definitely not Elizabeth R

Rating: 8/10 (8 July 1999)

This film makes a good attempt at portraying the Machiavellian intrigue and reign of terror that dominated so much of sixteenth English politics and religion, but in my opinion, it grossly oversimplifies the character of one of the most brilliant and complex women (or men either, for that matter) in English history. The fault definitely does not lie with Cate Blanchett, whose portrayal of the young Elizabeth is just as memorable as that of Bette Davis as the older monarch. Rather, I think that the problem lies with the attempt to depict such a confusingly dynamic historical period in a couple of hours. The BBC production of "Elizabeth R" (almost 30 years old now) did not suffer the same time restrictions, and did a much better job with considerably more historical accuracy. In my opinion, Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth R will long endure as the definitive portrayal of that greatest and most glorious of English monarchs. (Now is a good time for PBS to consider a re-airing of that venerable mini-series.)