Tilda Swinton is great, and the Act Up/Gay is good message is great, but what's not so good is the portrayal of Piers and the King. They're obnoxious, rude, and hurtful. It's sad because it seems there are perfectly valid reasons to hate and overthrow them that have nothing to do with heterosexism. Oh, and Annie Lennox is great too, but interrupting the movie for a fawning music video was a strange move.
Edward II (1991) 1080p YIFY Movie
The Synopsis for Edward II (1991) 1080p
The Director and Players for Edward II (1991) 1080p
The Reviews for Edward II (1991) 1080p
Why Edward II was not so good.Reviewed byDarshan1Vote: 3/10
FIRST - the movie. Stunning. Brilliant. Captivating. Sexy. Second - you detractors: to the guy who's directing his own story - of COURSE you don't think this is good, and that YOU (of course) will make something better & more brilliant. I'm just SURE you will. That's why YOU are a nobody and this film actually got made!
To the people who said you didn't get it - poor things. Maybe you should stick to movies more in line with your intellectual caliber, like "Legally Blonde" or "Ernest Takes it Up the Ass".
To the guy who said the actors weren't young or glamorous enough. Thanks for proving you're a pedophile - the actors were hunky and ADULT, and quite studly. Just because YOU like chicken & twinkies with no muscles and no masculinity doesn't mean the rest of us have to share your lack of taste.
To the idiot who kept insisting it took place in 1991 - it's "acting", Penelope. It's a trick. It takes place in the past. The costumes and stage, etc is just a vehicle. IT'S ART. I suggest you join the group mentioned above and go see "Legally Blonde". This intellectual stuff will just make your little pea-brain hurt.
Thanks again - most of you - for not getting it. You prove to me more and more that homosexuals are just like straight people. Some are intelligent - but most are just dumb as a box of rocks.
My advice is to avoid this film and try and see a stage version instead.
It is highly unfair, I think, to criticise Marlowe's writing capabilities based on this rather terrible rendition of his play Edward II, as another user has commented on. In this film lines are swapped between characters, scenes are drastically changed, new scenes are added in and key scenes and characters are omitted. The whole film stands as a rather disfigured version of the original play.
Of course perhaps it could be said also to be unfair to criticise it's lack of loyalty to Marlowe's script, after all it is an adaptation. Looking at it simply as a movie it still creates rather laughable viewing. The actors talents are wasted on the directors odd obsession with the surreal and abstract, which is just simply random and out of place. And an odd musical cameo from Annie Lennox just adds to the madness.
To look at the positives yes there are some imaginative shots and several scenes are performed and presented well but as a whole it appears as a rather flimsy and hastily put together film that would be more suited as a three part drama on ITV.