Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur)

[LoveSparky]

I love this movie, and watch it far too often. I think that Joseph Finnes was the one weak link in an otherwise brilliant film. Cate Blanchett was just so much of a woman, and he seemed like a horny fourteen year old as Lord Robert. They seemed so mismatched that I never felt any sense of tragedy or sorrow. He never seemed to fit in the film, and I never felt sorry for him.

I'm so very excited to hear that there will be a sequel....yahoo!! Elizabeth: The Golden Age will start filming next year, I believe, and Blanchett will be cast with Clive Owen.....I'm drooling already.

[Deleted]

Awesome news!

This is one of my favorite films and if the sequel is even half as good , it will still be better than 95% of the crapola out there.

[kostgard]

This movie was so great and Cate Blanchett totally rocked her no-eyebrows role.

I also agree about Joseph Fiennes - he just seemed like a pretty boy a teenaged girl might be distracted by, but would discard as soon as she grew up. Elizabeth was all woman and he was like a spoiled little boy.

I would love to see a sequel and I think Clive Owen would be more her equal than JF was.

[foxyepicurean]

From what I've read of the real Robert, JF's interpretation wasn't far off. The real man appears to have been charming and pretty but petty, horny, shallow, grasping, and immature. I believe the term "licentious" comes from his name--or rather his title, Earl of Leicester.

I did that suprised and delighted gasp thing when I read the bit about the sequel. Now there's a sequel that actually SHOULD be made. It's a a lonely little category...

[tommytimp]

It's an interesting film, and more than a little creepy to me. (Kapur's commentary on the DVD is also a little weird, but I like his explanation as to why most of the interiors in the film are stone and cement.) Cate Blanchett completely rules, and while I liked Gwyneth in SiL, I would have had no problem if they'd given the Oscar to Cate instead.

[jaghetersimon]

I liked how you got such a good sense of what serious danger Elizabeth constantly was in--it wasn't a flouncy period piece. And the poisoned dress still freaks me out.

[foxyepicurean]

I like his explanation as to why most of the interiors in the film are stone and cement.

I won't have a chance to see the DVD for a while, could you summarize his reasons, tommytimp? I'm assuming it goes beyond the fact that manor houses and palaces were made primarily of stone during that period?

I think the Oscar Cate got for The Aviator (she did win, didn't she?) was an "oops, we should have given it to you for Elizabeth, but we'll make up for it now" situation. She was much better in Elizabeth than she was in The Aviator.

Man, I really need to rewatch this movie. I haven't seen it since it was in theaters. I have a very vivid sense of the movie and the characters, but don't remember many actual details--especially plot-wise.

[hal9000]

I thought the film was an unqualified mess, but the terrific acting made it slightly watchable.

[LoveSparky]

I won't have a chance to see the DVD for a while, could you summarize his reasons, tommytimp? I'm assuming it goes beyond the fact that manor houses and palaces were made primarily of stone during that period?

Actually, I have been stuck with the VHS version as well. I too am curious about his explanation....please share!

I think the Oscar Cate got for The Aviator (she did win, didn't she?) was an "oops, we should have given it to you for Elizabeth, but we'll make up for it now" situation. She was much better in Elizabeth than she was in The Aviator.

I agree a hundred percent. As a matter of fact, I never bought Cate as Kate. I LOVE Cate Blanchett, but what can I say? Hepburn was not someone you can re-create. It was a good try, but not Oscar-worthy, IMO.

Man, I really need to rewatch this movie. I haven't seen it since it was in theaters. I have a very vivid sense of the movie and the characters, but don't remember many actual details--especially plot-wise.

You are in for a treat. I went for a couple of years without watching it, and when I saw it again.......YUM.

I thought the film was an unqualified mess, but the terrific acting made it slightly watchable.

See, now, I can almost see the mess, but I choose to simply wish the film were longer. I'm just a plain old sucker for historical films.

[tommytimp]

Quote:I like his explanation as to why most of the interiors in the film are stone and cement.



I won't have a chance to see the DVD for a while, could you summarize his reasons, tommytimp? I'm assuming it goes beyond the fact that manor houses and palaces were made primarily of stone during that period?

Basically, Kapur said that there is very little wooden interior in the film because he wanted to give the impression that stone is a survivor, and the reason for all those great cement pillars and stone obelisks is that they last forever, unlike structures made of wood. Supposed to represent the indestructibilityof England, and Elizabeth herself, I guess.