Cate Blanchett gives a riveting performance as Queen Elizabeth I in this tale of Britain's "Virgin Queen." The film charts Elizabeth's rise from her obscure beginnings as Queen Mary's little-recognized half-sister to her place as one of England's greatest monarchs. Giving attention to the political and religious conflicts of the time, the film thrusts the viewer into the chaotic world of royalty as it existed in the middle ages. Directed by Shekar Kapur, ELIZABETH is brilliantly filmed, often combining fairy-tale settings amidst England's rolling hills with dark and depressing images of battles and prisons. the powerful sounds and creative cinematography allow this period piece to present itself in a manner which keeps the viewer embroiled in the story throughout. Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, and Sir Richard Attenborough complement Blanchett's tremendous performance with equally impressive offerings, making this a truly masterful motion picture.

Elizabeth is a film that is well put together. For historians, however, much is missing. Yet the portryal of the queen is well done and the construction of the period seems accurate. There is an accusation in the film that Elizabeth is a man. Since this was an historical charge, I wonder why the producers did not do more than merely mentioned it. The film uses cinematography that is quite creative, but the projectionist at the theater in which I viewed the film could not keep the screen in focus.

"Elizabeth" is a "must see" movie for its cinematography and costuming. Both succeed magnificently in depiciting the period and the drama. The history, if you can follow it in its kaleidoscopic swirl of teeming characters who make love and mischief in multiple countries, is a fair representation of what "could have been". But "Elizabeth" loses itself--and the viewer--through its frantic pace. It's a little like watching "King Lear" on fast forward. I only wish the director had narrowed the focus a bit. Still, "Elizabeth" should be nominated for an Oscar or two. But one of them shouldn't be for "best picture."

First of all...I liked it. It seems like quite a few of these period films have been doing well at the box office and been enjoyable to watch. Elizabeth, while not as cool of a queen as Victoria was in "Mrs. Brown", was interesting to learn about. If you are seeking some entertainment and/or culture and want to absorb such in 2 hours, then check out this film. Bottom line...after this movie queen, I don't forsee the current Queen Elizabeth warranting anything more than a TV movie.

This exquisitely photographed and acted film is a powerhouse showcase for Cate Blanchett. She gives a complex, riveting performance which keeps your eyes glued to the screen. The subtle ways she transforms her character from a sexually precocious, naive young woman to a strong-willed leader is extraordinary. Kudos also go to Geoffrey Rush, for his role as the loyal Walsingham and Joseph Fiennes, as Robert Dudley. The film has a visual style all its own that adds to the mood and plot. It is also well-directed by Shekhar Kapur. Not a false note is found in the film. See this great film right away. It recently earned 7 Oscar nominations: Picture, Actress, Makeup, Costume Design, Cinematography, Score, and Art Direction.

Having me review a period piece/costume drama is like having Jerry Falwell review an episode of "Ellen." With that said, I really tried to go in with as open a mind as possible, but 15 minutes into it there I was looking at my watch. Dry material is delivered even more dryly than I thought possible, with cardboard performances by Geoffrey Rush (a walking cure for insomnia), Joseph Fiennes (whose primary purpose seems to be dancing around like a dork in a puffy costume), and Richard Attenborough (who would look better playing Uncle Jesse in a potential remake of "The Dukes of Hazzard"). Boring material could have been broken up with battle scenes (as in Braveheart) but instead we are just shown poorly laid out bodies post-battle with blood as fake looking as spraypaint. Editing is also in question, as five years of history are confusingly compressed, throwing in historical inaccuracies to boot. I couldn’t relate to one moment of Elizabeth, and unless you are a true aficionado of Elizabethan Era history, I recommend you skip this film.

10-point scale rating: 2

1998 was a great year for Queen Elizabeth I. In \"Shakespeare in Love,\" there was Queen Elizabeth, now in \"Elizabeth,\" Cate Blanchett plays the title role of the first female to reign England. Blanchett gave a great perforemance.