The Worst Film Ever

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

ElizabethThe over thought out inner politics occurring between a major transaction isn't project to its best no matter how grand and rich the scale is, its just not royal-e. Michael Hirst's script isn't as smart as the makers think for it seems like spending its time just to pass it till the end by visiting different places and characters with an attempt to offer room and range to it. Shekhar Kapur is not in his A game and unfortunately fails to create the anticipated vision on screen. The feature aces on performance where the protagonist, Cate Blanchett is so good that she needs no support from her cast. Elizabeth is surely an important feature that might be accurate but the question raised upon here is whether it is an entertaining or intriguing one or not.

Elisabeth is the biography of Elisabeth the first of England who is credited often of starting the process of making Britain one of the strongest biggest and most advanced empires of the whole time, so the film had a lot to do. The final result is a well made depiction of the early days of our protagonist from a seclusive girl to the monarch of a renaissance kingdom.The idea to so the process of this transformation was a quit smart one as the majority of history buffs know what took place during her reign from the built up of the navy, to the final establishment of the English Church and the explosion of art in the Fair Isles but few have a good knowledge of the person behind all that. And the film does portrait the political game of the fifteenth century very well, with some dramatization and simplification here and there in order for the common viewer to keep track of the event ,but with out losing the essence of the story.As for the queen herself, Cate Blanchett gave a great performance of the character and she showed very well how difficult and at times heartbreaking was for her to adapt to a court divided in which who you like and who you trust doesn't always mean the same person. Also thankfully she didn't become a cry-baby during all the events of the film, rather her pain was shown much more esoteric and damaging her psychology than her in a psychical term.To the setting ,costume and personalities we have excellent to the first two and a little mixed of dramatization ,but not to a point that was more fiction than fact like some else, (Brave-heart, The Patriot, Apocalypto ).In the end a good historical film ,if you are a history buff go watch you will like it ,for the rest ,just give it a try.

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.

after its end, the first word for define it is beautiful. a comfortable verdict . because its beauty sources are many, different, fascinating and seductive. first - the desire of Shekhar Kapur to say a different story. about a so known subject. the atmosphere . the acting - the performance of Sir John Gielgud in a small role is a good example -, the costumes, the cinematography - few memorable scenes -, the realistic transformation of a young girl in the great queen. sure, few scenes are not credible and almost fake but it is a film who has the rare gift to give the flavor of a period in the most realistic manner. sure, it is far to be a masterpiece but it is more then a good film or a seductive one. it is an open window to the respiration of a time, small map of the challenges of power's conquest and responsibilities. and, not the least, it has a precious virtue to propose a different Elizabeth. one of the most interesting.