Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

classicsoncall Murder, corruption and intrigue take center stage in this story of Queen Elizabeth, daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Feared by Catholics who resent her rising to the throne, the film follows the many machinations to have her denounce her own religion and in failing to do so, to remove her via an ultimate solution. I have to admit I'm not familiar with this era of British history, so view the story as Hollywood's take on a significant era that eventually succeeded, but started out under very questionable circumstances. What seems almost inconceivable today is the way the story bears out how royal families of different countries asserted their power and influence by marrying among themselves without regard to love or fidelity. In that regard, Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) stealthily avoids commitment to any one individual, while being pulled in all directions by her staff, English bishops, and fellow monarchs who would deign to consolidate their own bases of power. The period costuming is lavish and the sets are given the royal treatment in accord with the subject matter. Elizabeth's own decision to have her loyal guard defend her throne takes on the aspect of Michael Corleone's method of cleaning house in "The Godfather". Blanchett's performance was deserving of a Best Actress Oscar, and she WAS nominated, but lost out to Gwyneth Paltrow in what might be considered the Academy's version of highway robbery. One must see her performance to truly appreciate Blanchett's sublime take on the English Queen.

dorogiflorian The movie has a title which suggested that it will be some kind of a historical drama or action movie in the setting of medieval England, with Queen Elizabeth in the focus. What I got was something different. Most of the movie revolves around the first few months or years of her reign and it is not even that good. There is a love interest and love story throughout the plot which I found rather dull after a while. Some actors were decent, while some of them were not that good. The writing is not bad, I especially liked the first 45 minutes of the movie, because it was captivating and interesting. After that 45 minutes, movie fell apart for me, I was not really interested until the end.What I liked about this movie was the detail of the scenes, the clothing and acting in a few places and the first hour's story. What I didn't like? Some actor's work, the music was really nothing spectacular and the plot itself was disappointing. I expected a different movie and even without these expectations I would rate this movie well below the 7 star mark.

valeried-04422 If we relied on this movie to pass a history exam we would be in trouble due to its inaccuracies. Robert Dudley's wife (played by Kelly Macdonald) is named Isabel Knollys in this movie. In "real life" Dudley's (second wife) was named Lettice Knolly. We see her half way through the movie dying (murdered) by a "poisoned dress". In actuality "Lettice Knolly Dudley" died of a ripe old age. She was married once before Dudley and again after Dudley passed. We are further confused by an insignificant character named Lettice Howard, (played by Amanda Ryan)who has no historical significance. In the movie the Earl of Arundel (played by Edward Hardwicke) was beheaded, with head then mounted on a pike. History tells us he died at home along "The Strand" in his own bed and being quite aged. The movie would have us believe the suggested betrothal to the Duc d'Anjou (full name was actually Francois, Duc d'Alencon and Anjou)was called off because "the duke" was a cross-dresser (like lady's clothes) and perhaps bi-sexual. In reality, Elizabeth and Francois became great friends and spent much time conversing and writing letters to one another for over four years. Francois, the poor soul was deformed from an early illness and certainly "not a catch". Elizabeth had committed herself to being married to England and did not marry anyone. At least the writers of the movie got that part of the story accurate.

cesium14 I'm usually discreet when giving bad reviews for a film, because in front of a work of joint collaboration by many professionals I should learn to understand and appreciate. But this one, really? Frankly I can hardly think of any film that's worse than this, and I've even watched Movie 43. After the beginning of the film my mind already began to drift: as an empress well celebrated as "the Virgin Queen", why would a film dedicate as much as 30 minutes on her love life? Surely she had quite some suitors, but that's not what made people interested in her. The whole Robert Dudley line is completely inconsistent and mostly unnecessary. Am I suppose to buy the theory that when someone is loved by the Queen, he's risking himself being torn apart inside and forced by his shredded heart to plot her assassination, especially when just 5 minutes ago on the screen he tried to marry her to the King of Spain? This being my first Joseph Finnes film, I might never be able to like him anymore, thank you very much. Besides, judging by what I learned from this film, all Elizabeth can do is to dance, to lie back laughing like drunk, and rely on Walsingham for everything, and her hair seems to contain some active components of onion. She lacked the resolution for a Queen, and the history of England would hardly have changed without her. And that's far from the truth. The details are no more well-organized than the plot. 1. When Monsieur de Foix delivered the marriage proposal to the Queen for the second time and she said she would meed the Duke of Anjou in person, Dudley stormed away angrily, and the Queen went off to chase him immediately. Is that at all appropriate? Will a Queen of England be chasing the first Earl of Leicester during a conversation with the Ambassador of France? If that's the English way, I accept it with deepest respect. 2. The speech by the Queen in the church debate might be the worst speech ever displayed on screen. You can't just introduce a solemn background music and say the speech is convincing (which really happened in the film, and I'm offended). 3. The Daniel Craig part killed me a bit inside. How on earth would the director think that will fit in the film? 4. If the film was overall better in quality, the character of the Duke of Anjou might be fun/funny. But in crappy film like this it just sinks it deeper. 5. The intelligence department of the Elizabethan government seems to be desperately in need of hands, because Walsingham had to act as counselor, muscle, detective and assassin all by himself. I would have thought that you don't have to grope on the wall for a secret door when you are a Sir. 6. Is the Duke of Norfolk being killed right after sex supposed to be artistic? Besides, as an unessential role the Countess of Norfolk got too much screen time. Is she a niece of the director or something? If I were to watch the film again I would be able to find more weird stuff like this, but I always try to avoid such traumatic experience. I'm fairly disappointed that actors as brilliant as Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush themselves would appear in such low-quality film. I think Cate Blanchett(or Naomi Watts perhaps?) said in an interview that one has to be lucky to get good roles, but that's hardly any consolation.