User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 45 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 45
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 45
  3. Negative: 5 out of 45
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. EricC
    Apr 6, 2009
    3
    Saw this for the first time a few days ago, and I'm astonished by how bad a film it is. How do you take such an interesting and entertaining slice of history and turn it in to such a bland, unengaging movie? Too often, the movie is overdramatic when it needs to be subtle. The actors bounce around from overacting to just phoning in their perfomances (which is wildly disapointing Saw this for the first time a few days ago, and I'm astonished by how bad a film it is. How do you take such an interesting and entertaining slice of history and turn it in to such a bland, unengaging movie? Too often, the movie is overdramatic when it needs to be subtle. The actors bounce around from overacting to just phoning in their perfomances (which is wildly disapointing considering the incredible cast). The director is clueless how to shoot the movie, clearly believing all that is needed to establish mood and atmosphere is turning down the lights. The script is completely generic and empty period babble (those that compare this to the Godfather; have you ever even seen the Godfather?). And the edidting, my god. The scenes are just lazily slapped together, giving the film an awful and confounding flow that I can only compare to a daytime soap opera. Obviously, fans of period epics will gobble this up (and the Academy loves them some period epics). For everyone else, this is just a massive mess of a movie. I can't even imagine what the universally panned sequel was like. Expand
  2. RodH.
    Aug 29, 2003
    1
    Boring, inaccurate, cliched and about as thrilling as slamming my dick in a door. Blanchett may know how to act, but Kapur would have been better to learn the facts of Elizabeth's reign before making the movie. The storyline is a typical women's rights sell-out, has an over telescpoed plot and is a pure disapointment from the Brittish film industry. Has the character development Boring, inaccurate, cliched and about as thrilling as slamming my dick in a door. Blanchett may know how to act, but Kapur would have been better to learn the facts of Elizabeth's reign before making the movie. The storyline is a typical women's rights sell-out, has an over telescpoed plot and is a pure disapointment from the Brittish film industry. Has the character development level of a dramatised Mills and Boon. Expand
  3. SonyaW.
    Aug 27, 2006
    0
    THe worst. Nothing accurate about it save the fact Elizabeth was Henry VIII's daughter. After that bit of fact, the rest of it goes sharply downhill. Costumes are nice. If you know nothing about the history, you'll be entertained, if you know the facts, you'll be disgusted.
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 30
  2. Negative: 1 out of 30
  1. The fabulous Elizabeth reinvents English Tudor history as gangster movie.
  2. Reviewed by: David Rooney
    90
    Superior historical soap opera that shrewdly sidesteps all the cliches of British costume drama with its bold, often modern approach.
  3. Where Elizabeth really triumphs over its dusty source material is in transforming all this boring history into a real, rip-roaring adventure tale.