The performance in this movie is really the big reason to watch it because she does a great job portraying a younger Queen Elizabeth. I was fascinated by that if not by the story going on around her, or other characters involved in her life. This performance was well deserving of the Academy Award for Best Actress in that year but the movie itself was nothing to write home about, aside from that phenomenal acting job. Just a basic historical drama.That said there's nothing wrong with it and I would recommend watching it. It's just not the kind of movie where all the pieces are great and add up to an "epic" film. It's all well done and the acting is fine, it's just that the titular performance makes this movie rise up above what it would have been without her, which would have been just another average historical drama.

They are both great films that take so much liberty with the truth that I doubt the real people upon which they are based would recognize their own lives! We'll never know about Queen Elizabeth I who died 400 years before the motion picture was born, but George M. Cohen, whose life is on display in Yankee Doodle Dandy, did screen the picture before release and his comment was - "Great film, who is it about?". But I digress.Cate Blanchett is every inch a queen in this film. Elizabeth surely was in danger during her half sister Mary's rule who wasn't called "Bloody Mary" for nothing. Robert Dudley was the love of Elizabeth's life, and she likely didn't marry for good reason, especially if you look at what happened to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, who lost her throne by becoming vulnerable through affairs and marriages of the heart. Dudley's first wife did die conveniently in 1560, leaving him free to marry Elizabeth if she had so wanted. But tongues wagged about the suspicious manner of Robert's first wife's death, as she died by falling down a flight of stairs. Dudley did remain a loyal friend to Elizabeth throughout the rest of his life, angering the queen when he married a second time in secret after waiting twenty years for Elizabeth. But life must go on right? But this last paragraph is largely the truth, now for the movie. In this film Robert Dudley is still first in Elizabeth's heart, and he is shown to be a two faced horndog unworthy of that affection. Her biggest threat is shown to be Mary of Guise, French born and Catholic ruler of Scotland who plays this role completely over the top, but is delightful nonetheless. She is taken down in a James Bond style operation by Walsingham, trusted adviser and head of a network of international spies who is not against getting his hands dirty himself. Walsingham was indeed a trusted adviser, although years later than shown, and Geoffrey Rush plays this part to perfection, although the actual Walsingham was not nearly as interesting as the character shown here. In fact Walsingham was only a year older than Elizabeth, and a happily married homebody. I think they gave the part to an actor in middle age so that he looked as experienced as he seemed. The cross dressing Duke of Anjou never came to England and never sought Elizabeth's hand, but it makes for a great theater.Then there is William Cecil, played by Richard Attenborough, whose heart is in the right place - as in for England and for Elizabeth - but has ideas that constrain England as a second hand power looking to France or Spain for protection. Elizabeth retires him with honors in the film and looks more and more to Walsingham. In fact, Cecil was only 13 years Elizabeth's senior, not a very old man as shown here. Elizabeth never retired him. Only death did that, and then only less than five years before her own.So enjoy the great acting, the perfect art direction and cinematography, the intrigue and the plots, and a...poisoned dress? But most of all enjoy Cate Blanchett's performance as she portrays Elizabeth as she evolves from a young girl uncertain of what to say before parliament to the point where she practices her speeches haltingly in private, into an iron maiden who shears her hair, wears a wig, and paints herself with lead in an attempt to become a symbol of power, not the woman who has been looked upon as vulnerable to plots both at home and abroad. She gives up all hopes of personal happiness to be secure on her throne to tend to her first love, England, with all of this happening in a very compressed time period compared to what really happened, if it happened at all.

This is an good historical film, which depicts the initial period of Elizabeth I of England's reign, and how she tried to hold on to power before her enemies. Historically, appears to be quite close to reality, despite the existence of some discrepancies. Its the first of three films (the third is in development) that depict the reign of this monarch, embodied by Cate Blanchett, a remarkable actress who achieve, in these three works, her magnum opus.And no less. Blanchett has managed to capture the physical aspect and most likely personality characteristics of this queen. A true chameleon work, which earned the actress a Golden Globe for "Best Actress Drama" (would have won the Oscar for Best Actress that year but, sometimes, the heads of the Hollywood Academy does not seem to know to see something good when they have it in front of their noses). Another actor who deserves congratulations is Geoffrey Rush, who gave life to Sir Francis Walsingham. Sir Richard Attenborough also participated in this movie (I think it must have been one of his last films) in the role of Lord Burleigh, with great talent. However, the male role that stands out in this film is Robert Dudley, played by Joseph Fiennes. This character was the true (probably the only) love of the young queen and is very important in the plot. Fiennes managed to capture his essence, opportunistic and somewhat hypocritical.The sets and costumes are absolutely rigorous, depict pleasant rigor clothing and environments of the Elizabethan era. The colors are very good, nice to look at the movement of the camera is excellent, the dialogues are memorable and worthy of quotation. An excellent film that apparently ended up in the shadow and did not catch much attention from the public and specialists. Under-appreciated, perhaps a look at the overall of the three films allow this film a different look, and more just.

A reunion, of sorts, for Shakespeare in Love actors Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes, Shekhar Kapur's 1998 epic combines their talents along with Cate Blanchett's in the film Elizabeth. Telling the story of the turbulent events leading to Queen Elizabeth's rise to power and outlining the origin of the Catholic against Protestant war in Europe, Kapur's film brings to life the beginning of the Golden Age of England. Highlighting the magnitude of internal struggle one person undertakes to lead a nation, Elizabeth is a captivating story of struggle and triumph. Being born out of wedlock to Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) never expected to rise to power, but the reality of her childless sister Mary I (Fanny Ardant) dying with no heir made Elizabeth's rise the only possibility. Crippled with fear that Protestant Elizabeth would un-do Catholic reign and bring Protestantism to England. While trying to learn about and establish her monarchy, Elizabeth is aided, sometimes, by a team of advisers. Where many of the advisers have good intentions, some are there plotting to restore the Catholic line, refusing to pledge allegiance to the new queen. Another difficulty for Elizabeth is the immense pressure on her to marry and produce an heir. Her longtime lover Lord Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) is not viewed as an acceptable choice, and once Elizabeth learns that he has been carrying on an affair with her against his wife, she never speaks to him again. Elizabeth traverses the difficulties of her new reign with grace while she decides which of her advisers to keep and which to ignore all the while building an empire. Cate Blanchett is exceptional as ever playing the meek turned mighty Queen Elizabeth. She handles the difficulties of playing a woman thrust into power no one wants her to have, yet still trying to do the best for England phenomenally. She also switches from love to scorn for Robert Dudley in a believable way. The production design on this film was fantastic, so intricate and detailed one feels as though they are truly watching the royals interact. The costuming was also beautiful in this film. I greatly admire period pieces that don't take the easy/cheap way out with simple costuming. For instance, the bird's eye view shot of Queen Elizabeth's first appearance from the throne was brilliantly overtaken by her gorgeous red velvet dress. A wonderful directorial choice made by Shekhar Kapur was to show Elizabeth's transfer to power with bright white flashes of light, illustrating the drastic transformation she, and the rest of England were about to endure. Another directorial choice that added to the depth of the film was the flashback of Elizabeth's trials and troubles near the ending scene. While the film loses some of its luster and struggles with pacing in the middle of the movie, it rebounds with a strong enough beginning that one doesn't mind waiting to get re-engaged into the story. Class and sexuality are huge focal points in this film. Sexuality is under the microscope when many men doubt Elizabeth's abilities to govern as a woman. Sexuality is also an overarching issue when it comes to marrying off Elizabeth and producing an heir, as that is the primary focus of women in the 16th century. Class and nobility are central issues as well, with Elizabeth's longtime lover not being seen as regal enough to marry a queen. There is also a certain expectation of forthcoming change Elizabeth is expected to make once she takes the throne; she must be viewed as a royal and forgo peon activities. Elizabeth is a wonderful period piece and a display of directorial force from Shekhar Kapur, whose work I have not familiarized myself with.