I love the Elizabethan Era. It's a passion of mine. I thought this would be a really good series. And it should have been, with the cast they had.
But here's the problem. Whoever wrote this didn't do more than cursory historical research. To whit: According to everything I've ever read, and everything my fellow 16th century history buffs have read, Elizabeth NEVER met with either Mary of Scotland OR James Stuart. Sorry to bring this up. Of course there is a neat escape clause in the script "No one must ever hear of this." OK, fine, whatever. I guess if you use those words you could claim almost anything could happen clandestinely, but I digress. The costumes are, for the most part, some designer's idea of what Elizabethan costume SHOULD be, rather than what it really was. Couldn't they spring for a copy of Patterns of Fashion or Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd? Barring that, would it have been too much trouble to look up some portraits on the internet? I have seen much more accurate representations of Elizabeth's clothing at my local Renaissance Faire! Add to this, Elizabeth is never seen to age, she goes into and out of the gaudy white makeup on a whim, and the fashions never change over the course of the whole film. I find that bothersome. Along with the excessive gore of the execution scenes (where you see a Mary Stuart's beheading and the ax stops halfway in her neck, and they start again! Yes her execution was botched. OK, they got that right.) The deaths of the conspirators who wanted to assassinate Elizabeth was also pretty accurate, but I thought the sight of guts being slowly reeled out of a victim was in very poor taste. It would appear that the writers were more interested in sensationalism than telling a good story.
The real problem is the writing. Most of the cast members are extremely accomplished. However, there is only so much you can do with acting skill. The writing was poor, in my opinion, and Elizabeth comes off more as a prudish mattress monkey flaunting her affairs everywhere than the shrewd politician and educated woman she was. Even her words "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king!" was practically spoon-fed to her by the Earl of Leicester.
About all I can say in favor of this film is that it might get someone interested in 16th century history. Then, once you find out the real story (which is a lot more intriguing and less saccharine), toss it in the trash and go on to bigger and better miniseries, such as the venerable BBC production of "Elizabeth R."
But here's the problem. Whoever wrote this didn't do more than cursory historical research. To whit: According to everything I've ever read, and everything my fellow 16th century history buffs have read, Elizabeth NEVER met with either Mary of Scotland OR James Stuart. Sorry to bring this up. Of course there is a neat escape clause in the script "No one must ever hear of this." OK, fine, whatever. I guess if you use those words you could claim almost anything could happen clandestinely, but I digress. The costumes are, for the most part, some designer's idea of what Elizabethan costume SHOULD be, rather than what it really was. Couldn't they spring for a copy of Patterns of Fashion or Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd? Barring that, would it have been too much trouble to look up some portraits on the internet? I have seen much more accurate representations of Elizabeth's clothing at my local Renaissance Faire! Add to this, Elizabeth is never seen to age, she goes into and out of the gaudy white makeup on a whim, and the fashions never change over the course of the whole film. I find that bothersome. Along with the excessive gore of the execution scenes (where you see a Mary Stuart's beheading and the ax stops halfway in her neck, and they start again! Yes her execution was botched. OK, they got that right.) The deaths of the conspirators who wanted to assassinate Elizabeth was also pretty accurate, but I thought the sight of guts being slowly reeled out of a victim was in very poor taste. It would appear that the writers were more interested in sensationalism than telling a good story.
The real problem is the writing. Most of the cast members are extremely accomplished. However, there is only so much you can do with acting skill. The writing was poor, in my opinion, and Elizabeth comes off more as a prudish mattress monkey flaunting her affairs everywhere than the shrewd politician and educated woman she was. Even her words "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king!" was practically spoon-fed to her by the Earl of Leicester.
About all I can say in favor of this film is that it might get someone interested in 16th century history. Then, once you find out the real story (which is a lot more intriguing and less saccharine), toss it in the trash and go on to bigger and better miniseries, such as the venerable BBC production of "Elizabeth R."