IMDb user comments for
Edward II (1991) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

18 comments in total

---

18 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Derek Jarman's Greatest Film, 15 September 2003

Author: David (davidals@msn.com) from Chapel Hill, NC, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

*Possible spoilers*

Before his AIDS-related death in 1994, English filmmaker Derek Jarman (also an acclaimed painter and writer whose introduction to film was working as a set designer for Ken Russell) created a large and aggressively experimental body of work, developing a vivid personal style notable for its' political ferocity and its' unbelievable visual lushness. By the time EDWARD II appeared, Jarman had honed his innovative mix of surrealism, mind-bending shifts in perspective, and a well-articulated take on the political implications of gay liberation into a vision that at once placed him in the vanguard of late 20th century independent filmmakers, while simultaneously establishing him as one of the most uncompromising activist/artists to have never been described or marketed as such.

EDWARD II – very loosely adapted from a 500-year-old Christopher Marlowe play about the doomed, deposed (and gay) English king – is all of the above combining in one brilliant flash, and Jarman was aware of the irony built into the fact that this very challenging, explosive tour-de-force of a film - shot on a shoestring budget - brought him closer to 'mainstream' success than anyone (including Jarman) would've ever believed possible. Maintaining much of Marlowe's original play – and the Old English dialog – while visually placing the story in the present day (the sets are minimalistic, with contemporary clothing and set design), Jarman attempts to locate – with surgical precision - the origins of violent, contemporary homophobia, and contemporary class bigotry as well (Edward's lover was a peasant, so the implications of social-class transgression are also integral to the story) in historic precedents.

Jarman's art background contributes to the stunning visual effect, and he had worked with most of the cast before, lending the film an effective intimacy – things never seem too avant-garde, and the righteous sense of corrosive rage seen here (this is one of the angriest, most politically enraged films I've ever seen) – essential to this story – never veers off target.

---

20 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Thoroughly brilliant, 20 March 2005

Author: jeannine1980

Edward II makes a brilliant hodge-podge of history by vaulting a sixteenth century play about a fourteenth century English king onto a dark, abstract twentieth century stage. Iconoclastic, yes; anachronistic, yes; imbecilic, no. While on the page Marlowe's poetry speaks for itself, in director Derek Jarman's hands it provides a counterpoint to the film's daring, elegant, eloquent visuals. King Edward and his lover, Piers Gaveston, are attacked by the raving heteronormative toffs for their homosexuality and Gaveston's less-than-aristocratic background. Great moments include a cameo by Annie Lennox and a bull's-eye by Tilda Swinton.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Elegantly filmed minor masterwork., 4 July 1999

Author: Maestro-19 from Dallas, TX

This beautifully filmed, strangely erotic minor masterwork is Derek Jarman at his best. Dark and brooding, Jarman draws the viewer into the world of medieval England while still being his unusual, original self. Homoerotic without being blatant about its pro-gay leanings, Jarman tells a story of doomed love in a time where certain loves were life threatening.

---

12 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Marlowe,Waddington,Swinton rule, 13 January 2000
Author: nealrappsis from Granite City, Illinois

I love Elizabethan drama. I had been on a Kenneth Branagh and William Shakespeare kick(and I guess I still am)when on a whim I bought this film based on the play of the same name by Shakespeare-contemporary Christopher Marlowe. I am very glad I did. Edward II(Steven Waddington of SLEEPY HOLLOW) ditches one icey, repressed Queen Isabella(Tilda Swinton) for another hot and uninhibited queen, gay lover Gaveston. But the romance is doomed when the nobility rises up with Isabella to end the affair. Director Derek Jarman's adaptation is one of those rare films that succeeds set in a time other than in its original setting. He moves the setting and action of the movie to the modern era, and this serves as a more timely backdrop for the movie's pro-gay stance, which seems to me to be its central theme. I really liked Steven Waddington, who was very, very good. And an unexpected surprise came from Tilda Swinton, an actress with whom I am not familiar but whose other work I'd like to see, based on the quality of her performance here. Strongly recommended!!!

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
14th Century Gay-Bashing á la Derek Jarmam, 8 February 2003
Author: (tim.halkin) from Munich, Germany

Definitely Derek Jarman's most refined film. That said, refined for Jarman is bizarre for most.

Based VERY loosely on Christopher Marlowe's play from 1592, however, should be view in its own light / right. Whereas it does tend to capture the wonderful Marlow language, this is no "Shakespeare" here! It's a brilliantly acted ensemble piece, set in Jarman's abstract vision of the world, with a core message that is as valid today as it must have been shocking then.

Jarman "paints" his film - as he always did - not in any logical manner or order, but like a mosaic of images, creating a whole and a statement - a strong statement about intolerance in this case.

This one might even be palatable for non-Jarman fans.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Edward II: "Come Gaveston, and share the kingdom with thy dearest friend", 19 January 2007

Author: Galina from Virginia, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Edward II" (1991) 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.

7.5/10

---

9 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Strange but interesting, 16 November 2000

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

POSSIBLE Spoilers AHEAD!!! Based on a Christopher Marlowe play, this is about a gay king and how his love for a commoner destroys him. It's a very odd film--there are very few people around (the budget was VERY low for this) and the sets all look very sparse and spare. Also director Derek Jarmans gayness comes roaring through (I'm gay too and I didn't mind!). This is probably one of the few R-rated films to include full frontal male nudity and include a passionate make-out scene between two nude men--not that I'm complaining! Still, I didn't totally like it. The dialogue kept throwing me--I had trouble understanding what was happening. Modernizing it a little more might have helped. And after Edwards' lover is killed, the film slows down and gets very repititious and boring. Still, it's worth seeing for excellent performances by the entire cast (Swinton especially), interesting costumes (Swinton has a different outfit in every scene!), getting members of the gay British version of Queer Nation (Outrage) in the film and it, visually, looks gorgeous. And the appearance of Annie Lenox is a definite highlight. So, if you can stand the archaic language this is worth watching.

---

14 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Needs an Objective Viewpoint, 17 October 2000

Author: Bologna King from Backwoods Canada

The story of Edward II is a story of obsession, of a man whose one-track mind causes him to lose his kingdom, his lover and his life. Marlowe's play (probably his most dramatic and certainly his least poetic) gives lots of scope for developing the problems raised by Edward's infatuation for the unscrupulous and self-seeking Gaveston: his inattention to affairs of state, his irresponsible spending, his granting of important positions to Gaveston who has no interest in actually fulfilling his duties and Gaveston's general contempt for church, nobility and everyone else.

Unfortunately director Jarman has arranged this production in such a way as to make us see Edward's story through Edward's eyes rather than those of an outside observer. The sets are mostly pueblo-style interiors, giving the impression that this is a middle-class household not the palace of a king. There are no extras, and the scenes are bare of people, again reinforcing the idea that this is a private rather than a public story. The nobles are treated as tourists who are out of place in the life of the king. Our attention is focussed constantly on the intimate relations between individuals: Edward and Gaveston, Edward and Isobel, Isobel and Mortimer.

Edward, whose whole life was dominated by his obsessive love for Gaveston (just count how many times he says "my Gaveston" in the play) saw his world in just this way: everything anyone did was measured against how it affected his romance, and everything he did was to further it. When Isobel abandons him, she loses her humanity and becomes in his eyes a grotesque vampire. Indeed one wonders how much of what we see as reality in the film is Edward's fantasies and imaginings as he becomes increasingly deranged.

An intriguing approach, perhaps, but the problem is that Edward's one-track mind makes for a one-track monochromatic presentation, and quite frankly it becomes so superficial as to be tedious after a bit. Without the depth provided by an objective viewpoint we lose interest.

Scenes of unnamed naked men making love or playing rugby without a ball must have been put in for the titillation of gay viewers. They added nothing to the story. On the other hand the love between Edward and Gaveston was sincerely and persuasively played, and a good thing too, because that's about all you get here.

Waddington's performance is splendid and gives a lot of life to what might otherwise have been a total yawn; it's worth the trouble of watching this just to see him. Tilda Swinton's performance is overrated; she delivers her best monologue as slowly and tonelessly as possible and it doesn't take long to start wondering when she's going to show some emotion.

---

2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Avoid This, 25 February 2008

Author: craplikethat from United Kingdom

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.

---

10 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
a troubled adaptation of a strange Elizabethan play, 22 December 2000

Author: endymion82 from San Francisco, CA

I've watched this movie at least half a dozen times while adapting and directing my own stage version of this brilliant, but somewhat long-winded and un-focused Marlowe play. That said (and my bias revealed), I have to admit that I don't care much for this film- though I do admit it has some strengths- namely the visual elements, which reflect the director's background as a painter (he knows how to frame and arrange a shot, and he picks beautiful lines and colors to illustrate his story). Tilda Swenton's performance is amazing (has she ever been bad?) and provides the emotional thrust of the movie- we believe she wants Edward so badly that she's willing to kill him so no one else will have him. Unfortuneately, Gaveston just comes off as a twisted psychotic and Waddington's performance as Edward renders the king weaker than Marlowe writes him, and yet devoid of the inner vulnerability that ultimately makes the King sympathetic- I never once believe they really love each other, let alone madly enough to topple a whole nation. But plot and character don't seem to be a priority of the film as much as statements about gay rights and strange, arty and really heavy-handed intrusions. Too bad, really. There's so much to be dug out of the script- and some of those gems DO appear in this film... but so many seem not only undiscovered, but lost in a lot of camp, confusion, violence and raw, un-erotic sex. Don't get me wrong- the film is worth seeing... I just hope that one day, I get to make a new interpretation.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history