For those of you who can't tell the difference between this and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, here's how it breaks down:It's the exact polar opposite. Basically in every way, good and bad. For example: (1) Geoffrey Rush was nominated for SHAKESPEARE. But here, in ELIZABETH, he shows that he can be more of a bad ass Brit than Pierce Brosnan has been able to be in either Bond film. He's in full-on Alec Guinness mode, but, if you're gonna be like any actor, might as well be the best. (2) Joseph Fiennes ... well, he was really good in SHAKESPEARE. here, his character was fairly one-dimensional ... he is given a chance to change, but no reason is given, so that doesn't count. The interesting thing about his role was that he was basically the "chick" (the non-fleshed out love interest of sorts for the main character). (3) The direction. SHAKESPEARE was under-directed. "point and shoot" sums it up. This movie was insanely directed ... the camera was all over the place, often to the point where it was distracting. (4) The editing. SHAKESPEARE needed some. This had some to spare. Cut too much out, to the point where certain story things were not clear. (5) Elizabeth herself ... in SHAKESPEARE, she was vrey interesting, whereas in this she was driven to the back by most of the other actors. Perhaps it was intentional, but it didn't work too well for me. That being said ... fuck, this was a really good movie, and should never be compared to SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE again. I didn't think it was great, and I dream of a year when a movie like this will not be on every critic's top ten list (wasn't it nice when critics had more than 12 movies to choose their ten from?) ... but, until that day, at least movies like this can get made.The ending, though ... all I had to say was "This one time, you can ask me about my business." Elizabeth Corleone, anybody?