The director was over-ambitious in an otherwise good picture

Rating: Null/10 (9 September 2000)

I was surprised with this picture, not being clued-up on the Elizabeth years I found the film very interesting but surely inaccurate. The film doesn't feature any battles, it never rises to epic proportions. I suppose the budget wasn't large enough to accommodate one particular battle. This film isn't a Hollywood production, it's produced by British talent (backed by some American money). And again, the British technical crew blow away a lot of the Hollywood productions.
The film's director is way over ambitious with his camera work, sometimes I'm in awe of the camera angles and other times I'm stamping the floor with frustration. The editing is awful, espeically in the first 30 minutes, we are given so many close-ups which convey absolutely no feeling. And they do affect the scenes drastically! It seems that the director didn't set-up a decent position with his DP or tried too hard without picturing his film in his head. Shame really.
Other than that, the director's work is good. The British photography is excellent, reason enough to see it.
The finale of the film is poor, it ends too quickly, very under played. The film doesn't reach a climax as one would expect.
The acting is fine as one would expect with a foreign cast but Eric Cantona? Soccer turned actor? No thank you.
Overall, an inaccurate screenplay but an enjoyable picture by a promising director.