From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
|
| Editing Guidelines |
|
Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:
- If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
- Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
|
|
|
Perhaps some discussion of how historically accurate this film is, particularly with The Golden Age coming out. - Matthew238 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, William Cecil is portrayed as a fussy, interfering old man - but Elizabeth regarded him as her rock. He was the one who came up with the phrase, "What! All this for a song?" when he protested against the award of £100 to Edmund Spenser for his presentation of the Faerie Queene at court - ever since, underpaid arty twerps have chosen to ridicule him. And did the film show Mary Queen of Scots being assassinated? I thought the film was accurate in showing that she was stitched up by Francis Walsingham and put to death by law (although the two queens never met). I expect the sequel to show the myth of how Elizabeth prevailed over the forces of Spanish evil, rather than the fact that she ended up a deeply conflicted person who was often disregarded by the people who really disposed of power in protestant England. And will there be anything about Ireland? Howl, howl!--Shtove 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure whether you watched the film poorly, or if you are mistaken about Elizabethan history, but Mary Queen of Scots never appears in the film. I believe that she was not, in fact, in the British Isles during the years depicted. Uucp 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The whole film is a joke, both dramatically and as even a loose representation of history. Watched as pure fiction (which is what it is, aside from a few proper names), this movie is deeply silly and stilted and its central romance a howling absurdity. I watched with a friend shortly after we both read a biography of the real Elizabeth and both of us wondered how the filmmakers could have preferred this stupid, diffident, awkward, hapless, helpless figure to the fascinating and shrewd historial Elizabeth. It would be like making a movie of the American Revolutionary War with Jerry Lewis as George Washington and having the plot center on how one of Washington's aides led him around by the nose to final victory and gave him dating tips for his bumbling romance of Martha. The movie is really just an atrocity on every level and one cannot begin to address its (numerous) historical inaccuracies without accepting that.
-
- This is pretty much the best movie review I have ever read, for any movie, ever. Ralp 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"'Elizabeth' has been harshly criticized for its historical innacuracies..." Has there ever been a Hollywood biopic that IS historically acurate? 66.57.225.77 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
