Elizabeth

acheron.org discussion board: Non-artscene Related Threads: Elizabeth
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (px1.syd.aone.net.au - 203.12.178.133) on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 04:55 pm:

Shit, I just saw this movie and fuck me dead if it wasn't brilliant. Cate Blanchet will definately win the oscar on this one me thinks.. Geoffry Rush also rocked..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By filth (svcr-247ppp180.epix.net - 205.238.247.180) on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 07:45 pm:

is this that movie with gwenneth paltroe (sp)?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (px1.syd.aone.net.au - 203.12.178.133) on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 08:28 pm:

Nah, the movie with gwenneth, ben affleck, geoffrey rush and judy dench is called "Shakespere in Love" and has been nominated for fuck knows how many Academy Awards, 13 I think (more than Saving Private Ryan which has around 11)..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By God among Lice (bootp-231-230.bootp.virginia.edu - 128.143.231.230) on Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 11:08 pm:

I saw Elizabeth.. I didn't like it nearly as much as I thought I would..

Cate Blanchett WAS amazing, though. I first saw her in a supporting role in some little movie about women that were prisoners of war on some oceania island during WWII. And she just totally caught my attention, I fell in love with her. I had never heard of her when I saw her name in the credits.. Not long after that, I found out she was starring in Elizabeth, so I figured I HAD to see the movie. But still.. I'm not sure what it was but I just didn't get a whole lot out of the movie.

She's Australian, so I see why Dangermouse would be making such a big deal. ;) She's my pick for the oscar too.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Thursday, February 11, 1999 - 03:27 am:

I never bothered to see Elizabeth because it was so phony. I mean, Shakespeare is one thing (I'm referring to the playwrite's historical plays here, not the tits-and-ass-fest up for Oscar gropes) but this movie was almost entirely fictional. Why base the movie on a real character if it's not going to be truthful in any significant way?

"JFK: The early years, as a two-headed space pirate. Coming soon to a theatre near you."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (gw.qed.qld.gov.au - 203.104.2.5) on Thursday, February 11, 1999 - 01:55 pm:

Err. What are you trying to say here, Elizabeth the queen of England never existed? Or are you getting confused with Shakespere in Love?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu the historical nit-picker (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Friday, February 12, 1999 - 01:15 am:

Elizabeth the queen of England certainly did exist, but in no way similar to how the movie Elizabeth portrayed her 8) (that applies equally to the events surrounding the context of the movie, even.)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne14p20.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.206.148) on Friday, February 12, 1999 - 05:56 pm:

Ahh..Can you give me any specifics? I am interested in history a lot..


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By filth (svcr216-37-167ppp213.epix.net - 216.37.167.213) on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 01:37 pm:

i went and seen shakespear in love last night. it was pretty good. i dunno about it being up for 13 acadamy awards. it was i guess you could say it was a drama, but it had a bit of a comedy-type twist. like they sort of spoof shakespear lines.

example :

scrub : WILL WILL!!! THEY'RE COMMING, THE SHOW MUST..
*someone bumps into scrub*
shakespear : go on! what's goin to happen?

er if you follow. anywho they also made some of the characters a little extra cheesy. overall i guess you could say it was a good movie.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne6p37.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.251.165) on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 10:22 pm:

I loved it. THe thing I cant get is why the hell Joseph Fiennes never gets nominated for an oscar -- he was excellenet in Elizabeth, and excellant in this..

(and Rush was better in Elizabeth than in Love)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Monday, February 22, 1999 - 12:25 pm:

I thought Shakespeare in Love was too easy...

Tom Stoppard's brand of postmodernism is supposed to make you think, and compared to Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead, I felt here (Shakespeare in Love) that all the jokes were handed to me on a silver platter.

I know they have to dumb down movies for American audiences, but I could do without the boat chase, gratuitous nipples, dog-on-stage running gag, casual adultery, easy-off-screen death (in what is supposed to be a farcical element), parallel predictability, limp plot devices and hopelessly 'slack' '90s protagonist.

If I want dumb period comedy done well, I'll watch Blackadder. This was smart period comedy trying to be dumb period comedy and not entirely succeeding at either.

While we're on the topic of oscar-nominated movies, though, you should all go see "Life is Beautiful."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By dangermouse (slbne13p46.ozemail.com.au - 203.108.206.110) on Tuesday, February 23, 1999 - 01:25 am:

I honestly cannot reply to that..

Well actually I can, it's a movie.. Nipples are often whilst having sex. The stupid dog thing was put in to be a stupid dog thing. Adultery - maybe it happened -- and it was only one chick doing it.

I would have to say it was a damned good movie.. (That's if you dont take it too seriously)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Tuesday, February 23, 1999 - 06:58 am:

Casual sex didn't happen in the Elizabethan era. You had sex - you had babies. You had babies - you risked a high chance of dying in childbirth.

Why project dumb 20th century customs to people of the Middle Ages? Why turn possibly the greatest wordsmith of the English language into a goof?

Why, to sell popcorn of course.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By filthe (svcr216-37-167ppp54.epix.net - 216.37.167.54) on Tuesday, February 23, 1999 - 06:46 pm:

how do you know they didn't have casual sex? :) i'm sure you're older than me, but i doubt you're THAT old :) i'm pretty sure people had casual sex, i mean it doesn't matter if it's now, or hundreds of years ago, sex feels good now, and i'm sure it felt good then. :)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  By Cthulu of Mistigris (cr618396-a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com - 24.113.55.86) on Wednesday, February 24, 1999 - 06:46 am:

Casual sex had serious repercussions back when we had no real medicine, knowledge of how the human body worked or functional contraceptives.

If you had sex, you had babies. If you made a baby, there was a 40% chance it wouldn't get past the age of five, and some horrific (something like 25%) chance that the mother would die or be horribly injured / rendered sterile in the attempt.

Bloody miscarriages don't look as good in romantic comedies 8)


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: