Elizabeth has always been one of my favourite historical dramas, and possibly the favourite. And, being the innocent boy I was when I last watched it, I thought it was fairly correct, history-wise. Now, I’m less sure.

Obviously, the fact that historical events are be portrayed in a dramatic narrative should always bring out one’s inner sceptic, as history rarely work that way. However, this is very general, and no less than is to be expected when a tale is adapted from one medium — here reality, or at least reality’s presentation through the science of history — to another — here a movie. More specifically in the case of Elizabeth is the portrayal of her sister’s court and that of Elizabeth. The former is dark, filled with old, suspect men who advise and plot the death of Elizabeth (cross cut to a scene where Elizabeth is frolicing about in a sunny field with her maids), while Protestants are being burned at the stake just outside. Happy times. Then, there is Elizabeth’s court. In the first scenes after her crowning it is shown as a much lighter place. Large windows set in grey marble illuminates her rooms, as opposed to the torches, black stone and musty bedchamber of Mary (the Bloody), and so on. I’m sure you get the picture. All in all I thought this was a cheap way of differentiating between the reign of the sisters.

Especially as it was seemingly done to save time for a fairly dull romantic plot. By using this scenic kind of contrast rather than a more plot-relevant one the makers of the movie elegantly sidestepped most of the interesting stuff that I care about, namely the political intrigues, and the differences in policy between Elizabeth and Mary the Bloody.

Of course, there’s still quite a lot of political manouvering, and the plot is quite multifaceted. More than it would have been if my preferences were met, at least. Because in spite of the reservations mentioned above, I can’t help but be impressed by the way the three or four main plots — Elizabeth’s relationship to Lord Robert, her attempts at reconciling the Protestants and the Catholics, her plots to consolidate her power, and her enemies’ to dislocate her from it — are woven into and complement each other.

In addition to that, it’s fun to see the inner machinations of a Reneissance court, even if it’s a tabloid one, and it’s even more fun to witness Elizabeth’s chief of security, Sir Walsingham, who, I’m convinced, at one time actually quoted Machiavelli. Or in the very least paraphrased him. Geoffrey Rush does an awesome job in this role, challenged only by Christopher Eccleston’s Norfolk. But not really. Because seriously, only Magneto beats Walsingham when it comes to cool, and even that’s a close race.

All in all a genuinely enjoyable movie, on so many levels. 9.0/10.

(Just a small comment before I stop yapping: I’ve already mentioned the way they contrasts Mary’s and Elizabeth’s courts. Another fun contrast lies in the portrayal of the Pope. I mean he has choir boys in his freakin’ solar, for the Gods’ sake! X()

(And just another one, too: I heard a reviewer complain that the sequel to this one apparently was made mediocre by the pompous score and the exaggerated focus on Elizabeth’s lovelife. However, I got the impression that the reviewer in question loved this one. Which is kinda strange, as “pompous score” and “too much weight on romance” sounds quite a bit like this one. :P )

(Finally, Miranda Richardson makes a much better Elizabeth than Cate Blanchett. :P )