“When a storm comes, everyone acts according to his nature. Some people lose their ability to think. Some are fleeing. Others are hiding. And some spread their wings like eagles and soar in the air. - Elizabeth “The monarch must rise above the charge of cruelty necessary for the security of the country and of his own person. It must enter flesh and blood, so as not to flinch, to strike, even at the nearest, if they are guilty. Kings and emperors are only men, only mortals. Whatever wealth they possess, they will not save them from death. They are only earth and dust, and they must go away into the earth, and all their glory, on closer examination, will be quite insignificant. John Arbuthnot Fisher It is very important for a king or queen not to show his vulnerability to the outside world. Any sign of weakness, illness, or even natural aging should be disguised as invulnerability. If the mask slips, the dynasty may collapse with it. Tracy Borman. Tudor privacy. Secrets of the crowned family. Very good historical biographical drama. A costume. The intrigues are put in an interesting way. I highly recommend it.🙏
Cate Blanchett surprisingly played the role of Elizabeth - a complex and multifaceted image. The film is very beautiful and very tough. Perhaps it will be possible to look impartially - as a portrait of the era when they cut heads left and right, torture was normal, Catholics hated Protestants and vice versa (although this is still the norm for some today). Otherwise, it will be very painful to plunge into the atmosphere of the royal court of the 16th century, where intrigue, hatred, duplicity, and cruelty reign. Even having sex isn’t always fun, especially when you’re dragged out of bed to the Tower.
At the age of 16, I had the habit of periodically reading consumer reading, which is popularly called “love novels” & #39;. I remember one writer had a whole series of books tied to one heroine, and the era of Queen Elizabeth was chosen as the historical background. So, now I experience a very strange feeling, realizing that historical personalities and their relationships, as well as certain historical events, are more authentically written in a sentimental, not pretending, book than in the historical drama & #39; nominated for ' Oscar'.
For example, it is difficult for me to imagine a real Elizabeth, who at a young age, having a rather fragile status, would openly and sharply declare her absolute unwillingness to marry, as has been shown. In fact, she regularly accepted the proposals of the world’s most powerful men, considered them, and then found beautiful diplomatic excuses. Among her fans was supposedly even Ivan the Terrible, who in between the wives decided that, why not, but, unfortunately, this potentially chic episode from the life of Elizabeth in the film was not included. It is also known that the last matchmaking, which the Queen encouraged, came from François of Anjou in 1581, when Elizabeth, for a moment, was already 48 years old! Somehow it does not fit at all with the 'categorical rejection' shown in the film.
Obviously, the main motive of her voluntary loneliness was the unwillingness both to share her dominant position with someone else on equal terms, and to bend her country under her future husband. The Queen in this context actually seems to have been rather cautious and cunning, maneuvering between advisers, the demands of parliament, grooms, her own interests and the interests of the country. In the biographical film, she seems more decisive, but short-sighted and even slightly out of step with her time, her categorical statements more reminiscent of the modern American feminist than the woman of the Middle Ages, who she was.
One can also recall the resignation of a conservative councillor, to whom the Queen declares that from now on he will make all the decisions himself. And again, isn't the heroine being portrayed as overconfident? The real Elizabeth never refused the services of advisers, and William Cecil was the head of her government for the rest of his life, and there was fruitful cooperation with Parliament. And in general, a good ruler is strong in his ability to select a professional team for himself, and not in the desire to make decisions individually, by the waving of his left heel, so in this context, shown ' determination' the film heroine still works not in favor of her image.
Well, the biggest sin of the film is how the relationship with Robert Dudley is shown. In fact, they were quite interesting, complex and unusual, filled with love and purely female jealousy, coupled with the inability to eliminate its root cause, and the awareness of inequality, and the constant struggle between Elizabeth the woman and Elizabeth the politician, not to mention the fact that it is still unknown whether this relationship had a bodily side, or remained platonic. But all the complexity and problematic in the film is reduced, in fact, to periodic volta dancing and some strange public showdowns. The result of this relationship in the film has nothing to do with reality, and sometimes to common sense.
You can argue with me. Like, the film is artistic, and therefore a priori can not be considered a source of reliable information. But usually, if history is modified, the creators have a specific artistic purpose. For example, in ' Braveheart' William Wallace is shown as a simple peasant, not a noble man, as it actually was that the fighter for freedom and justice seemed closer to the people, and for a more vivid contrast between him and the greedy aristocrats. And perhaps not so beautiful with the real prototype of the hero from ' Schindler's List', but there the message is clear. This is a story about a carefree man who gradually sees through, radically changes his priorities and with his inherent energy begins to implement the results of his insight.
What did the creators of 'Elizabeth' want to show us? The film shows the image of a young woman who was guided by emotions up to hysteria, but because of the experience of resentment became dominant, decisive and generally good ruler. But since when has the desire to make categorical statements in defiance become a sign of a strong ruler? And does it really seem to me that it doesn’t work that way, and that it is somehow wrong to reduce the reasons for the character transformation to just female pride? Not to mention the fact that even a Wikipedia article paints the image of this queen more interesting and colorful!
At the same time, Elizabeth’s successes are shown dottedly, sometimes they are achieved by the efforts of her associates, about whom she herself does not even know. The same thing that will be shown as her personal merit looks somewhat caricatured and modern (for example, an episode of a discussion with priests). I would like to see a more logical demonstration of the qualities of character and skills of the heroine became a real queen. Not to mention the fact that I personally would be happy to see her failures, including those characteristic of a later period of government. And then the film begins to seem that after changes in the image, hairstyle and makeup, her reign became just perfect!
Does the movie have pros? Of course I do. The story itself is quite interesting and detailed, although there are also comments on the timeline (I did not understand, for example, how long Elizabeth sat in the Tower, one day or one year). Acting works are good, the characters cause empathy, despite the certain schematicity of their images. And if you abstract from the historical basis, it is perceived well and emotionally catchy. Moreover, I first watched it as a teenager, and I still remember the feeling of admiration and piety towards the main character, who with honor goes through all the stages of transformation of the caterpillar into a butterfly. Now it seems to me that for a teenager, especially a girl, this context of perception of this film is just perfect, because it often overshadows her personal deep feelings.
Therefore, if you want to watch a beautiful costumed melodrama about the transformation of an ordinary woman into a strong woman, in principle, the film will create the right mood. But the answer to the question of how it happened that the queen, who should not be on the throne at all, who could and should have been repeatedly deposed and executed, stayed there for 40 years and introduced England to an era that historians still call the “golden age” – and will remain behind the scenes.
In general, they say that you should not watch movies that you liked in your youth. And so you can not only carry out an unplanned reassessment, but also spoil bright memories. Therefore, out of respect for these very recollections, the review is neutral and the assessment is -
Perhaps, even in our country there are few people who do not know who Elizabeth the First English is. This is a great woman who, despite the stigma - ' Bastard' (though, if you look at it, she was not one) was able to hold the throne, lead England to its golden age, personally lead the army on the campaign, abandon female happiness, and break the stereotype that the place of women in the kitchen.
And, of course, about such a grand personality was filmed a lot of TV series, and written a large number of books.
In addition to this film, and its appendix: Golden Age, I also saw the version with HBO's Helen Mirren and the version with BBC's Anne Duff. And also watched a terrible series - "Kingdom" from CW, about Maria Stewart, where Elizabeth was not little shown. And here's what I can say: this is clearly the best version. And the image of the Queen, and the plot itself, and the richness of the scenery - this film wins in all respects.
The HBO and BBC versions are boring and painfully focused on the Queen’s personal life, and it didn’t make me feel good. Well, to be honest, I love Blanchett.
The plot in this film - does not stand still, but also does not run ahead of the locomotive.
Music in the best English traditions. The church, medieval, I don’t know how to describe it, is similar to the one in the Tudors, although their composers are different. The scenery even now evokes very positive emotions and is pleasing to the eye, and given that we are talking about the late nineties, these costumes were generally unprecedented luxury.
Acting - what can be said about the cast of the project in which Kate Blanchett and Jeffrey Rushch play? Only that this composition is cosmic.
All actors create great images, strong images. But, I still want to note the image of Elizabeth, of all the presented television images of Elizabeth, this is the closest, and interesting for me.
10 out of 10
Historical drama. In general, today’s opinion should have been about Narnia, but since there was an unpleasant incident with my computer, which destroyed quite a lot of time, but which was successfully resolved, today I will continue to talk about the intrigues of the English royal court. Today we have the painting “Elizabeth” – a picture of the first years of the reign of the legendary English Queen Elizabeth 1. And, without further ado, let us proceed to the analysis:
Strengths:
1. Musical accompaniment - it perfectly conveys the spirit of this picture - intrigue, cunning, thirst for power. Most of the songs you will not remember, and listen to them separately will not work – alas. But I remember the dances of that time - they are fun and, so to speak, quite frivolous. Many of them served as prototypes of the famous dances of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
2. The story of the formation of Princess Elizabeth into the Queen is perfectly shown - changes can be traced throughout the picture. Who she was in the beginning and who she became are like two different women, although they are not.
3. The well-translated atmosphere of England of that time - the change of rulers on the throne, the conspiracies of the nobility at home, the conspiracies of emissaries of foreign countries, and finally - the young Queen Elizabeth, who just came to the throne. The intrigues are somewhat reminiscent of the painting Another of the Boleyn family, and many other similar themes. This story is as old as the world - and it will never lose its relevance, because we carry these qualities from age to age, but virtue is sometimes forgotten.
4. The finale is becoming a legend. These last shots represent the culmination and final transformation of the Queen and provide abundant food for thought (for thoughtful people).
Weaknesses:
1. There's a lot of intrigue in the picture - not everyone can like it. I admit that for many, a picture of almost 80% intrigue can seem boring. This is partly true, but for me personally, this is not a minus, since these intrigues are simply necessary to understand the motivation of the actions of the key characters.
Honestly, I didn’t find any more negatives, although I tried. But for every minus I could immediately find a strong argument that this minus would break down to dust.
A bit about the main characters:
1. Queen Elizabeth 1 performed by Cate Blanchett is the youngest daughter of the former King Henry 8 - a bloody despot. At the beginning of the picture is still the heiress to the throne, which is occupied by her sister Maria. By the end of the picture turns into the queen, who is destined to go down in history under the nickname “Queen – Virgin”. To do this, she had to literally drown England in blood - a cruel method - but effective, because during her reign for England was an era of internal stability and strengthening the authority of the country. Kate was great. She was very emotional and especially royal.
2. Lord Robert Dudley, played by Joseph Fiennes, is a close friend of the princess and then a favorite of Queen Elizabeth. Her lover. Their feelings are going to be tested, but their finale was... I think you figured it out. Joseph was very argonic.
3. Sir Francis Walsingham played by Jeffrey Rush is an English nobleman exiled from the country. He later became a confidant of the Queen. The chief of the secret police can be called. Very erudite person and experienced politician. Thanks in large part to his efforts, Elizabeth's reign lasted so long. It was a pleasure to see young Jeffrey. Acting at a height.
Still in the film starred Vincent Cassel in the role of a French nobleman.
As a result, we have a very good historical picture about the legendary queen, which tells the story of her formation. Which is almost devoid of flaws.
There are many great historical films that tell about different eras and centuries. Some of them become cultic, sometimes not much following the true facts, others are considered openly passable, because they can not correctly present the story itself. Today we will talk about a film related to the history of Great Britain. I will say right away that I am not an expert in history at all, but I have some interest in the UK itself, and partly know its history. But I will argue not from the position of a person who checks the authenticity of certain events presented in the film, but from the position of an amateur and connoisseur of good cinema. In general, having watched a considerable number of works about the history of Great Britain, the best of them can be called the cult film “Braveheart”, the film “Queen” with Helen Mirren, “Another Boleyn family”, where Natalie Portman played, as well as the series “Victoria”, the role of the queen in which Jenna Coleman played. And all of these projects are very different from each other, not only because they tell different stories in different eras. The truth is that now you can add to this list and the 1998 film directed by Shekhar Kapoor “Elizabeth”.
The picture tells about the early years of the reign of Elizabeth 1. The film reveals why her era was called the “Golden Age”, and Elizabeth herself the Virgin Queen.
The story itself really seems historically authentic and true, because watching the film, you see the costumes, hairstyles, hear the music of that time. This creates a feeling of complete immersion in history, which makes the reliability of the events presented completely unimportant. Again, speaking from the point of view of a film lover, I do not care if the authors have embellished or, on the contrary, tarnished the image of the Queen. After all, the story itself and how it is presented, what impressions it leaves behind. But, most importantly, it arouses interest in the real story and after viewing I want to understand really everything happened as shown in the picture. In any case, one of the main tasks of such films is to cause the interest of the viewer, not leaving him indifferent.
The very morality of the film seems very strong from the position from which its authors presented it. In essence, they say that a true ruler should be loyal only to his country, not to his spouse. After all, the ruler marries his country. This idea can be applied to many things, and it will still work. Because if a person has a responsibility to a certain group of people in which he is a leader, then in fact he becomes the father of that group. But with another family, it will be difficult for a person to distribute the proper attention, and their goals will seem more blurred. This is why Elizabeth’s reign is called the Golden Age. After all, treating a certain group of people, or in the case of the Queen, her country as a spouse, makes her actions more responsible, and the decisions she makes will be made with love.
Separately, I would like to highlight the acting game of Cate Blanchett. Of course, despite all the advantages of the picture, it has significant disadvantages, for example, the plot itself sometimes seems boring and not so important. However, all the shortcomings of the film fade when Blanchett appears on the screen. Because of her unusual appearance, Elizabeth herself turned out to be unusual, exactly the way she wants to represent her. And her game is far from monotonous. After all, from the beginning to the end of the picture, the Queen changes dramatically, which is beautiful and performs the actress. In the beginning, the seemingly carefree girl Elizabeth eventually becomes a great ruler. Thanks to Blanchett’s play, the viewer believes in this reincarnation, understands why everything went this way and not in another way. Without studying the filmography of the actress before, I can say for sure that the role of Elizabeth is her best performance at the moment. Although she had a great role as the elf Galadriel in the trilogies “Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit”, in “Elizabeth” she showed the best part of her talent.
As a result, I want to praise the film Elizabeth more and say that with such films you can really learn the basics of history. After all, in one of the paintings I mentioned above, namely in the film “Another Boleyn” tells the story of Elizabeth’s mother 1, Anna Boleyn. And in fact, Elizabeth is a full-fledged sequel, although the previous film was released later, in 2008. So this kind of movie is not only interesting as a work of cinema, it can also generate real interest in real history. In the end, comparing film and history usually makes no sense. Since the director has every right to embellish some moments, making them more suitable for the film format.
8 out of 10
I always treat the historical genre of films differently. Many of these paintings do not always turn out to be successful, but for this tape, which tells about the Queen of Great Britain, then ' Elizabeth' I liked it.
The features in the picture are enough. Bright costumes, as well as luxurious decorations are perfectly executed. The main common castle in the kingdom, impresses with its scale and beauty. The atmosphere of the Middle Ages at the turn of the 16th century is conveyed believably. Morals and foundations operating in the era of that time, royal manners, bright intrigues that revolve not only in the kingdom, but also outside it - in general everything is at the highest level.
The acting was just great. Kate Blanchett perfectly embodied the image of Queen Elizabeth. Already from her youth from her addiction to dancing and her lover, she has to show herself strong and leadership qualities and face the reality that many personalities from the category of Catholics and not only claim her place. Jeffrey Rush perfectly performed the image of a calculating and cold-blooded colleague Wattingham, helping to remove opponents on the way from the Queen. The rest also look good in the picture.
39 Elizabeth is a historical drama about the great Queen Elizabeth, under whose rule, England became a strong and powerful power in Europe at the time. The picture is beautiful in all its components that are endowed with. In general, a smart and emotional movie with a quality mark, leaving a good aftertaste.
A film about the real Queen, with a capital letter. Curiously, the film is about the Queen, and to a lesser extent about the man, as the main character sacrificed a lot of human in herself in order to become Queen.
Cate Blanchett seemed to me very convincing in this role, the role of the Queen is for her: power and passion she manages with brilliance.
But I liked Jeffrey Rush the most. Here is an example of how in the almost complete absence of emotions on the face you can make such a memorable hero. This actor clearly has a bright charisma, it manifests itself in every movement, in every word, in every look. It was a strong image.
Honestly, I have questions about the story and the idea. Like, what's this movie about? The history of England? I think so. But on the other hand, there is not much historical value in the plot, except for some key events. There are a lot of cruelties in the film - people are killed with feeling, with sense and arrangement (the director savors these moments). Apparently, they are needed in order to demonstrate what a difficult time it was and give credibility to the film.
The plot is also not all smooth: it is a little unaligned from the point of view of the narrative, some storylines seem to be cut off, as if there was a little time to tell the viewer his story, to convey the idea. The same applies to the relationship between the Queen and the hero Jeffrey Rush: only guess about them, but the film does not really reveal them.
But despite these shortcomings, the film is interesting to watch, besides, it was shot very qualitatively and the actors are all at the level. So thank you to the creators!
The monarch must rise above the charge of cruelty necessary for the safety of his country and his own person. It must go into flesh and blood to strike without flinching, even at the nearest, if they are guilty. ~ Sir Francis Walsingham
Historical and biographical drama 'Elizabeth', the release of which took place in 1998, should see every self-respecting moviegoer is strongly recommended for a number of reasons. First, it draws attention to the fact that at the annual awards ' Oscar' the film received one statuette (' For Best Makeup'), and in addition was a contender for victory in six more nominations, and in addition to other competitions ' Elizabeth' collected a whole heap of prestigious awards. Secondly, it was attended by many, many past and present stars: Kate Blanchett, Jeffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Christopher Eccleston, Richard Attenborough, Vincent Cassel, Fanny Ardan, John Gilgud, Kathy Burke, Emily Mortimer, Kelly McDonald, James Frane, Daniel Craig, Matthew Reese and even the famous football player Eric Cantona is here! Impressive compiler! Oh, yeah! It's a team of stars. Third, fans of the genre will be satisfied with what they see beyond any doubt.
Screenplay 'Elizabeth' was written by Michael Hirst. Then Hirst will once again put his talented hand in the creation of other historical films and series such as, for example, ' Tudors' and ' Vikings'. So the attitude to work, professionalism, thoroughness and direction of Hirst is obvious. His script about Queen Elizabeth I tells about her accession to the British throne and strengthening her power, fighting the intrigues of obvious and secret enemies, searching for followers, love and revenge. Hirst managed to accommodate a huge number of significant personalities in the script (which explains such an actor's cast), many historical facts directly related to Her Highness, but still he created all this in the genre of "Peplum" & #39; when scriptwriters sacrifice historical authenticity for the sake of increasing artistic expressiveness. If someone wants to find inconsistencies between the film and the real facts, then, as they say, the history books are in your hands. And this is not sarcasm, who will stop being more educated?
The film itself 'Elizabeth' from the very first frames tells us that there is a stunning spectacle ahead, where the outer brilliance of wealth coexists with cruelty and violence. The amazing work of costumers, artists and, of course, makeup artists is amazing. Such a refined and accurate depiction of the fashion of that century can hardly be found in any other film. ' Elizabeth' is a real triumph for the lover of aesthetics and correspondence in cinema. Well, another viewer will just be curious to get acquainted with the grace of that era. But not only such beautiful elements accompany ' Elizabeth ' I must say that the film was not without the violence that was inherent in those years. There is no emphasis on this, but the scenes are frightening (mostly torture-related). What does it say that even in the minor nuances of filmmaking everything is done so magnificently? And the fact that the director from Pakistan Shekhar Kapoor approached the production of the film with all care and even the smallest details mattered to him.
As for the acting, then no one can make a claim here. Beautiful in the image of Elizabeth I Kate Blanchett. One can only look at how her character transforms from a gentle woman in love into a harsh and domineering queen, without regret sending all the enemies of the kingdom to the next world. Not by her own hand, of course, but only in this way could she strengthen her throne and expel all opponents from among the ardent Catholics (Elizabeth was a Protestant, and then religious commitment decided much, even to live or die). The character of Joseph Fiennes - Earl of Leicester - was given an obvious dramatic accent, which did not quite correspond to historical data, but the actor received wide powers and did his work exquisitely, leaving an indelible impression on himself. As always, without any claims to the magnificent Jeffrey Rush, who created from his hero - Sir Francis Walsingham - a very interesting person, about whom I would like to know more. Impeccable jockscentric Cassel and age, but the real femme fatale Fanny Ardan, given that they, by the way, not so much time in the film. And the other actors only delight in their performance, if not admire. At least take Christopher Eccleston for analysis, but still it is better to see.
Better to see the picture 'Elizabeth' - she flaunts the filigree work of makeup artists, hairdressers, costumers, artists and decorators. This is a real compositional canvas, which admires its realism and colorful aesthetics. In the film, almost every nuance is verified and there is little to complain about. Personally, my dissatisfaction was caused by the fact that Elizabeth I Tudor somehow quickly became fierce, even not having particularly tasted the sweetness of power and the intrigues of enemies after coming to the throne. But this nagging is so unimportant, if you completely immerse yourself in the atmosphere of the tape, and most will immerse themselves in it, I am sure that it is not worth much attention. And watch ' Elizabeth' stands because of the amazing cast, where everyone is in his place and perfectly performs his role.
9 out of 10
Evaluate all the advantages or mistakes of historical drama is easiest for a person who is well versed in the subject. The spectator with an average erudite should be content with a more superficial analysis. The film ' Elizabeth ' I watched because of Cate Blanchett and was happy with her. Overall, the film made a heavy impression. The oppressive atmosphere is equal in scenes of conspiracies and holidays, in most dark colors, harsh hard faces, tricks, cruelty and torture in moderate doses. Well, the time was really tough (and when was it easy?). And besides, not possessing enough subtle knowledge of French and English history, I everywhere suspected distortions.
To none of the secondary heroes you have neither pity nor sympathy. This is the first thought, and the second – almost all of them are presented in a somewhat free interpretation. Characters inspire feelings that are far from light. Francis Wansilham - a loyal and incorruptible adviser, calculating and dangerously intelligent - one of the most vivid images. You have respect for him, but nothing more. Robert Dudley, I think, failed in every sense. His relationship with Elizabeth is too straightforward and even, I would say, primitive. In the film, in my opinion, he is presented simply as a weak-willed hypocrite. Maria de Guise was good and even slightly epic in the first episode - she felt a kind of perverse nobility of behavior - but the second appearance set a very different tone. Dissolute morals and all. I did not feel the contradictions of her nature, shown in extremes. The second scene of Maria de Guise, for me personally, simply devalued this character. By the way, the Duke of Norfolk was not going to marry her, but her daughter Mary Stuart. With the image of the Duke of Anjou, in which she hardly recognized Vincent Cassel, somehow overdone. In fact, Elizabeth seemed to treat Francois with tenderness (and was twenty years older than him, by the way), and he did not have special beauty because of smallpox transferred in childhood and did not have the habit of dressing up in women's dresses. Apparently, he was confused with his older brother Henry. And so on.
But I forgot about Mary Tudor. Although she was called 'Bloody', the film shows her final days and grievous fading. The complexity of this suspicious, fierce to everything woman is reflected very successfully, although the actress Katie Burke has very little screen time. And even there is a great resemblance to the available portraits of Mary Tudor.
As for Elizabeth herself, as I said, I liked Cate Blanchett's interpretation. Elizabeth was probably not as naive and trembling at the moment of her ascension as depicted in the film, and the living feelings in her did not die so soon. But let’s leave the historical details. The development of character from a sensitive, largely inexperienced and still impetuous young woman to a cold statue, to an almost abstract, filled with greatness of the Queen, is well shown. She's rehearsing her first speech in a trembling voice, and she's already talking, and everyone's listening. For all the bleakness of the film, some scenes (for example, the scene with the famous words 'May God’s will be done') feature an almost sublime flight. This is largely due to episodes of her youth. The further, the rougher reality displaces dreaminess and sincerity from her heart, leaving room only for dignity and restrained royal mercy. In life, I think everything was simpler and more complicated at the same time. She remained a woman, no matter what. But the accents in the final, in general, placed correctly. The high position leaves its mark. Both feelings and thoughts - everything changes irreparably, and in public affairs there is no place for personal. I, for my part, have studied French history a little and have no regrets. An important plus of such films: after them you want to understand how everything really happened.
Elizabeth is a very interesting and beautiful film about the reign of one of the most controversial historical figures. Why ambiguous? On that below.
The film does not claim full historical accuracy, although the main events are mostly true, some points were thought up by the writers for the completeness of the picture. This is mainly about love lines.
For example, the film describes how Elizabeth did not want to be with Dudley because he did not tell her that he was married. In fact, Elizabeth always knew that. The main reason why they broke up is the death of this lawful wife under mysterious circumstances. And although it is not proven, the situation when a man who has an affair with the Queen, dies legitimate wife, seems strange. But the reason why Elizabeth refused to marry at all is the reluctance to share power with a man, as well as, although less reliable, the child trauma associated with the execution of several wives of her father. In addition to Anne Boleyn, Henry executed his fifth wife, Kate Howard. All this can serve as evidence that Elizabeth in the film was described a little different than she really was.
If you leave bed chores aside and concentrate on Elizabeth as a person, then there is a discrepancy ' screen' Queen and real. Few people know that Elizabeth was the driving force behind the colonization of India. Colonization, caused by the impoverishment and death of many inhabitants of this very India. Therefore, as the ruler of her native country, Elizabeth was not equal and in this one can agree with the film, but the human qualities of this woman on the screen very much do not coincide with her real qualities. Perhaps in the planned 2015 film of the same Shekhar Kapoor – Elizabeth: The Dark Age, we will show the dark side of Elizabeth. Namely, the queen for whom the welfare of her country at any cost is the main motto in life.
But that’s the story, and as for the film, it’s very, very high quality. Elegant scenery, costumes, great acting, soundtracks, camera work. This movie really has everything a moviegoer needs. The film is presented in such a manner that a person unfamiliar with history will be interested in watching the film with someone who knows the history. The picture will not leave anyone indifferent, so I definitely recommend it.
I watched this movie a long time ago. And of course he made a good impression on me. Beautiful, bright, dynamic.
I’m not going to touch on the historical part, American films are usually guilty of terrible inaccuracies. 16th century, the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth the first, great English queen. Here the plot will appeal more to lovers of intrigue and drama than lovers of history.
The acting is generally good. The Queen has a portrait resemblance, which is nice. Cate Blanchett in the role of Elizabeth perfectly did not even play, lived this role.
Jeffrey Rush, Fanny Ardan, Vincent Cassel are amazing. Very talented game.
The only thing I didn't like was Joseph Fiennes as Robert Dudley. Always a little sloppy, weak, uninteresting. Here would be Tom Hardy from ' Virgin Queen' sexy, beautiful, cheeky in the role of the same Dudley. Well, Elizabeth could not have loved such a whiner all her life.
Overall, a good picture, with an interesting follow-up.
It’s nice to watch costume films that are well-made and have cinematic value. The name of Queen Elizabeth of England has survived for centuries. She was a strong and domineering woman who ruled harshly for decades and kept her country in a tight grip. She contributed to the formation of England and its independence. The persona of Elizabeth always aroused interest in me, so I eagerly watched this movie.
It's 1554, England. It is a dark time and the throne of the monarchy is decided. The legitimate, eldest daughter of Henry VIII dies, and Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn, comes to the throne. The real chaos and dark affairs in the palace begin. Young and bright Elizabeth has to forget about kindness and naivety and become the queen of her country, personifying strength and dignity.
I believe that with the actress for the lead role was not lost, and Kate Blanchett ideally went to the role of Elizabeth. Blanchett is a talented, British actress and I appreciate her. She plays clean and every role seems to live. This role was unquestionably complex, and there was a lot of responsibility on Kate. In my opinion, she played very well. We looked at her and we saw Elizabeth. The second roles were such wonderful actors as Jeffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Vincent Cassel. In the role of Mary of Scotland it was nice to see a wonderful, French actress Fanny Ardan.
In this movie, there are just gorgeous costumes. Makeup, scenery – everything was at the highest level, and all this together with wonderful actors created something amazing that takes us away in the era of that time.
Elizabeth is a 1998 British, historical and biographical drama directed by Shekhar Kapoor. The film tells the story of the life and reign of the great English queen, whose name everyone has heard. This costume film turned out to be worthy, and it certainly deserves attention.
Absolute power demands absolute loyalty. . .
The film leaves a very pleasant impression. Some historians have a reasonably different opinion, since even a non-historian, having slightly read Wikipedia, understands that for the sake of the plot, many historical events are distorted, but let it be based on historical events.
Blanchett's good. She is very good with red hair, and she played very well. A young girl, a bastard, who suddenly turned out to be the queen of an entire country, and even not at a very good time for this country. Most of the dignitaries, in whose heads, of course, where the stereotype “baba is not a person” is strong, besieged her simply like dogs, intending to rule over her head to their advantage, hoping for an easy victory over the “weaker sex”, but there were also people in whom she at first found strong support ... and then, getting used to her position, realized that she herself was capable of being a queen.
In this case, the question of her famous virginity is presented, in modern language, as a PR stunt, thanks to which she became something like her own “local” for the British. Virgin Mary. This approach is very plausible, although less intricate and psychologically interesting than the actual preservation of virginity for life (as in the later film with Helen Mirren). No one knows the truth yet.
Accordingly, Robert Dudley here is her lover, first love, but no more, and his image is very simple. Young handsome, shallow, jealous, possessive and without the slightest rudiments of strategic thinking. It’s just a small man for her, a bird of the wrong flight. The younger Fiennes did not show anything particularly interesting here, unfortunately, but did the script allow him anything more?
In the role of the almost all-powerful “man from Kemerovo”, who “will come and silently correct everything”, even if “the sky falls to the ground, grass ceases to grow”, that is, a wise adviser to Walsingham, Rush, the future captain of Barbossa, very well showed himself. Looks great and the performer of the role of Norfolk – aggressive, tough, a kind of “alpha male”.
Alas, with all the emphasis on the Duke of Anjou, and even with a funny episode of his “exposure” (however, a rude decision, a bit like an attack on the eternal “love” of the British for the French), this character is not very impressive. The usual freak turned out - could have made it more interesting.
A little upset and too much emphasis on the love line. We should have a little more politics, a little less eroticism, focus on the conspiracy, it would be more serious.
I especially liked the visual side. The richness of the costumes is amazing. The Queen’s dresses alone are a museum hall. How beautiful is Elizabeth’s favorite dance – Volta! Even with my laziness, which did not allow me to finish the waltz, I just wanted to learn to dance.
Now that the theme of “woman in power” is increasingly relevant and stereotypes are still strong, films of this kind are very valuable. No one in their right mind will deny the success of the reign of the real Elizabeth I, and some special unusualness, especially masculinity, Blanchett's heroine is absolutely no different - she is quite mentally healthy, normal woman. The more such works there are in the media space, the better it will be in the end.
As I ascend the throne, I promise to rule as my conscience dictates.
I cannot hide the fact that I admire the reign of Queen Elizabeth. A lot of good films are dedicated to her. And one of those films is Elizabeth. The film pleased with the quality, because it was not for nothing that it became Oscar-winning. Now let me analyze the film.
The action begins in England in 1554. The eldest daughter of Henry VIII, Maria Bloody, arrests her half-sister Elizabeth and imprisons her in the Tower on suspicion of treason. No evidence was found, so she's being released. After 4 years, Mary dies of cancer and a young Protestant queen ascends to the throne.
Representatives of the Catholic nobility and the Catholic clergy were zealous opponents of the new queen, and deliberately entangled in intrigue. But thanks to the wise actions of Walsingham, all opponents of the new Queen were eliminated. Elizabeth wants to unite the people, and therefore continues the Reformation and renounces religious persecution of Catholics.
A separate word should be given to costumes and scenery. They are executed brilliantly and as believable as possible. The scale and beauty of the scenery is amazing. It is worth noting the historical reconstruction of the costume on the day of the coronation of Elizabeth.
Actors. Magnificent Cate Blanchett, whose acting potential allowed her to brilliantly perform the role of Elizabeth Tudor. Rationality, calculation, common sense, which are combined with romanticism, hot temper and young love of the last queen of the Tudor dynasty. Anjou was pleased with his color, eccentricity and humor.
In general, the film is a masterpiece and everyone who likes a good historical feature film is highly recommended. The film is about the most beloved monarch in the history of Great Britain. It is a pity that in our country there are few connoisseurs of good cinema. My assessment:
I don't know what's wrong with this movie. True 'star' composition: Cate Blanchett, Jeffrey Rush, Christopher Eccleston, Joseph Fiennes ('Shakespeare in Love'), Richard Attenborough ('Jurassic Park'), Vincent Cassel, Daniel Craig even flashed in episodes.
I don’t think it’s worth talking about everyone’s play just because you can see that the actor’s side is strong. Not a word as strong and deep.
I will say one thing: the title of the film and its content correspond to each other. No matter how talented all the actors are, only one figure rises to the fore – Cate Blanchett and her Elizabeth. In two hours, we see how from a young pretender to the throne, Elizabeth becomes the same queen whose portraits still breathe power and strength. Cate Blanchett has masterfully shown that she can play ' a woman with male stubbornness' And yes, the Queen's quotes are not forgotten. It is good that the directors pulled from the chronicles the real words of Elizabeth of England on different topics. She was a good woman, though.
Historical films should be evaluated carefully. What is the plan?
The first place is still given to the reliability of the depicted events. Since the genre was put ' historical film', please correspond, gentlemen.
Well, with the first years of the reign, the directors coped: here and the main episodes of the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, here and the arrangement of the main historical figures, here and the realities of time (torture, severed heads and other tower charm of the XVI century), here and the full correspondence of costumes together with the staging of feasts. Here is his interpretation of the relationship between Dudley and Elizabeth.
The only thing that bothered me was why Norfolk's story ended at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, when it stretched as far back as 1572 before the fourth Norfolk was executed. Well, that's okay, the main thing is that ' shits' director's not, and great. So half the score goes for credibility.
Then begins the analysis of claims of two points.
If you are objective, you could do better.
Music? Really? I remember only in the finale, when the Lady in White becomes a living idol of England. The scene is powerful.
I'll add another point for 'partial' interesting scenes. At times I wanted to squander. Not in all scenes, but this desire arose.
In general,
7 out of 10.
I advise you to look, and then draw conclusions, what is good, what is poorly filmed.
Even if my review is not positive, I did not regret the time to watch.
And yes, as a script:
Who is interested in the XVI century in England, I advise you to look in this order:
Tudors. Air Force (2007-2010)
Elizabeth (1998)
Golden Age (2007)
From the timing it turns out that watch a very good adaptation of events from 1518 to 1603.
In history there is a huge number of events full of secrets, conjectures, intrigues. Thousands of years will pass, and humanity will still discuss the cruelty of Ivan the Terrible, the legend of Peter the Great, the greatness of Hitler, the audacity and willfulness of Anna Boleyn and, of course, the beauty of Elizabeth.
After watching historical feature films, there is still some dissatisfaction with the fact that many directors often avoid real facts, distorting them or not affecting them at all, but most of them we have no right to judge, so that anyone knows exactly what actually happened in the distant Middle Ages and not only.
Films of this subject are not a display and dry narration of the events of those times, but primarily an appeal to the person, and since the person is not only the body, but also the soul, then to drama.
Without referring to this person earlier, I can now only rely on the movie I watched. Elizabeth became a real queen, developing strictness and callousness. When the heart is disconnected, the mind works. Nevertheless, Elizabeth’s heart was only extinguished, but she was still aware and realizing that the fate of the people was in her hands, she sided with the people. No wonder Elizabeth is called the Virgin Queen. All this baseness and prudence of royal marriages cannot be close to pure and self-respecting nature. In addition, the sad relationship and relationships between the parents, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, could not leave a trace in the consciousness of the future Queen. And perhaps for these reasons, Elizabeth was deeply opposed to submitting herself to male power.
The painting is alive, clean, beautiful. And it is safe to say that Shekhar Kapoor did not make a mistake in choosing the main character.
"Black" was before: the reign of Maria Bloody, an alliance with the cruel, manic-religious Spain, the Inquisition and a country full of horror. “White” came after: the golden age of Elizabeth, the patronage of piracy, Francis Drake and the defeat of the Invincible Armada. And between them there was a “gray”, troubled time, the beginning of the reign of the Virgin Queen, a time of ruthless struggle for power, conspiracies, intrigues and betrayals.
The young “heretic queen”, who miraculously inherited the throne, got a weak country, deprived of a navy and army, torn by internal contradictions, religious enmity and vulnerable to external enemies. Deprived of friends and support, forced to toss between the patronage of Spain and France, rejected by Rome, Elizabeth plunges into politics, makes mistakes, achieves first successes, and eventually becomes the queen that history remembers her.
It's a great movie. I remember cheering for him back in the old days when he fought Shakespeare in Love at the Oscars. Shakespeare won, but I never changed my mind: Elizabeth was supposed to be the best film of the year, because the story is well told.
In historical films, there is often a tilt towards romance, love-story is told against the background of the historical era, while very few tapes lead the story as such. Elizabeth is one of the last. The romantic line there deals with a negligible small piece of the common pie, the emphasis is on the reign of the queen, her attempts to find a way out of the critical situation in which the country arrived, the formation of a personality, the rebirth of an inexperienced girl into an iron lady.
For some it will seem unfascinating: the film is devoid of shine and gloss of adventure pictures, there are no chic battle scenes, most of the episodes are dialogue, and there are no particularly bright moments there. Unless you are a fan of history, and you are not fascinated by the Events and Personalities of those years: Norfolk, Walsingham, Maria de Guise, the adoption of the Church of the law of the unified faith, damn similar to the Avignon captivity of the Popes under Philip IV in France, etc.
The film is certainly artistic, and at the same time the concentration of facts and details makes it more documentary than most Hollywood blockbusters, where historical authenticity is treated more than dismissively. And therefore “Elizabeth” does not shine like a seven-carat diamond, but unobtrusively, even dimly shines against the background of “Gladiator”, “Braveheart”, etc.
The film is less spectacular, but no less valuable. Based not on effect, i.e. special effects, but on the painstaking recreation of the era, showing the complex relationships between all the participants in the drama, and, at the same time, not boring, tense.
Very smart, not superficial film with wonderful actors. Cate Blanchett is a beautiful actress who has offensively few good pictures behind her back. It is the actress, not the diva, taking the baton from Meryl Streep and alien to purely commercial projects.
Jeffrey Rush, still serious, not derailed "Spleen", and not plunged into the stupidity of "Pirates" and "Per Marquis de Sade". In “Elizabeth” he plays, plays well, and does not twist and do not sin with posturing. His Walsingham is one of the central figures of the picture, a kind of “gray cardinal”, a secret, unexpected weapon in the hands of Elizabeth.
Unexpectedly, the new Bond Daniel Craig appeared in the picture in the person of a secret envoy from Rome. Prosaic, burly appearance, potato nose and stupid haircut. You'll never remember, and then you won't know, except now that he's Bond. The same applies to Miranda Otto, who did not yet know her Star Hour.
Bottom line: I love historical movies. More precisely, a good historical film, moderately entertaining, watchable, and not stupid. I love Jeffrey Rush. I didn’t think the film was heavy, but I suspect it will seem to many in view of the features mentioned above. But I still recommend it.