'Elizabeth' (1998)
A movie review by Walter Frith
Member of the ‘Online Film Critics Society' http://ofcs.org/ofcs/
Down the halls of a royal palace lies a story based in fact about the very essence of ancient English royalty and how its impact led to a revolution of religion and a major turn in world history. It's also a story that makes for one of the best dramatic films of the year, if not the last decade. Queen Elizabeth I ruled for 45 years beginning in 1558 and her reign was one of the most successful in the history of the British monarchy.
'Elizabeth' begins in 1554 and Queen Mary, a Catholic, and daughter of Henry VIII is on the throne. Dying and fearing that the country will be turned over to a Protestant revolution once her heir assumes the crown, she has her half-sister Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett in an Oscar-calibre performance), put into the Tower of London. Elizabeth, in a show of strong will, survives the punishment and assumes the throne upon Mary's death. Instantly, there are many problems such as a bloodline heir that her advisers feel must be produced. England's army is very weak and the treasury is virtually empty. Elizabeth is aided by three loyal advisers who help her even when it comes to her life being threatened in her attempt to change the country's religion. There is the head strong William Cecil (Richard Attenborough), the no-nonsense and most loyal Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), and her lover Lord Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes).
The film's dramatic structure is impeccable. Michael Hirst contributes a wonderful script of authenticity. The performances are stellar and this film is very well staged by director Shekhar Kapur who takes the subject material in hand and never compromises an ounce of its impact for the sake of any comic relief. What's interesting is that another film out at the same time, 'Shakespeare in Love', is a rousing, humourous, romantic and feel good production that also features performances by Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes. The two of them demonstrate their range in a most convincing manner and illustrate the beauty of the English craft of acting which is perhaps the best in the world. I remember seeing an interview with an English actor who will remain nameless and he said he felt that American actors were better in the movies while English actors are better on stage. While that is somewhat of a generalization, I relish the opportunity to see actors of their own ethnicity demonstrating parts of their own history. 'The Man in the Iron Mask' from early in 1998 featured American and English actors doing a take on French history and somehow it just wasn't convincing and no accents were implemented to even make it sound convincing. This is the reason many critics were harsh on 1984's 'Amadeus'. That film, as great as it was, had an Americanized version of European culture which didn't cut it for many. 1985's 'Revolution' was a disaster for Al Pacino as his New York accent spoiled the entire production and likewise for Robert De Niro who just didn't have the credibility for appearing in 1986's 'The Mission'.
'Elizabeth' has a look that shows its roots are in the English theatre. The film has few special effects, plenty of dialogue for its period and a rigid depiction of why some nations today live under the separation of church and state. This is a highly respectable looking film that has its appeal geared toward the high brow movie fan. Casual fans will like it if they accept its heavy drama for what it is.....factual.
OUT OF 5 > * * * * 1/2
Visit FILM FOLLOW-UP by Walter Frith http://www.cgocable.net/~wfrith/movies.htm
wfrith@cgocable.net
* * * * * - a must see * * * * 1/2 - don't miss it * * * * - an excellent film * * * 1/2 - a marginal recommendation * * * - can't quite recommend it * * 1/2 - don't recommend it * * - avoid it * - avoid it AT ALL COSTS 1/2 - see it at your own risk zero - may be hazardous to your health
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews