In my opinion, Cate Blanchett in this role looks much better (Elizabeth 1998 and the Golden Age 2007), and the films are better reveal the image, they show more historical events, and more Elizabeth as Queen, and then a single woman. Here, on the contrary, the emphasis is on feelings, not on governance. However, the show is worth watching, interesting, and Helen Mirren plays convincingly, and Irons is great. But it's ... all the more subjective, he's great everywhere 😉
The earliest that you can see here is the end of the XIX century, not the XVI.
I love historical films, and I often watch them, so I watched this one. But alas. I will not be revisiting this film.
First of all, the film is very strange. It's as boring and crumpled as possible. Walsingham is such a serious figure, in this film is almost not shown. The same Dudley, Duke of Anjou, is very sluggish. I think that the reason here is not only in the ill-conceived script, but also in the fact that there is practically no musical accompaniment and the actors play such that you see actors reading the role, unfortunately.
Why the role of the Queen took the actress 20 years older - says only that the film was made in the name of the actress. Honestly, to look at it even unpleasant. Dudley by Irons is also 20 years older. There are many worthy actors of the age of heroes. No matter how hard the actress tries, alas, you see not a gradual change in the heroine with age (which can be done with makeup), but constantly see, I apologize to the actress, but an elderly woman.
Moreover, in my opinion, actors should not make plastic, which is very visible, or should forget about historical roles. It is extremely unpleasant to see unnatural due to the plasticity of the lip of the actress, which does not allow you to see the medieval queen. In general, the Middle Ages in the film is poorly shown, in my opinion. Not everything ' soft and cozy ' was.
And the Queen was also, in my opinion, not so soft-bodied and ' cheerful'. I think it was much tougher and more inaccessible.
The film doesn’t show much historical. More - spitting an extended story is unclear about what. Historic moments are short and fast.
I didn’t like the movie, I didn’t like the game, I didn’t like the presentation of time, history and the queen. Alas.
What's this movie about? About loneliness. I was counting on a historical drama, but I came to the first conclusion that this is some kind of love story in beautiful scenery. But here I was wrong: this is a story of total, total loneliness.
This story is not about the queen, but about an unhappy woman who could not realize herself as a woman and it became her curse. So you see her happiness: a small house in the countryside, a beloved husband and many children running around the lawn. And no power. It did not bring her happiness, although it fueled her ambitions.
And the men who failed to bring her true love, affection and devotion seem to have nothing to do with it, the feeling is that the problem is not in them, but in her. Loneliness has enveloped her so tightly that it seems that happiness cannot break through to her and only traitors are attracted.
This film did not make a strong impression on me, although the scenery is undoubtedly magnificent, and Helen Mirren is magnificent. I don’t have a single comment on her, not a single nagging – she is a very, very talented actress, she holds the whole film.
Of the other actors, only Toby Jones attracted attention. Unfortunately, the film does not have the charm and charisma of Jeffrey Rush.
Still, the narrative of one loneliness for the plot spread out into 2 long series is not enough. The film tells very little about the events of that time, they seem to be stated, and then simply missed, to again focus the viewer’s attention on the favorite of the Queen.
When you think of the British monarchy, the first thing that comes to mind is Elizabeth. She was a great woman and a true queen who was loved, feared, revered. During her reign, England was invincible. What was behind the Queen's confidence? What secrets did her heart hold? This film tells the story of her reign, her life as a queen, and just a woman.
Top Hooper has directed a gripping, historically accurate miniseries full of passion, royal intrigue and the incredible burden of Elizabeth First. The film turned out hurriedly, and before us in detail revealed the life of the Queen and the most important and interesting moments with her reign.
This historical film was shot with dignity and quality, and this is clearly felt when watching. Costumes, ballroom dresses of that time, scenery, extras, all the surroundings in the background - all this was done elegantly. Watching this movie, as if you get really into the reign of Elizabeth I.
In addition to all the above and chic directorial work, we can see in the inspirational and clean game Helen Miren, playing the main role. Elizabeth I is far from a difficult character, and with the actress could not be mistaken. Mirren was perfect for the role of Queen and played her perfectly well. So much emotion, so much pain, joy, anger, passion, all this she perfectly presented in her famous character. On the second roles remembered Hugh Dance and regular Jeremy Irons.
This film is a great gift for all those who love historical and biographical films. Personally, I enjoyed watching. We see the harsh story of a strong woman and the whole truth of her life and reign. There were unexpected and shocking moments in the picture. Everything looked believable and enchanted. Thank you to the director.
Elizabeth I is a historical drama shared in the 2005 miniseries. Cinema is very powerful, and it has its value and significance. I give this painting the praise it deserves. Thank you and enjoy watching!
P.S. The word of a monarch means more than the oath of an ordinary man. Elizabeth I.
Elizabeth I, a staunch feminist, bachelor and virgin, refuses to marry. Parliament is in hysteria: there is no heir, the country is threatened with war with Spain, the conspirator Maria Stuart lurks in prison, on whose security the fate of Europe depends. Somewhere there slowly pulls the strings of the Pope, and the Queen, meanwhile, arranges a personal life – first, spins checkers with the Earl of Lester (Irons), a man in all respects pleasant, but not royal blood, then with his stepson (Dancy).
The set is standard to the point of obscenity: Hooper, after his brilliant outing with a biopic about a stuttering king, seems destined to spend a lifetime immortalizing monarchs; the same applies to Mirren, who consistently portrayed Charlotte Mecklenburg-Strelitzka and both Queen Elizabeth. Only HBO doesn’t fit into the big picture – they are the least expected miniseries about the British Queen, and even less – melodramatic snot. So, I hasten to disappoint: “Elizabeth I” – those melodramatic snot. Irons and Mirren with a suffering look huddle in luxuriously decorated chambers, then the hero of Irons dies, and in his place becomes Dancy, who soon cut off his head, and then the series ends. All. Dummy. For almost four hours of narration, absolutely nothing will happen, except that they will cut off the hands of the hated writer and rip out the guts of a couple of traitors. Honestly, the medieval England of the Indian Kapoor came out much more convincing. Mirren, apparently, is trying, but even she is not given to save such a sluggish spectacle - a sixty-year-old British woman is trying to throw off the extra twenty years (dances, twists her hips, laughs joyfully), but, right, age is impossible to hide. Only its ability to wipe into powder all living things within a radius of several kilometers warms up interest in this tasteless and rarely callous trinket.