it is its basic virtue. the fascination to the performance of Bette Davis, giving the splendid portrait of the Queen. Errol Flyn who is the perfect choice for a role who seems reflecting himself in high measure. the atmosphere. and the refined simplicity of a story who becomes, scene by scene, not only familiar but touching. a film about duty and love , in which the mannerism of a great actress and the experience in the performances of romantic heroes of Flynn are the best pillars for support a film who, for long time after its end, remains one of the precious memories for the viewer.

The love life of a queen! Stupendous! Colossal! Mind Numbing! Dull! Bette Davis is Elizabeth I, desperately in love with the dashing younger Lord Essex, Errol Flynn, who loves her deeply in return but whose character is tainted with ambition to share the throne. Or to just sit on it by himself, what the hell.Watch the palace intrigue as the queen's courtiers, including the ever-evil Henry Daniell, try to screw up the love affair -- and succeed! See the lovely and always virginal Olivia De Havilland reduced to a secondary role as the young woman whose adoration Flynn blithely flips off.Gape at the battle between two titans of the silver screen, each in love with the other, each too proud to give up the contest for power! Flynn and Davis hated each other. In the first few minutes the two have an argument, at the end of which Davis must slap Flynn across the face. She does. Hard enough to jar his cheek. He looks genuinely surprised.The plot is laid out in the first five minutes when Flynn returns from a battle in Cadiz and Davis chews him out for wasting the tax payers' money on an unnecessary war or something. The love affair is made clear but so is the conflict. Over and over (and over) we hear that the queen cannot allow her feelings as a woman to interfere with her responsibilities as regent. First, Flynn is in. Then he's out. Then he's in her favor again but he must go conquer Ireland. He loses, so he's out again. But then he's back in, until -- finally -- he's REALLY out of favor once and for all. The story is not a swashbuckler. There are less than five minutes of battle in a studio-bound Irish swamp. It's a love story that repeats itself repeatedly.You have to hand it to Bette Davis, though. She presents us with a Queen Elizabeth who is a neural shambles. She rolls her eyes, twitches, paces back and forth in the cavernous rooms of Whitehall, wrings her hands. And she has this thing she does with her left fist, constantly clasping and unclasping her fingers, worse than Captain Queeg and his steel balls. She puts everything she has into the role and it's too much. Any more energy and she'd perform some kind of on-screen Big Bang and create her own planetary system.Flynn has never looked more handsome nor been so miscast as the earnest lover who is filled with ambition and conceit. He treats nothing lightly, which is a great big mistake, because what he does best as an actor is treat things lightly, even his own degradation. However, it's not all his fault if he fails, nor is it Davis's. Who can conquer such lines as, "Don't you 'Your Majesty' ME, you slimy toad!" (That a direct quote.) Good for a few laughs but, OMG, does it drag.

This is without a doubt, one of the worst movies I've seen so far. Don't let the publicity fool you, my fine friends. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex is an appalling, melodramatic contest between two of the greatest actors who ever lived. People will say to me, "But it has Bette Davis and Errol Flynn! How could it be bad?" Well, my reply to this is, "Everyone makes a sucker." This is simply the sappiest, most unscrupulously ignorant films of the twentieth century. It is just terrible. I know, I should go easy on it. Lot's of people liked it. But enough of mincing words!Here is the gist of the rather sensible plot. Bette Davis plays Queen Elizabeth I. Errol Flynn plays her lover and enemy, Robert the Earl of Essex. Now through an unfortunate series of events, Essex gets shipped off to Ireland to fight a rebel called Tyrone (Alan Hale). Over the course of the several months in Ireland, Essex and Elizabeth slowly learn to hate each other. Now if they just decided to leave each other because they can't stand each other, that would make sense. But oh no! Back Mr. Flynn comes to tell Elizabeth how much he loves her, but hates her all the same. She loves him, and then hates him just the same. These two showmen go back and forth with each other for the entire one hundred six minutes of the movie. At the beginning, they both love each other. Then they hate each other. Finally one decides they don't hate the other, and the other decides they really do hate the other one. Confusing, isn't it? The minute one decides to put aside their differences, the other decides that they shouldn't be together. So these two Schizophrenics go around pulling this same sappy junk over and over again. And the dialog they say it in is just cringe-worthy. Why Jack Warner aloud this to be released under the prestigious name of Warner Brothers Pictures, Incorporated is beyond me.So, on we go, down one of the most boring and indulgent paths in film history. And the story leads nowhere. I won't give away the end for those of you who wish to see this garbage. This film had everything going for it. Great actors, an excellent supporting cast, a great director (Michael Curtiz of Casablanca), and a descent story concept. But this is a film like the following scenario: You have gone to church your entire life. Every year there is a sermon about Easter Sunday. Every time you hear it, you think, "Oh what a lovely story. It's so nice that nobody can tell it wrong." Well, no matter how great a story is, there's always someone who can botch it up. And it really must have been difficult! How could they go wrong with the material? But somehow they did! This film is so surprisingly terrible that one wonders if it wasn't the mix of all these great qualities found together that was its downfall. By the end of this film, you start to wish that one of these frenemies would shove a sword down the other's throat. They are so melancholy and over done.Bette Davis, looking ever so lovely as the Queen, never even starts to perform like she did in so many other films. She just starts downhill and keeps on rolling. Flynn is not quite so pathetic. He starts off as his usual charming character, but eventually gets wound up in the sap entrapping the rest of the characters. I love the way these two play off each other. In one scene, they are kissing on the steps of the Queen's study. They pledge their indissoluble love for one another, then about thirty seconds later, she pushes him away and tells him get out of her sight. I think this couple's problem is that they are much too prideful and stubborn. Bette is as hard-headed as a mule and won't budge an inch for anyone, even Essex (up till the very end). And Flynn is a prideful snob who wouldn't dishonor himself even to save his mother. So on and on and on, and back and forth and back and forth bounce these two fools in love. It's rather like a Pong game, until the film seems almost interminable. There is some debate over whether old films were actually better than new films, or if the nostalgia just makes them seem better. That may be the case, because this film does not represent the Golden Age well at all. In fact it ridicules it.It's interesting how well melodrama works in some cases (i.e.: Gone With the Wind, Moby Dick), but here it is just a flop. No dramatic value comes out of the laughably over exaggerated voice inflexions and body movements. It's almost like a silent film with dialog. Sort of like in Singin' in the Rain when they release their first talkie. This is even more drawn out than stage acting. But now one may ask, "Do you recommend this movie." Now for those of you who have read my other reviews, you know I have a tendency to recommend bad films because they are so bad they are funny. In the words of Joe Gillis "It's fun to see how bad bad writing can be." This is not such a case. This is bad and boring. This is just a boring cookie covered with sap.So my advice is to skip it. Don't even glance at it in the video store. It's not worth your money or my money, or Warner Bros.' money to distribute it. So avoid this picture at all costs. Make no attempt to see it. Now I'm being melodramatic. No matter. I just hope I can wash the sap off after viewing this.www.colewebbharter.com

"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is one of the all time great dramas of cinema. A great love story of pomp and circumstance and its greatness rests on every aspect of cinema.First, this was a big budget film – and the money shows. The costumes are gorgeous and sumptuous and historicly authentic in every detail. Even the magnificent jewelry is true to the time. And, in this earliest of Technicolor films, the costumes are all the brilliant colors of the rainbow.In the sets, too, no money was spared. Look carefully at some passing scenes. You quickly realize how much money was spent on something the eye would set upon but for a few seconds. All these sets were purpose built for this film only, indoor or out. And, they too, are carefully researched and authentic.The direction is excellent in every detail. The blocking, cinematography, framing, etc, are competent and professional. However, what stands out the most is the lighting. None mastered light and dark, shadow and bright, than these directors of old who worked in black and white. How often their scenes recall the greatest master, Rembrandt, in the passions their lighting evokes.The last scene in the Tower throne room is a perfect example: Essex coming up the dungeon stairs in light that evokes the golden red fires of Hades. Elizabeth in light surrounded by shadow, a tiny island of womanhood surrounded by loneliness.Dialogue!! Listen carefully to some of these lines! Shakespeare is mentioned off hand and the dialogue evokes the master Bard: intense and exciting, yet thoughtful and provoking, like his own plays. Even better, its language evokes the courtly grace of Elizabethan England yet carries no want of passion nor difficulty in understanding.The cast? Bette Davis gives, I believe, the best performance of her life, and she gave many great ones. She was but the same age as Flynn in this movie, yet we doubt not she is the older of the two.Flynn? First, he never looked more handsome or manly in any of his films. He was at the peak of his manhood and beauty. His acting? He much admired Davis and did his best to rise to her talents in this picture. He never quite achieved it, but he did not fail it. However, his gift as a physical actor served him well, his facial expressions and body language carried him when is talent could not.The music wants nothing, it well supports the players in their efforts.This is not one of the great costume dramas of the 30's, or even of classic film. It is, and shall remain, one of the great dramas of cinema of anytime or era. And such is its greatness it can be enjoyed by young or old – yesterday, today or tomorrow.