Reader comments: Elizabeth
JULIA | Apr. 5, 2001
I thought "Elizabeth" was a wonderful movie. Maybe it is
was certainly not entirely true to history, but what movie
is? The sex and the gore weren't crucial moments to the
story, but were some that certainly happened in reality.
The movie deserves praise alone for stepping out of the
cliche that all old English dramas must be stuffy and dry.
Cate Blanchett is wonderful, too.
SARA | Aug. 10, 1999
I thought Elizabeth one of the finest films of the year -
far better than its Elizabethan sister "Shakespere in
Love". The Oscar judges must have been blind not to see the
premium quality of this film. Perhaps the strongest aspect
of 'Elizabeth' was the cast and acting; I admired the
strength of character that Cate Blanchet gave Elizabeth and
the air of mystery in which Rush surrounded Walsingham. I
was most impressed however by Christopher Eccelston's
portrayal of the Duke of Norfolk, he gave the character a
sense of respectibility that the rest of the film denied
him. I competely recommend this film to any one who likes
intelligence in the films they watch.
TONY J. DJOHAN | Jul. 27, 1999
Some of the criticism to this movie: some actor's underexposure (Vice) or too much sex or the story being too complicated are in my opinion missing the mark. It is after all not a story is made to fit everybody's idea of a 'good story'.
The story was about Elizabeth, and as such even if the rest of the cast are superb, they should get appropriate weight. As for the sex, I don't recall them as being too much, or indeed recall much of them at all, since they were not the highlights of the movie. The story didn't rely on those scenes. Whether or not one approve of them is quite irrelevant.
After watching the movie, I'm left with a strong, meaningful, and complex story about a remarkable person. So as a movie, it's highly successful. Actually I wished it were longer (so as to accomodate more story). It's history come alive at its best.
Cate Blanchett is simply marvelous. Joseph Fiennes is rather forgetable. Rush and Attenbourough and the rest are really good.
RICK COLLINS | Jul. 20, 1999
I don't always agree with Jeff Vice, but his review is right
on the money with this one. What should have been an
interesting historical piece is convoluted, violent,
confusing and preoccupied with sex. The fact that this
movie was so highly thought of by the Academy again
demonstrates to me how out of touch Hollywood is with the
general public. I love a good story. Instead, I get
wonderful costumes and settings, which are certainly nice,
but a woeful story peppered with unnecessary sex and
violence. Not only am I not impressed, it makes me really
think twice before I spend my time and money with any movie.
JACK SOMMERSBY | Apr. 28, 1999
I usually detest the stiffness of costume dramas, with the
attitude that doing nothing but displaying pretty
compositions is showing 'class'. But I was truly amazed at
the outstanding ELIZABETH, a mesmerizing, exciting, visually
daring film that riveted me from start to finish. There's
more passion and moviemaking bravado here than in a dozen
movies of its type. Cate Blanchett is nothing short of
magnificent here, contributing a performance that definitely
should have snagged her a Best Actress win over the pallid
Gwyneth Paltrow, while the film itself (out of those
nominated) was by far the best of the lot. A new American
classic.
KELLY HANSON | Jan. 31, 1999
I thought that Elizabeth is by far the absolute best film
this year. The reason why people don't like it, and say
it's muddled, is because they don't know anything about
British History to begin with. When I saw Elizabeth I
understood everything perfectly, I have a feeling that
Kapur expected an audience better educated in the
Elizabethan era and before that, the histor leading up to
it. I would also like to say, that the acting is
fabulous. The sex scenes, and violent deaths fit very well
within the context of the movie. I would like to say two
thumbs up for Cate Blanchett who is a fabulous actress, and
another two thumbs up for Christopher Eccelston who played
and excellent Duke of Norfolk, and is also a fabulous
actor. The costumes, scenery, and filming are all top
line, especially the filming. It's a very dark film, and
it gives you the feeling that your in the tower of London,
or the castle. If this doesn't come home with a bucket
full of Oscar's heads are going to fly, that's all I have
to say!
DENNIS ORGILL | Nov. 25, 1998
A splendid story of gothic intrigue, all the more
enthralling because it is basically true. This movie
builds an authentic feel of time and place, and effectively
portrays the real dangers of being surrounded by those
who's lust for power is greater than their allegiance to
principles or people. (Has a modern ring to it don't you
think?) I highly recommend this film.
Add your comment
Words Remaining
New Movie Trailers
Top Box Office
| 1. | Four Christmases | $31,069,826.00 |
| 2. | Bolt | $26,581,002.00 |
| 3. | Twilight | $26,344,032.00 |
| 4. | Quantum of Solace | $18,833,552.00 |
| 5. | Australia | $14,800,723.00 |
| 6. | Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa | $14,207,329.00 |
| 7. | Transporter 3 | $12,063,452.00 |
| 8. | Role Models | $5,191,180.00 |
| 9. | The Boy in the Striped Pajamas | $1,696,187.00 |
| 10. | Milk | $1,453,844.00 |


