.

In terms of characterisation, the film scores some hits and some misses. Some curious casting decisions undermine a few of the characters - working class mainstay Kathy Burke moves to the opposite end of the social spectrum to play Queen Mary, Brit comic Angus Deayton has an unnecessary cameo, while Eric Cantona seems an odd choice, although his performance seems adequate.

As to the main characters, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) is well charted from gamboling youth to ice-hard queen. The black loyalty of Sir Francis Wolsingham (Geoffrey Rush) is tested time and again and never found wanting, allowing him to grow from mistrusted bodyguard to Queen's adviser.

Unfortunately the Queen's enemies are so numerous it is difficult to focus on one. Michael Hirst, the writer, chooses the Duke of Norfolk as the chief villain but we never really learn why, or what his plans, beyond unseating Elizabeth, are. Christopher Ecclestone plays the Duke with the right amount of menace but we are never truly intimidated by his smouldering glare. Lord Robert (Joseph Fiennes) is an equally confused character. Is he guilty of the crimes he is accused of? Does he love the queen? Some of his behaviour suggests he does not, yet he constantly returns to her claiming he does. The uncertainty generated by Lord Robert is compounded by the fact that Joseph Fiennes does not belong in this film.

Beyond the characters, many of the films finest moments come in the form of the brightly coloured set pieces - when the court takes to the boat lake, the arrival of the french prince and the coronation. Some of the blacker scenes also serve very well - the aftermath of the battle, the plotting in the Vatican.

Despite the fine art direction, what we are eventually left with is a sumptuous, well made film let down by a slow start and a few undefined characters.

My favorite film of 1998!

[smig1 · 10/10 · 9 December 1999]

Cate Blanchett's performance was awe-inspiring and has made me a fan for life. She should have won the Oscar in 1998.

Terrific performances from the other principal actors, excellent costume/art direction and cinematography, a good script (if you can relax any standards of strict historiography you might have, if any) and well-paced direction and editing make for a terrific period piece.

I loved this movie and raved about it for weeks afterward.

Total fiction

[ltaylor1234 · 6/10 · 21 April 2019]

Beautiful movie, but so far removed from reality I can't give it a higher rating. Hollywood needs to do better when they set out to portray historical events. Very disappointing.

Who can tell for sure how it really was?

[lulia · 9/10 · 3 May 1999]

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.

Stylised Historical Pageant

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 13 November 2007]

"Elizabeth" deals with the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. We first see her as a frightened young princess learning to survive at the court of her dangerously unpredictable sister Mary, who comes close to having Elizabeth executed because of her supposed involvement in the Wyatt Rebellion and because of her ambivalent religious loyalties. Even when Mary dies and Elizabeth succeeds her on the throne, her position seems hardly easier. At the age of 25, Elizabeth has inherited a near-bankrupt kingdom, threatened from outside by powerful foreign rivals and from within by religious dissensions between Catholics and Protestants. The Duke of Norfolk, a powerful Catholic nobleman, threatens Elizabeth with open rebellion. The film tells the story of how she overcame all these challenges to make herself the unchallenged ruler of England.

Elizabeth is often regarded as a Protestant ruler, but this is perhaps an oversimplification of her religious position, which was closer to that of the Vicar of Bray. Under her Protestant brother Edward VI, she was a Protestant. Under Mary she was, at least outwardly, a Catholic. When she inherited the throne herself, she formulated the concept of a single Church of England, independent of the Papacy, to act as a broad church for all English Christians. (The Anglican Church has never declared itself to be exclusively Protestant, and since 1559 no English ruler, except Cromwell, has tried to make it so). In this she had the inadvertent support of Pope Pius V, whose bull "Regnans in Excelsis", declaring Elizabeth a heretic and calling on her Catholic subjects to assassinate her or rise up against her, had the unintended consequence of driving into the Church of England all those who were in their hearts loyal to the Old Faith but who had no wish to see their Queen dead and their country racked by religious warfare.

The film explores the way in which Elizabeth created a ruling ideology for herself and her kingdom, an ideology of which the Elizabethan Religious Settlement was only one element. Apart from Mary, who only reigned for five years, no woman had previously succeeded in establishing herself as Queen Regnant of England. The advice from all her male counsellors was to marry as soon as possible, preferably to a powerful foreign prince, just as Mary had allied herself to Philip of Spain. Elizabeth, however, realised that such a marriage would be unpopular with her subjects as it could have made England subordinate to a foreign power (the Wyatt Rebellion was inspired more by fear of Spanish domination than by objections to Mary's Catholicism). The alternative of marriage to an English husband was rejected because Elizabeth did not want to surrender her power to any man, who would have become king in all but name. Historians have differed over whether Elizabeth was literally a virgin (the film takes the view that Robert Dudley was her lover physically as well as emotionally), but her solution was to reinvent herself as the Virgin Queen, married to her country rather than any earthly husband, and began a brilliant propaganda campaign to promote herself as such. (The only male European monarch who managed to create such a brilliant persona for himself was Louis XIV, "Le Roi Soleil").

Cate Blanchett gives a superb portrayal of Elizabeth, and was unlucky to be overlooked for the "Best Actress" Oscar which eventually went to Gwyneth Paltrow for "Shakespeare in Love". (An entertaining film, but hardly a great performance). The other performances which stood out were those of Geoffrey Rush as Elizabeth's devious, Machiavellian adviser Walsingham and Christopher Eccleston as the arrogant, treacherous Norfolk. I did not, however, like the portrayal of Elizabeth's sister Mary; she may have been cruel and callous (her nickname of "Bloody Mary" was well-deserved) but she was the daughter of Henry VIII and doubtless far more regal and dignified than the demented fishwife played here by Kathy Burke.

The film is not altogether historically accurate. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk (who crushed Wyatt's Rebellion and died of natural causes shortly afterwards) is conflated with his grandson, the 4th Duke, also named Thomas, who was executed by Elizabeth for treason. The Scottish Regent Mary of Guise was not poisoned by Elizabeth's agents. (She had many enemies, but none of her contemporaries regarded her death as anything but natural). Lord Burghley, a much younger man than the character played by Richard Attenborough, was not dismissed by Elizabeth early in her reign; he remained a trusted adviser until his death in 1598. Henri d'Anjou never visited England. Events are not shown in the sequence in which they occurred in history.

None of this, however, matters. The film was not conceived as a strictly accurate period drama but rather as a highly stylised historic pageant about the life of one of England's greatest monarchs. This stylisation is emphasised by the locations; mediaeval cathedrals such as Durham and York Minster stand in for Tudor palaces. The use of these buildings is hardly naturalistic, but it adds to the film's sense of grandeur and majesty. We hear music by Mozart and Elgar, neither of whom would be born until many years after Elizabeth's death. Cate Blanchett's costumes and appearance are modelled upon portraits of Elizabeth which were never meant to be realistic, but rather iconic propaganda images. As a historical textbook of Tudor England, the film is of little use, but it succeeds well in conveying Elizabeth's personality and her central importance in English history. 7/10

visually wonderful, historically--not so much!!

[osiyo1954 · 5/10 · 15 September 2005]

I have to say first that while I loved this movie for Cate Blanchett's great acting,for the visuals and even the soundtrack, I can't help but wonder how filmmakers can so blatantly reinvent history! I saw this movie in the theater,and had to literally bite my tongue all through it not to shout out loud at the totally fictive events, strangely telescoped time line, and juggling of names and characters.It's not like Elizabeth I is some obscure figure in English or world history. You would think SOMEONE involved in the production of this movie might have bothered to look something (anything!!)up!

I can only conclude that the makers of this film had NO intention of portraying Elizabeth's personality, intelligence, forcefulness, and political acumen accurately, let alone the events of her life and reign.The portrayal of her as faltering and weak in the beginning is hard to swallow, as she was politically subtle and well versed in the arts of intrigue from the cradle.

Although so many so-called historical films are not accurate, or portray history through a particular bias, this one must be called total fiction. It's much quicker to name the parts that ARE correct. Let's see, there was this Queen of England named Elizabeth--and..well, that's pretty much it!

They did sprinkle a lot of her famous quotes throughout, though at completely the wrong times and in the wrong situations. Alas!

And did anyone realize that the filmmakers had the wrong Duc D'Anjou? The Duc who liked to cross-dress was the older brother of the Duc who was proposed as her suitor. He had previously held that title, but was King of France at the time of his younger brother's (and present Duc D'Anjou's) suit for Elizabeth.Close, but no cigar.

I found especially ridiculous the implication at the end of the story that she was through with Robert Dudley, after his (fictional)betrayal of her. Any biography of Elizabeth is replete with references to the huge part he played in her life, both politically and personally.

I needn't go on-- I can't go on! The inaccuracies are legion, and have been mentioned in other reviews. If you don't give a tinker's damn about even approaching anything like historical accuracy, this is the movie for you. Otherwise see Elizabeth R or better yet--read a book about her.

What Tamed Passion!

[PivoGirl · 13 July 2000]

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.

The three Ss- sumptuous, superb and stunning!

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 28 September 2009]

This superb period drama has everything going for it, and I am saddened that it didn't get more awards.

For one thing, the whole film is splendid for the eyes. A lot of care went into the scenery, cinematography and costumes and it showed. The music score was absolutely beautiful, dramatic in some parts and poignant in others. The screenplay is quite extraordinary, and the story while perhaps historically inaccurate, is still intriguing. The direction, while the least impressive element of the film, was still solid. The performances were flawless; Cate Blanchett was above mesmerising as Elizabeth, and she is supported by an outstanding cast that include Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Christopher Ecceleston and Richard Attenborough. All in all, sumptuously filmed, and pretty darn good. 10/10 Bethany Cox

A beautiful and intriguing film which captures the grace and barbarity of the era.

[SAS-3 · 9/10 · 23 December 1998]

The acting is superb as is the choreography. A very da Vinci-like use of like and dark in comparing the young and innocent Elizabeth with the corrupt and conspiracy ridden "royal court". Very compelling and interesting as the new queen, who is thrust, almost against her wish, into power, learns the nature of the beast she must tame and then rule. It may not be a blockbuster of an event, but you just don't find this level of acting in Hollywood. Yet, taken as a whole, the story reminded me of the Godfather, yet it takes place some 450 years in the past.

Visually very appealing, but not historically accurate.

[thedarkhorizon · 7/10 · 27 April 2020]

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.

Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Woman (spoilers)

[the red duchess · 8/10 · 2 April 2001]

Like Sirk's Nazi-era 'Final Accord', 'Elizabeth' ends with a familiar image from totalitarian propagandist iconography - in this case, the Virgin Queen, divinely majestic and aloof from her subjects - having previously revealed the processes that have led to this image's construction. The gulf between serene image and brutal reality, between Elizabeth's powdered ascetisism and the cynical bloodletting, is all the more grotesque in its distasteful sublimation as religious metamorphosis - as Catholic England becomes Protestant, so Elizabeth replaces the Virgin Mary, like Madonna in 'Like a Virgin' re-chastening herself, in a paradoxically Catholic ritual of renunciation, mortification and abstinence - when she has her hair lopped off, like a young woman entering a nunnery, the fallen locks on her thighs suggest that it is more than hair she is losing. This sequence completes a dialectic (which very much concerned Elizabethan England) in the film between the human body and the body politic Elizabeth is a symbol of.

This is a historical epic you think Foucault might have approved of - indeed, 'Surveiller et Punir' wouldn't be a bad subtitle. There is a Foucauldian cynicism about the machinations of State here, where religious ideals are only so much murderous politicking (the scenes with the Pope and his envoy are frighteningly convincing), where a church is seen as a perfect setting for regicide.

Kapur impresses on us the monumentality of the world against which Elizabeth struggles, male power figured in forbidding stone buildings and huge, shadowy chambers, where human activity is obscured by the decor or veils, framed by crucifix crosses that have nothing to do with religious trauma. The film opens with Catholics burning Protestant 'heretics' in front of a mob; and ends with a 'Godfather'-like massacring of Protestant Elizabeth's Catholic enemies, whose threat is not religious, but one of power.

The most repeated visual motif in the film is an unmotivated long shot from deep above a building's rafters looking down on the dotted political players, a terrifying reminder of surveillance and omnipotence, an expression of power that doesn't depend on its human agents, that will always be there to circumscribe human endeavour. Is it the perenially observing Walsingham, Elizabeth's darkly charismatic advisor-cum-secret-police-henchman, given one of the great entrances in modern cinema? Or is it the God so godlessly invoked by these monsters?

Pedants have complained that 'Elizabeth' is historically inaccurate, as if cinema was a medium for plodding out facts. 'Elizabeth' is not a recreation of Elizabethan England and its modes of cultural expression - the film would be more formalised, ritualised, set as a masque rather than just featuring some. Kapur's modern techniques, his psychologising, his narrative pace, his restless camera, his (often over-egged) visual effects, all capture the instability of a period that tried to cover it up with pomp and ceremony.

This does not mean that the historical colour - the music, the pantomimes, the boat rides, the dances aren't in themselves delightful; it's just that they're imbued with narrative and character value (19th and 20th century values) rather than symbolic ones. This can be seen in the anachronistic use of Elgar and Mozart towards the end, the latter's Requiem especially, as Elizabeth becomes the Virgin Queen, in effect killing herself as a woman.

In the most bizarrely eclectic cast ever assembled in movies, mixing comedians, footballers, TV quiz-show hosts with 'proper' actors, Vincent Cassel is hilarious, and Geoffrey Rush is outstanding, proving after the false-start of 'Shine' that he is truly one of the most remarkable figures in film.

Not a history lesson, but a good story

[ntadema · 7/10 · 6 August 2000]

I think everyone can agree that the filming of the movie is beautiful. Acting performances, although overrated, are solid as well. As for the story....you're mistaken if you're looking for a history lesson, at least an -accurate- history lesson. However, I don't think that is the purpose of this movie. The story of this movie is about the transformation of a free-spirited girl into cold and ruthless yet capable monarch. So, in that sense, it is more a history of Queen Elizabeth's emotional state and development and tells a solid tale. 7/10.

Flawed, yet still wonderful

[annabrownie · 8/10 · 27 August 2008]

When watching this film, as with many historical dramas, I have to 'turn off the historian part of my brain', which would rather like to scream at times. Although I love this movie, and have since I first saw it, I must agree with a number of the reviewers on this site who have pointed out the numerous historical inaccuracies.

Elizabeth I herself is superbly portrayed by the truly marvellous Cate Blanchett, who totally inhabits the role. However, the real-life Elizabeth was far more politically savvy and personally dominant than the somewhat easily-influenced queen of this film. The awarding of 1999's Best Actress Oscar was a crime against Blanchett, whose work in this film far surpassed Gwyneth Paltrow in the much lighter Shakespeare in Love.

Her supporting cast are almost uniformly superb, from Joseph Fiennes to Christopher Eccleston to the almost-movie-stealing Geoffrey Rush. The latter turns in a truly wonderful, Machiavellian turn as Francis Walsingham; had he not also richly deserved his Oscar nod for Shakespeare in Love, this performance would have been worthy of a nomination. Allowed off his leash by Elizabeth towards the end of the film, he faces off against Eccleston as the treacherous Duke of Norfolk: "I must do nothing by your orders. I am Norfolk." "You were Norfolk. The dead have no titles...You were the most powerful man in England. You could have been greater still, but you had not the courage to be loyal." "So cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it." "No. They will forget." Absolutely brilliant.

The cinematography and set pieces are glorious, bright, colourful. In this respect, the filmmakers capture the essence of the Tudor court, its pomp and ceremony.

However, if it is historical accuracy you look for in a film, do not look for it here. The film conflates certain characters, meaning that they behave totally differently from their real historical counterparts. For simplicity's sake, it seems, the Duke of Norfolk who lived in Mary's reign and put down the Wyatt rebellion (dying shortly after) is mixed with the character of his grandson, who conspired with Mary Queen of Scots to depose Elizabeth, marry Mary and ascend the throne as her consort. Additionally, Elizabeth's first real love, Robert Dudley, later Earl of Leicester, seems to have been confused with a later favourite, his stepson Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. While Leicester was indeed beloved by the queen, both of them were well aware that nothing could come of it. Elizabeth knew of his wife (in the film she finds out from Cecil) from the date of his wedding, and although historians will never agree on whether their relationship was ever physical, the mysterious death of Amy Dudley meant that there was never the slimmest chance of them being anything more than the lifelong friends they were. In the film Leicester conspires against the Queen, while in life he remained faithful unto death, forming part of her group of staunchest male supporters, along with Cecil, Walsingham and Hatton. It was Devereux who plotted against Elizabeth, and he was beheaded for it. The other major discrepancy is the character of Cecil. Although extremely well played by Attenborough, he is far too old in the film. Cecil was Elizabeth's greatest adviser until his death in 1598, when his equally brilliant son took over his role. He is sidelined too early in the reign according to the film, as well as appearing far more feeble in comparison to Elizabeth than he really was.

In fairness to the filmmakers, they do not claim that this is a true historical account of the early years of Elizabeth's reign, and as I said above, I cannot help but enjoy the film, as long as I do not focus on the errors! Great camera work, wonderful acting, brilliant dialogue - everything else you could need for a great film are here, so perhaps in the scheme of things historical accuracy is not the be all and end all...

Terrific piece of melodramatic fiction, gets Elizabeth wrong on almost all counts (spoilers)

[Captain Ed · 7/10 · 22 January 2003]

First off, I must say that 'Elizabeth' is very entertaining. I own the DVD and have watched it several times. The dialogue and the characterizations are done very well -- as long as it's understood that this is a complete work of fiction.

Cate Blanchett does great work as Elizabeth I in what must be Bizarro World: this Elizabeth doesn't want power, refuses to go against her scruples and attend Catholic Mass on her sister's orders, gets played by the men around her, falls onto the throne almost accidentally, and (sort of) fires Cecil. She is betrayed by Lord Dudley and humiliated by an effeminate Duke of Anjou. What a load of manure, although it is interesting to see that the British can butcher their history almost as badly as we Americans do ours (and theirs, too, for that matter).

In reality, Elizabeth's true story is more compelling, in that she suffered no one to pull strings except her, unless it became mortally dangerous to do so. Elizabeth had a marvelous political instinct, one borne out of sheer necessity, and one her sister never had. She carefully acquired estates during both her brother's and sister's reigns, leveraging them to cement loyal support from powerful families. She played a highly dangerous game with her sister, keeping her mollified just enough with showy attendance at Chapel Royal Mass and parrying Mary's attempt to marry her off later in Mary's reign to a Habsburg. On the verge of losing her head for treason more than once, she showed a remarkable talent for prevarication and obfuscation, all the while preparing in real terms for her own rule as Queen.

From the historical record, we know that Robert Dudley had been a serious suitor for Elizabeth, who at one point -- well after she was Queen -- had made it clear that she intended to marry him. As shown in the movie, this scandalized the nobility, not because of some treason on Dudley's part, but just because there were already many rumors about their (supposedly) disreputable behavior together. For political reasons, she scotched the courtship, but Dudley remained a close confidant at court. Her romance with the Duke of Anjou came much later, when Elizabeth was in her late thirties or early forties, and she was as determined to marry Anjou as she once was to marry Dudley. However, her Council was violently torn on the question, which infuriated Elizabeth, but as always she bowed to political reality and sent Anjou home with some lovely parting gifts. And the part about Cecil is just remarkably silly. Cecil was her life-long partner in ruling England, and while I'm sure their relationship had its ups and downs, there is no doubt that he was not only devoted to her, he was one of Elizabeth's main props for power.

Anyway, apart from a few other minor issues, such as Mary Tudor's portrayal (think Snidely Whiplash, no subtlety whatsoever), the movie is pretty entertaining, a good costume drama. It's just annoying that the film industry can't do research when they want to make historical movies. Is there no responsibility for at least attempting some accuracy? Or is it their intention to promote historical illiteracy?

The making of a queen

[=G= · 8/10 · 6 December 2003]

"Elizabeth" is a ravishing, sumptuous, and very Hollywoodish telling of the early years of Elizabeth I who inherited a broken England at age 25, secured her tenuous grasp on the throne amidst treachery from all corners, consolidated her monarchy to become one of history's most notable rulers, and sowed the seeds which sprouted into a prosperous global empire. Praised by public and critics alike with a brace of awards as testament to its value, "Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen" sports a fine cast, offers high end production value, and has little to fault for those who don't mind an infusion of creativity with their history. Good stuff for fans of the players and those interested in the history of the British monarchy. (B+)

Made me want to learn more

[princessoqal · 6/10 · 7 August 2006]

I watched the beginning of this movie on TV and it really made me interested in Queen Elizabeth. Then I went and checked out the book "The Life of Elizabeth" by Alison Weir and was totally intrigued. The life of Elizabeth I was extremely fascinating and learning about all the people around her and everything was great. Then I rented the movie and watched it all the way through and was pretty disappointed. There were some characters who were featured prominently that were not actually that prominent in her life and some that were left out that would have been more interesting to see. I loved the acting, but in many parts it seemed confusing trying to keep track of who the people were. If you are doing a report on Queen Elizabeth then this isn't what you should watch. It's an alright movie, but not very strict to the facts.

mediochre

[dan_nw · 5/10 · 10 November 2000]

Although I actually enjoyed the movie, I found the liberties taken with the history very frustrating. Especially since it was billed as an historical film!

The other problem I had with the film was the women's clothes. The costuming was atrocious! Most of the garments seemed to be based on popular fictionalized views of the 16th century. I mean, I even noticed someone wearing the Disney's Snow White dress all in blue! With so much information available on 16th century clothing there is no excuse.

I think the designer's claim that she wanted to do a "jeans & t-shirt" approach to the 16th century was a sign of laziness and silly (they had their own types of relaxed clothes - she didn't have to make it up).

When all is said and done, I did enjoy the film but, don't use it as a base for either history or costumes. In other words, enjoy the fairy tale but, don't use it for a refernce film.