amazingly bad history ...

Rating: 1/10 (1 April 2006)

I am still wondering why they called the film "Elizabeth". Would it not have been better to have called it "Fictional Elizabeth"? Absolutely nothing in this film bears any resemblance to the real Elizabeth.
Then I realized the director was just angry that someone had made the film he wanted to make: "La Reine Margot". Now that was an excellent film about French history which depicted the real events of the time in a wonderful way. Damn, thought poor Shekar Kapur, what to do? Well, this film is made for the Americans, and they know nothing about English history, and come to think of it, neither do most English people. I shall simply take the story (well, the bloody bits; don't want to get caught with plagiarism problems) and dump it in England. Now Elizabeth's reign was wonderful and exciting but there were not a lot of massacres and assassinations going on: Ah, who cares? Let's have lots of blood and gore. Hmm, and while I am at it, would it not be brilliant if Elizabeth resides in 11th century Durham Cathedral (bit draughty but lovely columns!) instead of in a comfortable 16th century palace? Throw in a few reference to the Virgin Mary and hey presto, film with lots of action and philosophy and I only need wait for the plaudits. Phew, that was easier than I thought! I just hope nobody asks me why I called the film "Elizabeth"? Hope nobody knows anything about her reign; if they do, they're in for a shock ....