Warning: spoilers below.

I’ve previously described Order of the Phoenix as a tough book, where the series changes from one-off stories to focus on the fight against Voldemort.  It featured a lot of work and explanation to set up the following books which made it dull.  Deathly Hallows Part 1 (could they not have thought of a better name?  Even Chapter 1 would have been better) has that same problem, it has to set up everything for the finale, and there’s too much to skip.  I assume the release dates only being eight months apart was partially because they didn’t want people to have forgotten too much (it’s been about 16 months since the last one was released).

That also means nothing really significant happens and there is no real ending, certainly no climax, it just sort of stops.  IMDB lists the runtime as 146 minutes (2 hours, 26 minutes) and while much of it dragged by in solemn silence, I was eager to carry on come the end.  Which could suggest I was engaged, or more likely, eager to get on with bigger plot developments.

The book was released in July of 2007, so it’s been nearly three and half years since I’ve read it and it showed when I watched the film.  I’m a fan and I was stumbling around and getting lost on occasion, you feel for some of the poor parents who haven’t read the books and have no idea what’s going on.  The tough part, aside from the whizzing around, is that they have to develop two plots.  Harry, Hermione and Ron need to hunt down the horcruxes, and find a way to destroy them and they also need to understand what the deathly hallows are.  Then add in some character development and the set pieces and everything seems to trip over itself.  There doesn’t seem to be a linear development, we just flip-flop between different sub-plots.

I’m not sure I agree with some of the reviewers who say the film stops in the middle, but it certainly slows to a crawl, with a few low-key scenes and a lot of future setup.  We spend eternity camping in a variety of attractive, quintessentially British locations.  I suspect the time is meant to show how big a struggle the characters face and to provide time for development, which turns out to consist of infighting and bickering, but not much else.  The dance scene was a little awkward and weird, but I didn’t dislike it.  I assume it was meant to provide some respite and help us humanise the characters, who seemed distant, but it wasn’t surrounded by anything, leaving it feeling very out of place.  In fact the whole movie lacked heart and relied on effects and set-pieces.

But there are some spectacular set-pieces.  After a gentle setup and some comedy provided by multiple Harrys, we  charge into a high adrenaline action sequence which is a marvel to behold.  Though it whizzes by and is soon a fond memory.  Entering the ministry later in the story didn’t feel necessary and doesn’t really move the plot much (except to get the locket, which they could have worked around).  It could have been cut if time was an issue. 

Two of the other big scenes: visiting the Lovegood’s and getting captured by the Death Eaters, which could have been drawn out to provide plenty of thrills and tension, passed with barely a bump.  They didn’t have time to sit down in the dungeon before Dobby rescued them, not exactly the way to build tension and the escape was too easy.  Aside from Dobby, the worst they suffered was ‘mudblood’ scratched into Hermione’s arm.

I didn’t really get the feeling of menace at any time.  The opening with Voldemort and his Death Eaters sat round a table in a gothic mansion with a limp body floating nearby, soon killed without much reason (to try and emphasize how evil they all are, I assume), smacked a little too much of pantomime.  It could have been far more dynamic than sitting around a table, but was a little Doctor Evil, with henchmen worried what the big man would do.  I was half expecting an evil laugh, a puff of smoke and boos and hisses from the crowd.

Talking of ridiculous, maybe it’s me, maybe I’ve changed over the course of the movies, but the shouts of pseudo-latin which accompany (some of) the spell casting now seem perverse and, dare I say it, childish.  This is magnified when most of the time the accompanying words, and indeed wands, appear to be optional.  Just drop them.

There were plus points.  Again praise has to go to the design and cinematography in the film.  Since Prisoner of Azkaban, the films have all looked fantastic and this one is no exception, it really is beautifully shot but it’s also a master class in set design,  wardrobe and props.  They’re all fastidiously detailed and intricate, works of art that may only feature in the background for a moment, but bring a sense of realism.  They’re an aspect of the films that is overlooked.  The silhouette animation to explain the background of the deathly hallows is a wonder.

Likewise the shear amount of acting talent jammed in for the occasional, insignificant cameo is bewildering.  You can’t blink for fear you’ll miss a dame or some other luminary popping up for their few seconds of screen time.  Even Alan Rickman and Dame Maggie Smith, stalwarts of the series, barely register and the only characters to really leave an impression are Helena Bonham Carter’s twisted Bellatrix Lestrange and Bill Nighy’s disturbingly voiced Rufus Scrimgeour.

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy it, but it just felt ‘meh.’  They may actually have been better off jumping straight into the action of the final book.  If most of the audience is lost anyway, why not just get on with the action?  Split the plot so we know Voldemort is after the hallows because he believes he can use the Elder Wand to kill Harry and the good guys are trying to find the horcruxes to kill Voldemort.  Job done, then they can head straight for the climactic battle.  Much simpler.  I suspect it’ll improve on repeat viewings.

Anyway, with all the best action and dramatic points saved up for the final film it should be a belter.  If the final battle doesn’t last for half-an-hour and isn’t a cross between Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, The Magnificent Seven and Spartacus, with wands, I will be very disappointed.

The story is fairly simple, several unrelated and slightly odd strangers who happen to be at the same truck stop in the middle of nowhere meet Archangel Michael, who has come to tell them that God has had enough of humanity and has sent forth his angels to kill them all, but he, once a general in the Lord’s army, has come to defend a woman whose unborn child can save humanity and change God’s mind.  So the battle commences.

It’s drawn similarities to Demon Knight, which features a guardian trying to stop the last key, containing some of Christ’s blood, falling into the hands of demons.  It reminded me a bit of Maximum Overdrive, where a group of people end up at a truck stop being stalked by possessed trucks.  That and practically every zombie movie ever made.

Paul Bettany, who plays Michael, seems to have taken the idea that speaking slowly makes him sound important and austere.  It doesn’t, it just makes him sound slow.  The rest are a rag tag of characters with traits designed to make them less 2D stereotypes, not that it really works.

The biggest disappointment though is there’s not much angel on angel fighting.  Surely that’s the unique selling point of this whole movie, we want to see how an angel lays the smackdown.  We wait an age while waves of possessed humans saunter up and get chopped down by gunfire, hardly new, then Gabriel arrives and there’s a little bit of fisticuffs, way too late in the day and then it’s over.

Overall it just felt like a waste, a solid action B-movie, yes, a straight to DVD or TV release, fine, but it wasn’t engaging or entertaining enough.  It’s beautifully shot and the effects are good, which you’d expect considering the director was primarily known for his effects work on the likes of Superman Returns, Sin City, Die Hard 4 and Iron Man.  Unfortunately, he appears to have found his limit with storytelling and needs to stay on the effects in future (although he’s already got another directing gig, in charge of a movie starring Paul Bettany as a religious action crusader… hang on).

All in all then, not one to rush out for. 

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and I’m guessing the current crop of producers and studio execs did as well, which is why we’re seeing so many remakes of films and TV from that era.

With a new version of The Karate Kid due in cinemas at the end of the month and the original out on Blu-ray for the first time on Monday I got offered a review copy.

It’s been a while since I’ve watched it, I would have been too young to see it on its initial release, but it is still a legend to my generation.  This is the movie that brought phrases like ‘wax on, wax off’ and ‘Daniel-san’ into everyone’s lexicon.

It was so popular it spawned two sequels with the original cast and they even tried to resurrect it with Hilary Swank as The Next Karate Kid.  It’s probably worth some history here, the 80s were big on martial arts and karate was king.  Today the top dog is probably kung fu, as evidenced by the fact that the new movie has the lead learning it as he ‘only knows’ karate.

The 80s was an era filled with the likes of Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme, Mark Dacascos, Jackie Chan (yes, he is that old) and Steven Seagal.  You had films like Best of the Best, Bloodsport, and Kickboxer.  These were too old for the prime teen audience, who had to make do with the likes of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sidekicks and The Karate Kid.  Even the likes of James Bond got in on the martial arts action.  It was also a big decade for underdogs, with Sly Stallone winning hearts in Rocky and Schwartzenegger single-handedly taking on an alien in Predators and showing real emotion when terrorists kidnap his daughter in Commando.

The Karate Kid is also the movie inspiration for James Corden’s recent use of the song ‘You’re the Best Around’ by Joe Esposito.

So with that in mind, and my hazy memory, I sat down to watch.

There’s a whole start to the film I completely forgot about, I remembered the girlfriend and Daniel (the main character) getting beat up by a group of Cobra Kai students, but he doesn’t start training until well into the second half and most of the action, the karate tournament, is in the last ten minutes.  Those are the bits I remember most.  It shows you how much movies have changed in the intervening decades.  I’m betting the new one doesn’t wait that long before throwing you into the action.

In a similar vein, seeing high school kids who aren’t stick thin and dressed like models is something of a novelty.  Girls who aren’t sporting short skirts and tight tops and guys not showing abs and flexing their pecks are something of a rarity these days.  They were both played by people much older than their characters though, so some things don’t change.

For a comparison to today, look at The Karate Kid and then compare it to Never Back Down, which has a similar storyline and both have a 15 rating in the UK.

Kids today may find it amazing that none of the characters has a mobile, they can’t text each other, or use Facebook, no computers at all at home, even the arcades largely consist of mechanical games.  Even videos were fairly rare.

Something else that was nice was that they couldn’t rely on fancy effects and wire work to make the fights seem spectacular, or have long, violent bouts.  They’re all fairly low key and over quite quickly.  Having said that, it does mean HD doesn’t add much.  Though the picture quality is clear and bright, surprisingly so (most of my memories of 80s movies are slightly hazy, due to watching them on VHS I suspect).

The movie has a lot more soul searching and depth and moves at a much slower pace than anything made in the last decade, which generally only pay lip service to the martial arts ethos, though some of the Chinese films do spend more time discussing the spiritual side.

So what did I think?  Well, it’s cheesy.  Pat Morita is rightly lauded for his portrayal of Mr Miyagi, being funny, thoughtful and masterful; a perfect wise mentor.  You could say it moves a little slow, but actually it’s engaging, giving you rounded characters and making you will for their success all the more.  It’s still a great movie and with the 80s making something of a comeback I’m sure it’ll win fans new and old.

Most people will be aware of Roland Emmerich’s films even if they haven’t seen them. They include the likes of Independance Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, Universal Soldier and, along with Dean Devlin, he is credited with re-launching the Sci-Fi genre with 1994′s Stargate. Generally you’d have to say that his films don’t get much critical praise, but they’re generally big budget effects bonanzas and I’m betting you’ve heard of more than a few.

So we come to 2012. The premise is fairly simple: the end of the world is coming in 2012. This is based on some interpretations of a cycle in the Mayan calendar finishing on the 21st December 2012 and with it comes the end of days. The film spends a fair bit of time spent explaining the technical details of how and why as well as some background on what the legend of 2012 is.

Spoiler warning: spoilers ahead.

The story is primarily told by following two protagonists: Dr Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who is one of the first to learn of the impending disaster and Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a normal divorced dad who, with his family, happens to end up fairly deep in the race for survival. Dr Helmsley heads up a team of scientists who, are trying to monitor and prepare for the cataclysmic events that are to come along with various world leaders. Jackson gets into events by being in the right place at the right time and making a lot of lucky escapes.

The parallels with Emmerich’s previous work are fairly plain to see. The links with the White House, the brilliant scientist and the escape on Air Force One all echo back to Independance Day. The scientific discoveries, geophysical forces and impending global disaster are similar to The Day After Tomorrow.

As with most movies, the science is completely stupid (I know enough geology to understand most of the stuff on plate tectonics and melting the core is not possible) and I’ve subsequently read enough about the prediction of 2012 to know that most sane people consider it to have no merit.

As for character development, Ejiofor’s character seems to be present purely to explain the science and serve as a moral compass while Cusack and co. tilt from one impending disaster to the next with each escape more improbably than the last. There are a few lame attempts at showing how they struggle to keep their humanity in the bitter struggle for survival, but it’s a token effort. The character who steals the show is Woody Harrelson’s trippy conspiracy nut who’s camped out in Yellowstone Park waiting for the big one.

So it lacks meaty plot and realistic characters, but that’s missing the point. They all serve one purpose: to provide an excuse for a series of jaw-dropping special effects disasters. You’ve got everything from Yellowstone’s super-volcano erupting to earthquakes, to landmasses sliding into the sea to tidal waves higher than mountain ranges wiping out all before them. This isn’t a movie about story, it’s a movie about spectacle.

I was lucky enough to watch it on Blu-ray on a big screen and that’s where the effects really shine. This is a disaster movie on an epic scale. There are different ways to approach them, which I generally sum up as Armageddon vs Deep Impact. The former chucks the science for the OTT character melodrama, the latter tries to stay more faithful and bend rather than break the scientific laws. 2012 falls into the latter category.

If you’re looking for some meaty character-led action, this isn’t it, but if you’re prepared to go along for the ride it’s a great spectacle and an enjoyable, if forgettable, film.

Check out the trailer on YouTube here.

I do vaguely remember hearing about this, but it passed under my radar until a recent visit to the rental store and now I can’t imagine why, it’s a great movie.

OK, so the title sucks.  I suspect this is part of why it didn’t do as well as Shaun of the Dead (it’s described as ‘Doctor Who meets Shaun of the Dead’), that and it’s aimed at a much more niche market.

OK, so it’s a bit geeky.  It is, largely, set in a pub (much like SotD).  The average episode of Doctor Who has a larger effects budget by the looks of it though.

Considering the limitations of the budget (this is a joint BBC and HBO films production) they have to fall back on character and story and for any sci-fi fans out there it’s sure to please.

The plot revolves around the three main leads: Ray (nerd, played by the IT Crowd’s Chris O’Dowd), Toby (nerd, Marc Wootton) and Pete (cynic, Dean Lennox Kelly) who go to the pub (after Ray gets fired from his job at a theme park).  They’re happily writing a letter to let Hollywood know how to make films after seeing a bad one before the pub when Ray bumps into Cassie on his way back from the bar.

Cassie (Anna Faris bringing some Hollywood glamour) is a time traveller whose job involves fixing time leaks, is a big fan of Ray’s.  When he gets back he tells the guys, who don’t believe him until Pete stumbles onto the time leak in the gents and comes back to a pub full of dead bodies (including his).  Several visits to the toilets and near misses with their past and future selves ensue before they discover their one good idea (written on the back of the letter to Hollywood) is the cause of the problems and threatens their lives.

It’s very British in its outlook, geeky and funny, with Faris (who is fairly unknown, despite staring in some big movies, and is a Hollywood star in waiting) bringing some geek love appeal and raising the star power.  Needless to say it’s packed with nods to sci-fi films (although Ray insists it is called Science Fiction or SF).  DVD is probably a better medium for it (it’s not really cinematic), although the lack of any extras seems criminal considering the fanbase.

If you’re a fan of Hitchhikers then you should definitely take a look.  It’s got cult hit written all over it.

Should you be interested, I stumbled across a small interview with some of the cast here.

You can check out the full trailer on YouTube or on the official site, which has some other information about the film and cast.

Before I start my review I wanted to make sure I am being transparent, I was contacted through the site and asked if I would do a review of Moon.  After a bit of back and forth I received a DVD copy and watched it over the weekend.  I don’t think people reading the site would appreciate bias though, so I was certain I was going to call it like it was, I wouldn’t pull any punches if it was bad, but to my relief I enjoyed the film.

Moon tells the story of solitary employee, Sam Bell (played by Sam Rockwell), based on the moon overseeing a largely automated Helium-3 mining operation that supplies 70% of the world with clean energy.  Sam is coming to the end of his three-year contract, during which he has had only a semi-mobile AI computer called Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey) for company and, due to satellite problems, his only communication with the outside world (no pun intended) has been through taped video messages to his superiors and his wife and young daughter back on Earth.

Sam starts to see things, and while out visiting a harvester he loses concentration when he thinks he sees someone standing on the lunar surface and he crashes.  He wakes up in the infirmary.  He doesn’t remember the accident and when Gerty finally lets him go back outside he finds a survivor in the wreckage, himself.  He drags the old Sam back to the base and Gerty patches him up.

As the old and the new Sam try to come to terms with this discovery they’re not sure what to make of each other or their situation.

Director Duncan Jones has mentioned his influences include ‘classic’ sci-fi films such as Alien and 2001: A Space Odyssey and that is evident in both the plot and design of the film.  Gerty draws obvious comparisons with HAL 9000 in 2001, with Spacey providing an emotionless monotone that, combined with  emoticons shown on a small display, only serve to widen the gap between human and machine despite Gerty’s human-esque phrases and concern for Sam’s well-being.

It’s probably worth mentioning at this point that the film was made with a budget of $5 million (no doubt with a lot of deferred fees).  To make a film on that budget and get a cinema release is an achievement.  To give you an idea, Cloverfield and District 9 had estimated budgets of around $30 million.  Horror movies, set in a contemporary setting are the more common fodder for this budget.  Saw is an example, Shaun of the Dead was about the same money, we’re also in Jackass: The Movie territory, to give you an idea.  What you do not make on that kind of money is a Science Fiction film.  Transformers 2 cost $210 million and it doesn’t top the list.  So you’ve got to give the film-makers credit for even attempting this.  They followed the low-budget rules though, sticking to as few actors (I count eight if you include Spacey) and locations as possible, but it doesn’t detract from the story.

In fact, the lack of money doesn’t show on the screen, it doesn’t appear cheap, the sets don’t look like something out of Space: 1999.  The look is obviously derived from the ‘60s vision of the future, being largely antiseptic, white and minimalist, again, an obvious reference to 2001, although not a million miles away from something you would see from NASA (on the outside at least, they’re not usually so slick on the inside).  That said, they have shunned the recent trend of making the future look like we all fell into an Apple advert, surrounded by bright, shiny white surfaces and transparent touch-screen monitors (see Star Trek amongst others).  In order to balance this out they’ve also added little touches, like furry dice in the rover, but the sparse use makes the base seem even more isolated.  This is a mining station and the utilitarian nature carries through into the design ethic.  It makes a refreshing change.

The film was written for Sam Rockwell though, and he is definitely the star of the show.  Having to play the same character at different points of their lives in the same scene with only yourself has got to have been a challenge.  At no point do you get the feeling he’s talking to a stand-in though, the multiple performances being seamless and Rockwell portrays the different versions of Sam Bell as both obviously different and yet rooted in the same past, creating characters that are both unique and similar at the same time.  He does a good job of drawing you in and keeping your attention.

Featuring, largely, just one character and being based in an isolated location does mean the movie is leisurely, which is a nice way of putting it’s slow.  It’s not an action movie anyway, and not every movie should be, but the story seems slow to get to some of the beats and the ending just sort of limps over the line when there is an obvious opportunity to inject some conflict or, at least, some emotion.  It also seems to try too hard to reverse expected stereotypes and the twist is foreshadowed so much it’s not much of a surprise when it comes. In an age where there seems to be an unofficial competition around who can fit the most cuts into 60 seconds, the more reverent pace will probably mean the ADHD infected, text-addicted, twitterfied bulk of the movie-going audience simply won’t find enough to pull their attention away from their phones.  This is a film for those who are prepared to show a bit of patience.  2001 stunned the audience with what were mind-blowing effects at the time, they kept the audience engaged while it edged through the plot, Moon doesn’t have that luxury.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t watch it. It’s an interesting look at human-nature and isolation and also a nice statement on how technology may move on, but humans will remain inherently the same come what may.  It asks questions about what it is that makes us human and suggests that it’s not machines we need to fear, it’s ourselves.  The same things will still drive, motivate and worry us.  It’s also quite nice to see some film-makers who seem not only to know the science, but are actually interested in it (the film was shown at NASA in a special screening).

So it’s not an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride which is what Hollywood seems determined to serve us and is so sure is all we want, which makes Moon a refreshing change.  It takes a different approach to showing us the future and questions what our place will be in it.  It actually reminded me of the Vengeance Trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance) by Chan-wook Park, with a similar philosophical look at the human condition.  I’d recommend it.

Moon is released on Blu-Ray and DVD on the 16th of October, you can find out more about the film at the official website.

Before writing this review I went back and looked at the reviews I had written for the other films and novels. I was surprised at how few there were:

• My review of Order of the Phoenix
• My review of Goblet of Fire
• My review of the Half-blood Prince novel

I’ve been writing posts on various sites since 2004, but what I had forgotten is that Half-Blood Prince was released in 2005, so I didn’t review anything earlier (I still don’t think I’ve reviewed the Deathly Hallows novel). Watching the movie I realised just how much I had forgotten, it has been four years (I’m going to need to read Deathly Hallows again, which was released in 2007, so will be three years when the first film comes out and four when the final one is released, assuming they don’t ‘slip’ like Half-Blood did).

My general consensus on the film reviews was that both Goblet and Phoenix were fast-paced, with the film makers trying to include as much of the books as they could while keeping the runtime down. I actually didn’t mind in Phoenix, there was a lot that could be lost, although it was confusing at times. Half-Blood is much the same, big chunks are missing, some storylines and scenes are only briefly touched on.

I suspect the reason for splitting the final book into two films is because there is so much plot detail that simply can’t be lost they need to keep it for the series to make any sense, so they were forced to split it, rather than any financial reasons (not that it hurts).

As with the other films, I came away having enjoyed it, but not raving about it. The cast, as always, did well. Grint again turns out the comic performances and does so very well. Watson seem very rigid as Hermione and Radcliffe does well as the boy carrying the fate of the world. The supporting cast, filled with top quality, barely gets to stretch its legs, but always delivers, with new addition Jim Broadbent putting in a great turn as Horace Slughorn.

I felt the relationships were handled well enough, capturing the polar feelings of young love. Harry’s kiss with Ginny was moved to a completely different place and was over so quickly I thought they must be due for another but it never came. Not the heart-thumping triumph of the book.

My biggest regret with the films is the humour they miss from the books, though they had a stab at it in places and leaving it out makes for darker and more serious tones, it’s hard to make people scared of Voldemort when they’re bust laughing. It does mean Fred and George are again criminally under-used.

Looking back at my review of the book I pulled a couple of points out:

…I did like the ‘memory trips’ to introduce Voldemort’s history and to flesh him out as Harry’s nemesis, long and drawn out they may be, but he is the reason for the series (no Voldemort and Harry is just a regular wizard). They let us see his cruel nature and persistent planning, building him as a formidable opponent, as well as giving us a few ideas as to how Harry can defeat him in the final confrontation.

I didn’t really get that feeling here, the flashbacks were mainly to show Voldemort/Tom Riddle and to get the information from Slughorn about the horcruxes. I didn’t feel Voldemort was really part of this film, leaving cameos for some of his Death Eaters, but little else.

…I knew who died and who killed them before I got there. It didn’t take away the impact though, I was stunned and shaken. I have a pretty good imagination, I tend to get headlong into a story, and maybe that worked against me, but as I finished the book I had to take a deep breath and remind myself that it was only a story and that it’ll all turn out right by the end of book 7.

I definitely didn’t feel that in the film. It was a fairly short scene, lots of solemn faces but that was pretty much it. Definitely a damp squid there.

The effects and set design were again in a league of their own, unlike many films were you know it’s a set the Potter locations all feel real (with the possible exception of some of the externals of the castle).

So a good, but not a great movie and, to be honest, I don’t hold out much hope that the remaining will be much better. That’s not to say that they’re bad, this film is definitely worth a watch and I think they’re probably getting better as the series goes on, I’m just no sure they’ll be long standing favourites we all go back to time and again.

All in all, an edgy thriller with a decent twist, good characters, well acted and executed. It’s definitely worth a look, although I doubt you’ll watch it more than once.

Watch the trailer on Apple

I’ve been looking out for this since I saw the trailer, which looked very good, a little OTT in places, but very good. Pretty much the same stands for the movie. As with any historical film it seems that accuracy is always less important than the story, so there are plenty of things wrong here in that respect. It’s also a very stylish film, with the lavish set and costume design and it’s beautifully shot. Rather than being a gung-ho how-good-are-the-English epic though, it focuses on the people involved, specifically Elizabeth, how she felt, what she thought and the trials and tribulations she endured.

The movie condenses many of the things Elizabeth experienced during her reign. The fight against Spain and Catholicism chief among them. I have to agree with some of the other people who have reviewed the film and say that there is certainly a strong anti-Catholic feeling, although that may just be anti-Inquisition, or anti-Catholic during that time period. Other strings to the story include Sir Walter Raleigh, the debonair sailor/adventurer who captures Elizabeth’s heart, and feels her wrath when he dares to love another. This merged with the request she find a husband and produce and heir, something she refuses to do as it would mean handing over power to someone else.

Also covered is an assassination plot, which is part of a larger scheme to put a Catholic Queen (Mary, Queen of Scots) on the throne. The plot in the film is a mix of the four plots that were foiled during Elizabeth’s reign. Lastly, there is the Spanish Armada.

When the legendary armada does arrive, the scenes are handled fairly quickly, rather than a drawn-out sea battle (the actual event took several days). Neither does it try and claim a massive victory for the English (in reality the weather did most of the work).

If you can overlook the inaccuracies (which you won’t know and won’t care about) and the stunning visuals (which will delight) you’ll find tender and interesting performances of some key historical figures, get a good idea of just how precarious England’s position was at the time and see some of the concerns and issues faced by our leaders in Elizabethan England. Cate Blanchett portrays Elizabeth not as the unshakeable force of rule history often conjures up, but as a real, flawed, insecure monarch who only wants to serve her people. Thoroughly enjoyable.