I have to say first that while I loved this movie for Cate Blanchett's great acting,for the visuals and even the soundtrack, I can't help but wonder how filmmakers can so blatantly reinvent history! I saw this movie in the theater,and had to literally bite my tongue all through it not to shout out loud at the totally fictive events, strangely telescoped time line, and juggling of names and characters.It's not like Elizabeth I is some obscure figure in English or world history. You would think SOMEONE involved in the production of this movie might have bothered to look something (anything!!)up!
I can only conclude that the makers of this film had NO intention of portraying Elizabeth's personality, intelligence, forcefulness, and political acumen accurately, let alone the events of her life and reign.The portrayal of her as faltering and weak in the beginning is hard to swallow, as she was politically subtle and well versed in the arts of intrigue from the cradle.
Although so many so-called historical films are not accurate, or portray history through a particular bias, this one must be called total fiction. It's much quicker to name the parts that ARE correct. Let's see, there was this Queen of England named Elizabeth--and..well, that's pretty much it!
They did sprinkle a lot of her famous quotes throughout, though at completely the wrong times and in the wrong situations. Alas!
And did anyone realize that the filmmakers had the wrong Duc D'Anjou? The Duc who liked to cross-dress was the older brother of the Duc who was proposed as her suitor. He had previously held that title, but was King of France at the time of his younger brother's (and present Duc D'Anjou's) suit for Elizabeth.Close, but no cigar.
I found especially ridiculous the implication at the end of the story that she was through with Robert Dudley, after his (fictional)betrayal of her. Any biography of Elizabeth is replete with references to the huge part he played in her life, both politically and personally.
I needn't go on-- I can't go on! The inaccuracies are legion, and have been mentioned in other reviews. If you don't give a tinker's damn about even approaching anything like historical accuracy, this is the movie for you. Otherwise see Elizabeth R or better yet--read a book about her.
I can only conclude that the makers of this film had NO intention of portraying Elizabeth's personality, intelligence, forcefulness, and political acumen accurately, let alone the events of her life and reign.The portrayal of her as faltering and weak in the beginning is hard to swallow, as she was politically subtle and well versed in the arts of intrigue from the cradle.
Although so many so-called historical films are not accurate, or portray history through a particular bias, this one must be called total fiction. It's much quicker to name the parts that ARE correct. Let's see, there was this Queen of England named Elizabeth--and..well, that's pretty much it!
They did sprinkle a lot of her famous quotes throughout, though at completely the wrong times and in the wrong situations. Alas!
And did anyone realize that the filmmakers had the wrong Duc D'Anjou? The Duc who liked to cross-dress was the older brother of the Duc who was proposed as her suitor. He had previously held that title, but was King of France at the time of his younger brother's (and present Duc D'Anjou's) suit for Elizabeth.Close, but no cigar.
I found especially ridiculous the implication at the end of the story that she was through with Robert Dudley, after his (fictional)betrayal of her. Any biography of Elizabeth is replete with references to the huge part he played in her life, both politically and personally.
I needn't go on-- I can't go on! The inaccuracies are legion, and have been mentioned in other reviews. If you don't give a tinker's damn about even approaching anything like historical accuracy, this is the movie for you. Otherwise see Elizabeth R or better yet--read a book about her.