Edward II Reviews

• Truly amazing and unusual

  
  By A17FYUDVSKPHOY on 2005-09-18
  Wow!, this is an amazing viewing experience, and definitely the best Derek Jarman film that I've seen. The script is based on Christopher Marlowe's equally bizarre 16th century playscript, the story of King Edward II and his love for his favorite Gaveston. Edward neglects all his princely duties of governing England so he can hang out with Gaveston and party. He also rejects the love of his wife, Queen Isabella from France. The leading nobles then conspire with Isabella to get rid of Gaveston, and eventually to depose Edward and murder him in a particularly gruesome manner.
  
  Jarman retains the original Elizabethan language (don't worry, it's very accessible) but modernizes the setting to some extent, keeping the medieval castle, but updating the costumes and some props. Medieval and modern elements are mixed together in post-modern fashion. This is a very stylized and even symbolic production, although the story is more or less dramatically realistic. The original dialogue has been edited and shortened, in order to highlight the settings and gestures. The play is a visual and musical feast for the senses. Jarman's treatment of the play reminds me of Julie Taymor's TITUS (based on Shakespeare's Titus Andonicus) starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange.
  
  But be forewarned, this is not for the squeamish; there is lots of male nudity and even homosexual love making, although enough is hidden to keep the "R" rating. There is also a fair amount of violence.
  
  The play's treatment of homosexuality is very interesting and complex. In Marlowe's original playscript, the homosexual nature of the relationship between Edward and Gaveston is fairly obvious yet not completely explicit----still rather veiled according to the customs of the time; Jarman, in contrast, foregrounds the homosexuality; at the same time he doesn't idealize Edward and Gaveston to make them innocent victims. In line with the original script, Edward is portrayed as criminally negligent in his duties as King. But the nobles who depose him are also corrupted by the desire for power, so there are no clear heroes or villains here. The play, however, questions the irrational prejudice of the nobles against homosexuality.
  
  Well worth the time and money. This play will be especially interesting for fans of Shakespeare and English Renaissance drama. Jarman truly makes Edward II accessible, interesting, and relevant for a contemporary audience.
  
  

• Jarman's most accessible film, but not mainstream by any means...

  
  By A2UYAFQ40U2PHS on 2006-07-14
  This is a very well made, interesting, and unique interpretation of Christopher Marlowe's Edward II. It is by Derek Jarman, one of the most neglected British filmmakers in history. This is best known film in the US, and while he's made better films, this one is still excellent. The first time you see the film it can be rather off putting. First of all, the characters wear contemporary clothes (even though it took place in the 14th century), and they smoke cigarettes. The film is very stylized, there are some rather heavygoing sex scenes at the beginning of the film, and there are appearances by OutRage, a British gay rights group that Jarman was a member of. Aside from the anarchorisms and the sex, it still feels like a Shakespeare play in many ways. It is interesting to note that in Mel Gibson's film Braveheart, the son of Edward Longshanks was, in fact, Edward II. In Mel's film, he was portrayed in a stereotypical, effeminate way. In Jarman's film, Edward is much more dynamic and intelligent. Jarman's portrayal, while a little idealised, is still more realistic than Gibson's film. Granted, Gibson wasn't making a film about Edward II, but it still would have been good of him to get the portrayal right. The other performances are top notch (especially Tilda Swinton as the jilted queen, and Nigel Terry as Mortimer). Annie Lennox singing "Every Time We Say Goodbye" is reminiscent of Jarman's film of The Tempest, when Elisabeth Welch sings Stormy Weather at the end. Everything in this film works. It sounds like it could go out of control and turn into a camp fest, but it never does. Well worth seeing...
  
  
  
  

• Christopher Marlowe's tragedy given new and innovative voice

  
  By ATXL536YX71TR on 2008-03-28
  As playwright Christopher Marlowe is considered to be the first Elizabethan Tragedian, and therefore pioneer to the up and coming Shakespeare (see Shakespeare in Love for an excellent film treatment of this subject), the late Derek Jarman, Fellow of the British Film Institute for his lifelong contribution to British Cinema, can be viewed as a "pioneer" for filmmakers who dared to be unusual, visionary and quite controversial and unconventional in style and interpretation. Jarman's body of work is impressive, and breathes with the life of someone who simply must do it film his own way. For me, Jarman has become an acquired taste over the years, but a taste that lingers on the palate and goes down with absolute clarity of digestion. It was not always so!
  
  In 1991, Jarman, and his dear friend, now Academy Award winning actress Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton (Widescreen Edition)) along with many film associates from the BFI (Sally Potter, Terence Davies, Bill Douglas and Peter Greenaway) were revolutionary visionaries in creating art on the screen that has had an impact on many present day filmmakers who wish to be craftsmen and not tradesmen. In that year, Jarman adapted the famous late 1500's Marlowe tragedy on the life, infatuations,and fatal weaknesses and incompetence of the 1300's King Edward 2 of England, and their devastating consequences to his life and country. Marlowe, himself, a complete rebel in his day, who died a violent and bitterly early death in a tavern brawl in 1594, seemed the perfect writer for the similar Jarman to interpret on the large screen....and WHAT AN INTERPRETATION IT IS! Adapting Marlowe's play, which was itself handled with considerable liberty by subordinating historical accuracy to dramatic effect, is vivid and unforgettably stylish and downright in-your-face sexual, as WAS in fact King Edward 2, known for his love for entertainment and squander, and his chronicled loves with at least two men, Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despencer whom he bestowed lavish attention, wealth and titles to such ignobly born fellows, thus igniting the fury of the Catholic Church, the Court Nobility, and his Queen, Isabella. The play is Marlowe's words, but the rendering is all Jarman, as Jarman, who was Gay himself, never shies from presenting Edward (Steven Waddington) as the tortured King, in a most disagreeable alliance/marriage (as was the custom!) with Isabella (Swinton) and his lust, love and adoration for his lover, Gaveston (Andrew Tiernan) and later Despencer (John Lynch). Isabella also has HER lover, Mortimer (Nigel Terry), who along with Isabella seeks to rule the realm through Edward and Isabella's son the young puppet, Edward 3.
  
  Now that is the story, and those are the historical events.....BUT this is a Derek Jarman film, and history is shown to us in a way that is so provocative, from blatant sexual imagery, unconventional costuming that places the play as a commentary on Margaret Thatcher's Conservative late 1980's England, and minimalist scenery, designed by Christopher Hobbs (a great favorite of The British Film Institute) to evoke the barrenness of an Age where Church and Nobility ruled, and where pleasure and desire, though enjoyed to the hilt by all, is attacked and condemned in the form of homosexuality, and used as the excuse for deposing a recklessly viewed Monarch.
  
  Often, I am entranced with historical Period Pieces, but often find that the retelling of said events can be rather dry and unmemorable. Not so with Jarman's film whose sense of injustice at how his own sexuality is eschewed is mesmerizingly transferred to the big screen with imagery that explodes graphically before your eyes. In fact, the imagery was so graphic and innovative that the film lingered in my emotions and not simply in my intellect! Not one ounce of Marlowe's play of lust and betrayal is lost, and IMO, Marlowe's rebel spirit which infuses his work, is best served by Jarman's understanding of Marlowe's intent on explaining the life of the tortured King and Marlowe's intense hatred for the nobility.
  
  This is, too say the least, a film that will be lost on some, and perhaps even disdained. I have come to savour every morsel of this film as a genuine and first-rate work of art, as I have with other of Jarman's well known Derek Jarman 4-DVD Boxset (Blue , Caravaggio , The Angelic Conversation , Edward II) [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - Italy ] as well as The Last of England, Wittgenstein [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - Spain ] and The Garden [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - Great Britain ].
  
  For anyone who craves something new from their movies, try Derek Jarman and other filmmakers such as Terence Davies (The Neon Bible) who, as Knighted Fellows of The British Cinema, sought and still seek to revolutionize and breathe new life and ideas into cinema today!
  
  

• The Text Not The Subtext Is The Key.

  
  By A3QIW6ULPIPM2V on 2010-04-14
  Being one of only two movies (as opposed to stage productions) based on the works of Christopher Marlowe (the other is the Richard Burton 1967 DOCTOR FAUSTUS), Derek Jarman's 1991 film of EDWARD II would be important for that reason alone. However there is more to the film than that. It's not only what meets the eye but what meets the ear that really counts. Like most of his films, Jarman shot EDWARD II on a shoestring and like many a theatre director turned filmmaker, he follows the time honored tradition of re-interpreting a classic play for the screen. The minimal settings and modern costumes, which were partially budgetary concerns, take some getting used to as does the overtly gay overtone that Jarman brings out which is not for the easily offended even though it can clearly be found in Marlowe's text. However, if you can get past that, then this EDWARD II can be a surprisingly rich and rewarding experience especially on repeated viewings.
  
  After I have watched a film version of a Shakespeare play or in this case Marlowe, I like to run it through my sound system without the picture and just listen to the words and how the actors speak them. The cast for EDWARD II is very strong and their theatrical background comes through with most of Marlowe's lines. Shakespeare was regarded as a playwright when he died in 1616 while Marlowe was considered a poet when he was murdered in 1593. There is poetry in Marlowe's blank verse that even Shakespeare couldn't aspire to although he was the better writer overall. But I digress. With a trio of strong performances from Stephen Waddington, Tilda Swinton, and Nigel Terry, this version of EDWARD II has a raw power that is accentuated by Jarman's visuals and Simon Fisher-Turner's music. Forget the anachronisms like Annie Lennox or the appearance of Queer Nation and focus on the story of a flawed individual who like Othello, "loved not wisely, but too well".
  
  

• Less Than Great Expectations!!

  
  By AUBRK5FDGTIRY on 2010-01-24
  My fault, I guess: I knew it was a Derek Jarman film, (usually a bit hit and miss) and I knew it was a film of a play by Christopher Marlowe, (B-grade Shakespeare).
  Unfortunately Edward II was made during that beloved '80's fad, when they chose miss-matched costumes and sets from historical periods that supposedly suited individual characters and situations. Usually a ruse to make tired old productions seem more 'hip' and relevant. (It would seem that no more worthy material has been written since Elizabethan times, so we have to keep flogging the old stuff to death!)
  In this case, the selection of various 20th century costumes generally served to reinforce the essence of each character, and created images which are easily recognised by the modern T.V. and movie audience.
  However, the choice of sets was clearly influenced completely by more mundane budgetary concerns.
  A strong cast was totally let down by the director's inability to translate the original play from the stage, to a screen format.
  The cardboard sets would have been drab and claustrophobic even in a theatre. No effort was made to open the production out by using the cinematic tricks and locations that a modern-day audience expects.
  At least the D.V.D. viewer can fall asleep in the privacy and comfort of their own home, without the embarassment that theatre-goers might have endured!
  The historical accuracy was always going to be limited by the source material, but thanks to Jarman's format, lack of locations etc., I learned no more about Edward II, or even the later era of Shakespeare, than I have from researching books and the internet.
  As is often the case, a dramatic and interesting true subject, although treated badly, will now be left alone by other film-makers, with the viewing public ultimately the poorer because of Derek Jarman's effort.
  
  
• Almost Shakespearean
  By A3I7YI4NMP6SV8 on 2009-01-05
  An avant-garde film that won't appeal to all tastes, Derek Jarman's "Edward II" takes Christopher Marlowe's Shakespearean-era play and imbues it with a modern sensibility. The minimal sets look as though they were thrown together in an abandoned warehouse or airplane hangar, and successfully convey a stifling atmosphere of labyrinthine darkness, decadence, and murder most foul.
  
  As Edward II, Steven Waddington does what he can with a role that seems to be seriously underwritten. Not having read the original play, I'm not sure if that's attributable to Marlowe or to Derek Jarman (who also co-wrote the screenplay), but Edward never emerges as much more than a character on a page: there's nothing much "kingly" about him, he's not terribly bright, and his motivations seem to change, depending on the scene. Far more successful, I thought, was Andrew Tiernan, as the flashier, much-despised lover of the king, Piers Gaveston. Tiernan plays Gaveston as a fop with an attitude, a scheming, snarky twink with dollar signs in his eyes, and a block of ice for a heart. He plays up to poor, dimwitted Edward, making him believe that he loves him, but the only person Gaveston cares about is Gaveston. He's presented as a villain, but he's certainly no worse than Nigel Terry's power-hungry Mortimer, whose own scheming, and canoodling with Edward's sex-starved Queen Isabella (Tilda Swinton), have devastating consequences. Terry, a veteran actor, turns in a fine performance here, while Swinton (one of only a handful of actors I'd characterize as "luminous") has never been more breathtaking; her Isabella is regal and proper, but with fire blazing beneath the cultivated fashionista veneer. Jarman's partner, Kevin Collins, has a key role as the jailer, and he makes the most of it. His ability to convey the deepest emotions with minimal dialogue is both moving and impressive. And Annie Lennox has a brief, beautiful scene as a singer, which only made me wish that she had a bigger part, because she's got a terrific presence.
  
  At the end of the day, "Edward II", while not a perfect film, is far from a waste of time. It's sort of like Shakespeare with a kink, an under-developed, yet mesmerizing, foray into royal intrigue that links its subject matter to modern issues (AIDS, gay liberation) while eschewing the tired casting of porno coverboys as the principal male leads. The film is commendable on a number of levels, and its shortcomings are overshadowed by Jarman's fine direction and vision, by many of the performances, and by the overall quality of the production.
  
  
  
  
• Art movie about power and revenge
  By AJRFZ0VZ0LD26 on 2008-12-29
  I wanted to see this movie because it stars Tilda Swinton, art movie goddess of great talent and beauty. Film is about King Edward II who upon his father's death and inheritance to power invites from exile his lover, Galveston. Court is appalled that Galvaston is all that Edward II can think about and that Edward does not care that his lover is cruel, uncaring and greedy and steals money from the treasury. Edward's wife and Queen is rejected upon Galveston's arrival and finds herself on the sideline of power. Born of noble blood, she is deeply hurt by her treatment by the King and decides to plot a revenge and take over the power herself.
  
  Fantastic costumes and jewelry. Queen's makeup is amazing, she is hypnotizing to all but Edward. This performance feels more like theatre on DVD. Annie Lennox's musical performance is beautiful and quite unexpected.
  
  Film will get everyone thinking about lure of power and wealth, desire to hang onto it no matter what the consequences. It also tackles the notion of double standards. While homosexuality is frawned upon, the murder, orgy, adultery and betrayal seem to be almost expected and accepted by the great majority or realm's subjects. This film is not for everyone. It is definitely for mature audiences with sophisticated tastes. Short dancing scene between two male dancers is the best part of the film - treat for ballet lovers.
  
  
• Modern Marlowe
  By A3Q1GB17EH17UD on 2008-05-08
  "Edward II"
  
  Modern Marlowe
  
  Amos Lassen
  
  The Derek Jarman film version of Christopher Marlowe's Elizabethan drama, "Edward II" is a visual feast. Jarman dresses his characters in modern costumes and has them perform against a modern setting. Edward Plantagenet tells his power hungry nobility his perfect excuse for taking his male lover, Piers Gaveston, to the court and that is because his wife, the French princess Isabel, is not acceptable to his subjects. Gaveston uses his sexual favors for political influence and the stage is set for a palace revolt which sends Edward and Piers from royalty to the dungeon.
  "Edward II" is the most perfect of Jarman's films in regard to his use of innovation in cinema as it mixes surrealism, shifts in perspective, and an take on the political implications of gay liberation. This adaptation of the 500 year old play by Christopher Marlowe is about the doomed, gay and deposed king. Jarman kept the major themes of the original play and the dialog as well and placed the story in the present day and he strives to find the genesis of contemporary homophobia and class bigotry.
  "Edward II" is a brilliant mish mash of history and is beautiful to see. It is dark and brooding and erotic as Jarman brings the viewer into medieval England and tells the story of a love at a time when such a love could be fatal. It is brilliantly acted and set in Jarman's abstract vision with a message that is still valid today. Jarman treats his film as if he is painting on a blank canvas and he makes a strong statement about intolerance.
  There is full frontal male nudity and a very passionate scene between two naked men but the highlight of the film is the acting and the costumes and the absolutely gorgeous way that the film looks.
  
  
  
• Nobility of humanity, the humanity of royalty, the most base of royal
  By A1JVECPXZ8FE on 2010-02-19
  This excellent play is for mature audience only. Shocking. This will haunt you in your nightmares. Yet from it came some of the best of english monarchy. The future king owned his mother and childhood and was one of the best english kings.
  
  
• Surrealistic History!
  By AWHXLGGFJQD5D on 2010-02-06
  Maybe you know Edward II from Braveheart. He's the son of the nasty King Edward I who conquered Scotland and Wales. He was gay, though his official responsibilities required him to have a wife and children (Edward III was his son). His male lover, Piers Gaveston, was contemptuous of the aristocracy of England, giving them nasty nicknames that make Edward laugh uproariously. So the queen and *her* lover plotted to get rid of Edward, and they did in a *very* nasty way. This is all done in modern day surroundings, with the gay lovers smoking modern cigarettes (note--there was no tobacco in England in the 1300s).
  
  This film is not for the squeamish. Very explicit scenes of homosexual sex acts. If you're a high school or even college teacher, this will NOT be appropriate for your general classes to learn about English history. It might be appropriate for an advanced drama class, but even then you should go carefully, giving the class adequate warning about what they're going to see.
  
  My favorite in the film is Tilda Swinton as Queen Isabella, the vengefully jealous spouse.
  
  
• King of Hearts
  By A3EBHHCZO6V2A4 on 2009-09-27
  "Edward II" is a stunning adaptation by the late Derek Jarman of Christopher Marlowe's Renaissance-era play. Jarman's production is spare, yet powerful. It wafts, dreamlike, between the captive Edward and flashbacks of his former days. Steven Waddington is excellent as Edward II-torn between kingly duty and his lower-class lover,Piers Gaveston. Tilda Swinton is icy as Queen Isabella, foreshadowing her role as the White Witch.
  
  "Edward II" places the medieval story in '80s Thatcher-era England, when homosexuals were singled out as scapegoats. In the movie, the militaristic Mortimer is romping with two girlfriends-- who then make out with each other. Isabella is promiscuous with other men- from taking Mortimer as her lover to flirting with her husband's executioner. Towards the end, Edward leads a Gay Pride protest. In an odd way, the movie is strikingly timely, with the passage of Prop.8 in California and the battle over Measure 1 in Maine.
  
  "Edward II" is a superbly made tragedy. Between an excellent cast, to great music (Annie Lennox appears to sing "Every time we say goodbye") It goes between the spartan (Edward's prison) and the sensual (there's a male group nude wrestling scene,for some reason) "Edward II" is a cinematic classic. It's an essential of experimental movies.
  
  
• DEREK JARMAN'S "TAKE" ON MARLOWE
  By AQCJB67784DYU on 2007-12-01
  This gorgeousy filmed (Ian Wilson) and costumed (Sandy Powell) adaptation of Marlowe's masterpiece is a curiosity. There are the anachronisms of sumptuous modern costumes for the leads - especially Tilda Swinton (runway-model manque) - and lavish yet pared-down sets that make you concentrate on the glorious words of Christopher Marlowe.
  
  It is gory and violent, stunning and outrageous, sexually explicit, and very political and pro-gay activism.
  
  Steven Waddington and Andrew Tiernan make convincing lovers and Tilda Swinton is outstanding as the spurned wife and ultimate murderer of her husband.
  
  It must be remembered that Derek Jarman started out as the set designer for Ken Russell's "The Devils" and this is demonstrated by the stylistic and stylised sets. Annie Lennox makes a brief but poignant appearance and all the supporting actors and actresses are entirely convincing.
  
  Not for every taste but worth a watch if you appreciate one of the cinema's most original and creative directors.
  
  
• Good...if your prepared
  By AZJ0T83JZMQOX on 2006-02-12
  My British drama teacher let us watch this movie during class after we read Marlowe's work. If you enjoyed the play and rather unusual movies you will not find this movie very hard to enjoy. However if you are looking for a time period play, or anything remotely normal you will not. If you're into the whole avant-garde thing you will enjoy yourself. I did.
  
  
• Edward II: "Come Gaveston, and share the kingdom with thy dearest friend",
  By A2BPDFR58H9575 on 2007-01-20
  *** This comment may contain spoilers ***
  
  "Edward II" (1991) directed by Derek Jarman is a variation on Christopher Marlowe's 16th-century play "The Troublesome Reign of Edward II" which tells the story of England openly gay King Edward, and his relationship with Piers Gaveston that bitterly angers his queen, Isabella of France, "The French She-Wolf", and eventually leads to his fall - he will lose his Kingdom and his life. If I had not known that Jarman was a painter and a Caravaggio admirer, I would've guessed immediately after first 5 minutes or so. His usage of light and shadows was amazing. His lack of historical settings and staging the film among the bare walls as well as including many anachronisms, such as modern clothes and cigarette smoking gave the old story timeless feel. Tilda Swinton as a woman scorned never looked so ethereal and breathtakingly beautiful. For her acting, she won the best Actress award at the Venice Film Festival in 1991. "Edward II" is a gripping film that is in the same league as Julie Taymor's stunning adaptation of Shakespeare's "Titus" but it is certainly not for everyone.
  
  3.5/5 or 7/10
  
  
  
• Homophobic to the Extreme
  By A3RFO6T0KRLNK8 on 2007-08-07
  It's difficult to understand how any viewer could interpret this film as anything but a homophobic, angry diatribe. The original text of Christopher Marlowe might well have been lent to a production questioning the brutal end said to have been inflicted on Edward II because of his sexuality. However, this movie *underscores* the supposed bestiality of the King, of Gaveston (presented here as a virulently awful creature whose allure is maddeningly, entirely inexplicable) ... and thereby seems to agree with the notion that homosexuality is repugnant and ought to be brutally punished. How baffling, then, that this film has gained the reputation for being gay positive in any way.
  
  Every last character in this production is a villain; but the king and his favorites are imbued with a special sort of loathsomeness. Had Gaveston been presented with the slightest human dignity, or had Steven Waddington's performance been allowed to display even a hint of integrity or strength, this movie might well have been a great one. Unfortunately, they and everyone around them are hateful, brutal, selfish and conniving.
  
  The performances are universally wretched, which points a finger at the director, not his actors. The editing, both of the source material and of the film itself, appears to be nearly arbitrary. The art direction is either murky or the DVD transfer is abysmal. The perfect absence of sympathy for ANY of the characters is tiresome, not challenging. As it stands, the artiness is all this film has left to offer - and that is rather dated now, and not terribly engaging. When I have enough mental slack while watching a movie to take time to wonder why the poet changed from one pair of reading glasses to another just because some new characters entered the scene, and do not even CARE about the answer, that movie has failed to capture my attention.
  
  I let ten years lapse between my first viewing and my second, and I returned to this film because I believe in second chances. This was worse the second time, worse than "Howard the Duck". No third chances will be afforded. Absolute, utter dreck - and violently *anti-gay*.
  
  
• Jarman
  By A3EZ31CRS35QPB on 2005-06-14
  Not for everyone, but a great film by a great film director and stylist. Edward 2 is the play by Christpher Marlowe (1564-1593), author of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, and the presumed Shakespearean writer. This film presents a Jacobean style rendering of this play with very modern sets and costumes and truly a hightened gay sensibility. Tilda Swinton sings Cole Porter in transluscent style a year before she performed in "Orlando". I would recommend it highly.
  
  
• One Of The Worst Movies Ever Shot
  By A28WJUJF6D2ULA on 2007-08-09
  Total and utter waste of time, film, talent, plot, with a terrible experimental post-mod setting for Marlow's Elizabethan story of the eponymous fourteenth-century king. I already look down on most productions that set an historical story outside its time frame but this anachronism was a special example of awfulness, from its drabness to the misuse of the slightly androgynous Tilda Swinton as a glamorous scorned queen. Everything about this production stank, from its bastardizing of Marlow's lines, to its casting, to its setting and sets, everything. I truly despised this motion picture and hope Edward II gets re-made in a more faithful version than this one.
  
  
• Bizarre
  By A19P74MFJ32GK0 on 2007-05-13
  I couldn't get into this movie. I tried, I really did, but if you think these two guys are too pretty, see your optician without delay. There's nothing to latch onto in the way of a story. It just meanders along and you have no idea what motivates the characters or what they want. Bring a good book to read while you watch this yawner.
  
  
• Wake Me When It's Over
  By A3MPWVNJ6XHHZJ on 2007-02-19
  Sure, this was heaped with loads and loads of popular acclaim by the critics, but the question you should be asking yourself is, will it appeal to the average person? The simple answer here is a loud and resounding NO. Here are the reasons: 1) Unless you're a well-bred blue blood who knows all about Edward II and loves Shakespeare, this is extremely hard to follow, not just because of the archaic olde English-speake, but also due to choppy production and editing which impedes the plot coherence. Result? If you're not lost you will soon will be, and worse yet, you won't care; 2) Don't be fooled by the lure of Annie Lennox-she is an itsy-bit of a bit player in the overall run of this "movie" and is, for all intents and purposes, inappropriately placed in the middle of it much like the effect of having an MTV commercial rammed in the middle of your programme; 3) Let's be clear about what you're getting for your 10-15 dollars: It's not a movie at all, but an arty-pretentious stab at cheap play production with less cinematography than your average soap opera or home movie. Further, the "period" is thematically juxtiposed with costumes of old and new, making one more likely to ponder whether their budget was short, not what cutty-edgy-trendy-theme-within-a-theme are they trying to promote. Who knew such a tantillizing, heart-wrenching piece of history could be rendered so dull?
  
  
• It has a few redeeming qualities
  By AO2Z6SCI5TDBJ on 2006-02-04
  I liked the peformance by the actress playing Isabella. Loved her clothes and makeup. The use of modern clothes and spartan sets in a production that has an painfully low budget doesn't present a problem.
  
  Beyond that, well, I know the director is trying to make a point about the brutal suppression of gays and possibly the government policies under Mrs. Thatcher. It's unfortunate that the sexual scenes and extremely graphic violence are purely gratuitous.
  
  The actors playing Edward II and Gaveston are too pretty and resemble one another to a weird degree (intentional?)
  
  
  
  

• Caravaggio (Special Edition)
• Edward II
• War Requiem
• Bent
• Orlando