| Overall Grade: |
C- |
|
| Story: |
D+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B- |
|
|
| Direction: |
D |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B |
|
|
to those who say to us historians
by Ethan (movies profile)
Dec 7, 2007
26
of
40 people found this review helpful
Especially to Santorini4u:
We are not quibbling over minor details in this movie nor the 1998 Elizabeth that was 1/2 accurate, and Braveheart which was more than 1/2 inaccurate: details are what gives validation to the entire success of the project. Case in point: In QE1, there was no poisoned dress that had been sent to the queen that her lady in waiting died from - pretty significant. That movie also inferred that Walsingham had something if not the actual act of Marie de Guise's death/murder? in Scotland. Cecil (Lord Burghley) died in service; QE1 did not retire him. Details are what make good movies. This was is flawed as the first. The QE1 and Braveheart are exceptionally wonderfully made films, romantic, but they are NOT accurate. Mary QoS is not portrayed accurately, a very tricky accounting: You want the truth about Mary and QE1? Read Lady Antonio Frasier's book. To us who know this time period in a way better than our own history as it is just as endearing to our blood, especially because of our Irish/Scot/Welsh/English blood, we are also passionate about truth, and it seems that this moview was made a lot by computers and seamstresses but not a lot of love was put into the writing or casting or acting, and Cate and Geoffrey are really great actors who deserved a better movie than this. And we deserved a better film as well. Why SHOULDN't we have more "Lawrence of Arabia" films??? mm? Why?
HISTORY IS IMPORTANT! NO REASON FOR NOT TELLING IT SO! |
My Public Profile 
