Customer Reviews
Pity about the history - By: G. J. Weeks, 22 Mar 2008 
A lavish film, well acted, but I was put off seeing it earlier by reviews critical of the unhistorical nature of the portrayal.
In the film, Elizabeth finds out from Sir William Cecil that Robert Dudley is married, but Elizabeth in reality attended his wedding. though she may not have known about his second marriage . Elizabeth & Henri, Duke of Anjou two never met .William Cecil was not old when Elizabeth began her reign, . He was not retired by the queen but remained one of her most trusted advisors until his death, shortly before hers. Walsingham was not involved in the death of Mary of Guise who died of dropsy. Elizabeth had brown eyes from her mother Anne Boleyn .
I found the film to have too much explicit sex & another intrusion of the 21st century was some lines which seemed historicallly out of place. that Elizabeth took on the role of virgin Queen to give the English a substitute for popular devotion to the Virgin Mary seems far fetched. But if you are ignorant of the historic realities you will enjoy the drama. Some modern Roman Catholics should objected to the film but I think the cruelty of a subversive & persecuting Catolicism is factual, as is the torture used by the Protestant regime too. The cast is splendid. It was interesting to see Eric Cantona off the footballl pitch.
Overlong, inaccurate and unrewarding - By: Ben Le Pensive, 18 Feb 2008 
Making movies about the Royals is always going to be a dodgy area. Anyone who remembers the ill-fated 'Ann Boleyn: First Blood', a blend of Merchant Ivory & Rambo will pay testament to that. 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' is the sequel to the 1996 original.
Elizabeth is now played by the talented British actress Tara Palmer Tompkinson, although rumour has it the part was originallly slated for sit-com star Leslie Ash. Tompkinson is acceptable in the lead role, although her habit of looking directly into the camera every now & then (presumably to check whether it's filming) is a little amateurish.
Filmed on location just outside of Solihull, the film makes the mistake of casting locals, whose Brummie accents sound distinctly out of place amidst the period setting.
The film follows the escapades of Queen Elizabeth 3rd, who has now taken the thrown, married Prince Albert & embarked on a mission to rid the country of alll non English speaking residents. Her harsh reign is but a distant memory to many, but the film is a timely reminder of how life was a lot worse in the 17th Century.
Some very questionable casting choices turn up in the sequel. Noteably, Barbara Windsor as a cheeky maid. The sequence where she bends over suggestively to garner the attention of the butler is embarassing & totallly out of keeping with the mood of the picture.
My other quibble is casting film director Ken Russell as a disgruntled chauffeur. Spared any dialogue, the scene where he pulls up in a rolls royce & gives the finger to the queen was obviously intended to be a lighter moment.
Directed by Shane Meadows, the film is not one of his finest moments. It came as no surprise that it was largely ignored at the Oscars & a swift release onto DVD was inevitable.
The DVD comes with a bonus disc including an overlong, drawn out interview with the second unit cameraman, Gregory Phobb. Possibly one of the most tedious bonus features yet to appear on a DVD
The Godfather, Tudor style - By: Trevor Willsmer, 01 Feb 2008 Partiallly reinventing the period movie, stylisticallly at least, almost as radicallly as Martin Scorsese reinvented the Biblical epic with his Last Temptation, Shekhur Kapur's account of the insecure early days of Elizabeth I's reign, Elizabeth, is a claustrophobic film set in a dark world of cold grey stone, alternating overhead shots with tight medium shots rather than stressing spectacle or glamour, more political thriller than costume epic. Indeed, with its bloody finale clearly inspired by The Godfather as Walsingham takes care of business for his Capo di tutti Capo, it's almost a mafia movie, with Cate Blanchett's star-making turn as Elizabeth filling in the Michael Corleone role as the heir apparent who must ruthlessly shed emotions & conscience to hold on to the throne. That journey from fresh-faced youth to impregnable white-faced icon gives the film a solid emotional arc that helps prevent it from becoming a simple series of confrontations & thwarted conspiracies, almost - but not quite - turning it into a tragedy of success rather than the usual tragedy of failure that is usuallly the lot of women in historical pictures (Anne of the Thousand Days, Mary Queen of Scots, Lady Jane, La Reine Margot, etc).
It's handsomely cast: Joseph Fiennes gives good shalllow romanticism as Elizabeth's lover Dudley, Christopher Eccleston in his default misery guts mode makes a fine villain & there's a healthy cast that, if not bursting with A-listers, is at least filled with familiar faces, from Richard Attenborough, Fanny Ardant, Daniel Craig & Vincent Cassel in a dress to Edward Hardwicke, Kelly McDonald, James Frain, Emily Mortimer & Eric Cantona. Yet perhaps even more than Blanchett it's a magnificent Geoffrey Rush who often dominates the film from the sidelines as the Queen's loyal & utterly unscrupulous spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham, a man who can seem alll things to alll men & women but is loyal only to her. Even when he's simply observing from afar he's a powerful presence in alll the right ways, emanating a calllous intelligence that is truly frightening.
It's strange that the sequel has been attacked by the Vatican as anti-Catholic when this first chapter probably occupies a high place on Ian Paisley's Ten Best List, what with Kathy Burke's psychotic "Bloody" Mary burning Protestants & threatening to do the same to her half-sister & John Gielgud's Pope (earning fifth billing for barely two minutes' screen time) despatching Daniel Craig's priest to assassinate the Protestant queen not merely with his blessing but his promises of a welcome in heaven for any who help in the task. Not entirely inaccurate considering the many attempts by Catholic kingdoms like France & Spain to topple or assassinate Elizabeth during her reign, but a little more historical context might have been helpful for viewers not so familiar with Tudor politics & the causes & effects of the Reformation. It doesn't help that Michael Hirst's screenplay refers to Marie de Guise (Ardant) as Mary, Queen of Scots, leading some to assume she's [I]the[/I] famous Mary, Queen of Scots rather than her mother, but then the problem of just how much historical information you can include before it gets in the way of the drama is always a difficult one in a period film: too little & you don't know what's happening, too much & you feel like you should be taking notes in case there's a test later. Instead, this is content to follow Elizabeth's rise at the expense not just of her enemies but also some of her early friendships, keeping it personal even as Elizabeth has to shed her own personality to create an icon a divided nation can follow. It's certainly not flawless, but it's never dull & often impressive.
Superb film - By: TeddyN "GenBanks", 28 Jan 2008 
This is an HD-DVD definitely worth importing from the U.S. if you own an HD-DVD player. The detail on screen is frequently breathtaking, particularly on the close-ups of faces, adding to the intimacy of some of the scenes (particularly in moments shared by Elizabeth & the Earl of Leicester). Shadowy shots are also noticeably well rendered, demonstrating a lot of depth. One thing I noticed though, was that some of the faces can seem unnaturallly red on brief occasions... I don't know whether this was intended or not, but it looks to me like a minor flaw the transfer. Still, the superiority of the picture over the standard DVD version is significant enough to warrant getting it on HD-DVD.
As for the film itself: 'Elizabeth' is a captivating portrait of a very impressive woman. Cate Blanchett is outstanding in her role. One truly gets a sense of the transformative effect of being thrust into power the way Elizabeth was. She starts out at the beginning of the film as a sort of care-free innocent & finishes as a true 'royal'. The interesting thing is how naturallly this change is.
One of my observations about the film is that you get no sense of the world outside the royal courts; you hardly ever see ordinary people except with the burning of the heretics at the beginning. I think this is the director's intent, however & you reallly feel a sort of disconnect between the people & the rulers... Especiallly in the chunk of the film where Mary is the ruler. It made it sort of funny for me to hear Elizabeth talking about 'my people' since you pretty much don't see 'the people'.
Overalll, I think that if you haven't seen this film you will find it very interesting. If you have, the HD-DVD transfer is very impressive & good enough for it to be worth the effort of importing it from the United States.
Best not to know the history - By: G. J. Weeks, 27 Jan 2008 A lavish film, well acted, but I was put off seeing it earlier by reviews critical of the unhistorical nature of the portrayal.
In the film, Elizabeth finds out from Sir William Cecil that Robert Dudley is married, but Elizabeth in reality attended his wedding. though she may not have known about his second marriage . Elizabeth & Henri, Duke of Anjou two never met .William Cecil was not old when Elizabeth began her reign, . He was not retired by the queen but remained one of her most trusted advisors until his death, shortly before hers. Walsingham was not involved in the death of Mary of Guise who died of dropsy. Elizabeth had brown eyes from her mother Anne Boleyn .
I found the film to have too much explicit sex & another intrusion of the 20st century was some lines which seemed historicallly out of place. that Elizabeth took on the role of virgin Queen to give the English a substitute for popular devotion to the Virgin Mary seems far fetched. But if you are ignorant of the historic realities you will enjoy the drama. Some modern Roman Catholics should object ed to the film but I think the cruelty of a subversive & persecuting Catolicism is factual, as is the torture used by the Protestant regime too.
