Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) User Reviews (257)

The Virgin Queen Redux in an Odd Mix of Old-Fashioned Melodrama and Romance Novel

[EUyeshima · 6/10 · 5 March 2008]

There is something stubbornly old-fashioned about Shekhar Kapur's 2007 sequel to his 1998 art-house triumph, "Elizabeth". I don't mean the newer movie is a stodgy historical pageant. Far from it, all the production values are first-rate, including a relatively seamless use of CGI in the Spanish Armada sequence, but beyond all the pomp and circumstance, the mindset of the story is pure 1940's-era studio melodrama. Set in 1585, the film picks up the Queen's life a quarter century after the first film, and what follows in the strangely cautious screenplay by Michael Hirst and William Nicholson is a simplistic portrait of an aging, superstitious woman aware of her power but ironically at a loss to define her own fate. This period of her life is familiar from a number of previous films and miniseries, but this time, the psychological complexity behind such a fascinating historical figure has been downgraded in favor of romance novel plot turns and paper-thin character development.

The set-up is rich with possibilities only partially realized on screen. Protestant England is on its knees, as Roman Catholic Spain has become Europe's most powerful country. Now in her early fifties, Elizabeth is vulnerable since Phillip II of Spain is intent on conquering England and especially because she has not married and produced an heir. Next in line is her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, a devout Roman Catholic imprisoned in a castle in Northamptonshire. Elizabeth has proved to be a tolerant ruler as she allows her country's Roman Catholics to maintain their religious beliefs, even though they see Mary as the only rightful Queen. In the meantime, Sir Walter Raleigh has just returned from the New World and stimulated Elizabeth's passion for adventure and her long-dormant desire for romance. Complicating matters is Elizabeth's devoted lady-in-waiting, Bess, a comely beauty who attracts Raleigh's attention. Just as this standard triangle is established, there is a threat on Elizabeth's life known historically as the Babington Plot. Mary is beheaded for her connection to the plot, which gives Philip free rein to gain the Pope's approval to attack England. Elizabeth inspires her troops to face off with the much larger Spanish Armada, and the rest, as they say, is history.

It's no surprise that Cate Blanchett commands the screen in the title role and does her best to fill in the blanks left by the routine script. She manages to imbue the Queen with a hidden vulnerability at which comparatively imperious predecessors like Bette Davis and Glenda Jackson merely hint. The one drawback is that she is too young for the role, a point emphasized by the periodic and somewhat conceited use of flashbacks from the previous film in which her appearance has not changed significantly despite the make-up. Geoffrey Rush returns from the first film as Elizabeth's adviser, Sir Francis Walsingham, but he has less to do this time. As Raleigh, Clive Owen has no problem playing a dashing figure, but he seems more like a romantic's fabrication of what a bodice-ripping swashbuckler should be. Speaking with a strange burr, Samantha Morton has precious few scenes as the fanatical but forgiving Mary, and her pouty face and petulant manner seem at odds with previous characterizations. As Philip, Jordi Mollà is forced to play the king as a religious zealot, while Abbie Cornish's Bess strikes me as far too contemporary in manner to be credible as a lady-in-waiting, especially with the ongoing hints of lesbianism and a soft porn-like lovemaking scene with Raleigh.

Guy Dyas' production design, Alexandra Byrne's costumes and Remi Adefarasin's cinematography are all impressive in their splendor and meticulous detail, though I found the music by Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman far too intrusive. There are several extras with the 2008 DVD release starting with Kapur's commentary track, often insightful but excessively verbose. An eleven-minute making-of featurette is included, of course, but it is pretty standard with plenty of now-and-then comparisons with the 1998 film. Three other shorts are included – one on Dyas' intensive work on the production design, one on the recreation of the climactic battle with a mix of ship replicas and CGI, and one on the actual locations used for the filming. There are nine minutes of deleted and extended scenes including one that too-realistically shows Mary's decapitated head. None of these extras helps make the experience of watching this film any more involving.

Good Fun but Flawed History

[eastbergholt2002 · 8/10 · 16 October 2007]

Overall I enjoyed the movie. There have been too many recent films about the Tudors and Elizabeth in particular, but this film looks good and it keeps you entertained. It's set at the time of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Elizabeth is shown as tough, smart, and married to her country. She also suffers from bouts of insecurity and irrational jealousies. This film is more hagiographic and melodramatic than its predecessor.

The film tends to ignore the facts when they get in the way of the story. Elizabeth was 55 at the time of the Spanish Armada and she was never a looker. Blanchett's Queen is youngish and attractive. Blanchett's acting performance is powerful and impressive but also a bit stagy. The way the politics of the time are depicted is a bit too black and white. The Spanish look grim and are dressed in dark colors. They are portrayed as crazy, religious zealots. Spain had a right to be upset at English privateers / pirates who attacked their ships and stole their gold. Mary, Queen of Scots is shown as a dowdy, schemer who disliked Elizabeth. The reality was that Mary was a pretty bimbo who made bad choices when it came to men.

Parts of the film veer too much towards soap-opera. Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen)becomes a favorite, but when Bess Throckmorton, one of the Queen's ladies-in-waiting and Raleigh get secretly married, Elizabeth becomes jealous and behaves badly. Later, Raleigh and Francis Drake are shown defeating the Spanish at sea. In reality Raleigh was looking after the coastal defenses in the South West of England and didn't marry Throckmorton until 1591. The real Raleigh was a brilliant man: soldier, explorer, writer, poet and courtier and probably deserves his own film. The film is good fun but it's simplistic, cartoon history.

A Huge Opportunity for Greatness is Missed

[MistinParadise · 8/10 · 15 October 2007]

With a dream cast, a fascinating subject, and a budget larger than a pirate's booty, this film could have been great. But the chance is missed.

(Pros:) The cast is definitely the film's biggest asset. Cate Blanchett is incredibly brilliant even at times that the script fails to provide her with a worthy line. Her powerful performance is utterly captivating. Clive Owen's Walter Raleigh is as dashing as a man can be. As the man who charmed the Queen out of her heart and wits and dared to tell her not to act like a fool, Owen's Raleigh is daring at times, vulnerable at others, but always compelling and spectacular. Geoffrey Rush makes the best out of the very little that he's given to work with and Abbie Cornish and Samantha Morton are each great in their parts.

It's also worth a mention that the costumes and the locations are spectacular, paired with a few moments of good story-telling (only if those moments would last all through the film) they make a few absolutely extraordinary scenes. Another great characteristic of this film is it's subtlety, the emotions that are there yet not talked about, the wishes, feelings, disappointments, desires, and fears that are only hinted are the best parts of an otherwise disappointing story-telling.

(Cons:) Sloppy editing, campy scenes, and poor writing are what mostly hurts the film. Unfortunately the film's precious time is spent on side-stories that could have easily been discarded, and consequentially, not enough time is spent on the development of the main story. Everything that happens after Sir Walter meets Elizabeth seems forced. Vague at times, the film seems to be in rush to hit certain notes at certain times. Elizabeth meets Walter and a few lines later she's mad about him, so is Bess and so on. The audience is not given the chance to feel or take in what's really happening, not even enough time to get to know the characters let alone feel what they are going through. At times, it seemed as though many of the scenes were cut short in the editing room and had lost their essence in the process. (If that's the case, lets hope the DVD includes the director's cut.)

The film could have benefited from more climax and action (the battle is barely touched), (other than a few great scenes) most of the story is told through conversations in closed areas. More than anything, the writers leaned on poetic lines to deliver their story. Also, for all it's subtlety, the film takes sides so obviously that it hurts any chances it had at reaching some level of realism or fairness. For instance, not only Phillip of Spain is utterly evil, he's one ridiculous, petty, dim character.

Overall, the cast certainly makes the experience worthwhile, and as long as one does not expect absolute greatness or historical accuracy, this film can be great entertainment for most.

Cate Blanchett

[Kirpianuscus · 19 September 2017]

one of her magnificent performances. and a great story, wise script, superb cinematography and fascinating manner to give not exactly the perfect second part but a subtle, smart and seductive history lesson. because it is one of films who seems changing theories, information, doubts. and the basic motif is the impeccable performance of Cate Blanchett. and the inspiration of director to give one of films who do not gives explanations but only the reflection, in large mirror, of scenes from a reign defined by the force of nuances of vulnerability. the purpose, in this case, has not to build a magnificent monument. but to use a great cast, the traces of others adaptations, the flavor of a period, for a realistic drawing of an unique woman. the result - honestly, impressive.

Good costumer drama that takes a brilliant look at the turbulent life of famous Queen of England

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 23 March 2009]

This is a sweeping chronicle of 16th-century English Queen from his splendor years . She's the Protestant Elizabeth , she was a brilliant stateswoman who managed to restore England to power and glory amidst public and private confusion . As are splendidly recreated wars , loves , turmoil and fight power of its time , including her troublesome days and machinations surrounding . It's magnificently captured by marvelous sets , splendid production design and glamorous gowns . This elaborate , colorful costumer drama packs outstanding performances from Cate Blanchet as an impulsive queen , Clive Owen as a dashing and arrogant commandant , besides a top-notch support cast giving strong acting , as the charismatic Geoffrey Rush as Sir Francis Walsingham , Samantha Morton , Jordi Molla , Rhys Ifans, Abbie Cornish , among them . The fine cast does quite well in historic setting . This interesting historical drama contains a wonderful cinematography that adds color to the atmosphere by Remi Adefarasin who photographed the previous part titled ¨Elizabeth¨ . Evocative and imaginative musical score fitting to the past time by Craig Armstrong . The motion picture was lavishly produced by Michael Hirst (The Tudor) and finely directed by Shakar Kapur, an Indian director , costumer expert (Elizabeth , Four feathers).

The picture talks about Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) , she and Elizabeth were rivals for power in Tudor England . The heathen Protestant Elizabeth dreads the prospect of the Catholic Mary about her ascending the English throne, leading to intrigue and divisiveness within the court. Then Mary was imprisoned by Elizabeth , who rightly feared Catholic plots to place Mary on the throne. Mary was guilty of plots complicity and was condemned death warrant . The film especially describes relations between Spain ruled by Philip II (Jordi Molla) and England at the breaking point . Spectacular battle scenes between the British Navy commanded by Duke of Effiham and Raleigh and the Spanish commanded by Duke of Medina Sidonia , it lasted ten days , during July 1588 . At the climax William Raleigh leads the attack on the Armada ships massed off the British coast .

An Adult Popcorn Movie

[brenttraft · 7/10 · 12 October 2007]

Don't believe the poor reviews "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" has received.

While it may be true the film is not historically correct, most of us do not go to the movies for a history lesson. We go to be entertained. On that basis, this film is a winner. It has romance, intrigue and betrayal. It is basically a melodrama.

The photography is great, although sometimes the director gets carried away with the camera movements. The orchestral score in fine, although it is overwhelming at times. The acting is absolutely first rate.

I thought that "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" was more entertaining than any of the "Pirates of the Carribian" movies. If you want an entertaining movie that is geared more towards adults than children, then you should check the movie out.

Her Majesty!!!!!!!

[WriterDave · 6/10 · 10 February 2008]

It's really not so odd that director Shekhar Kapur would wait nine years and then craft a loud, bombastic sequel to his only claim to fame, the lavish period drama "Elizabeth" which rightfully launched the career of uber-actress Cate Blanchett, in an attempt to resurrect his own floundering career. It is rather odd that Blanchett, a consummate actress of incalculable range, seems to never turn down a script, including this dud of a sequel to the film that first allowed her to shine. The oddest thing, however, is that the completely uncalled for "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is actually quite entertaining and might've received higher praise had the intrusive music score not induced such a numbing headache.

Blanchett, of course, is terrific, and doesn't seem to mind that the screenwriters have turned her signature character into a woman with split personalities: a raving love-scorned woman in private who constantly crumbles under pressure, and a powerful monarch who commands the wind and becomes a divinity to her people in public. Elizabeth has no character arc here like she did in the original film that saw her mature from frightened princess to calculating queen. The sequel suffers from this lack of development for its titular historical icon, but Blanchett rules the madhouse with an iron fist, chewing the scenery when necessary for dramatic effect and maximum entertainment value.

The sequel also suffers from too much focus on a silly love triangle involving Elizabeth, Sir Walter Raleigh (an uninspired Clive Owen), and one of her ladies in waiting (a ravishingly gorgeous but ultimately lifeless Abbie Cornish). The rest of the film covers events that were already treated in a more respectful and quietly powerful manner in HBO's miniseries starring Helen Mirren. These include Elizabeth's divisive relationship with Mary Stuart (a blistering Samantha Morton doing an entertaining bit of over-acting), and the defeat of the Spanish Armada, whose sinking is done up in a rock opera style that serves as a guilty pleasure to watch.

Meanwhile, director Kapur, who never saw an overhead shot, candlelit scene, or 360 degree crane movement he didn't love, uses his bigger budget to ridiculously grand effect creating immaculate set designs populated with over the top costuming and epic pageantry. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is completely unnecessary, but despite some of its stunning ineptitude, it turns out not to be a colossal waste of time and will entertain those who will allow it to bludgeon them. Where the first film was a smart period piece inspired by "The Godfather", the silly sequel is a dumb art-house film inspired by obnoxious action flicks. Blanchett, who hopefully will become more selective in her roles as she ages, oddly seems at home in both. I'm not sure if that's the mark of a great actress or a desperate movie star.

Cate Blanchett shines in biographical drama; some fiction added to the events

[MartianOctocretr5 · 8/10 · 20 October 2007]

Cate Blanchett reprises her role as the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I, and is the film's greatest highlight. She exudes power, strength and influence in portraying the 16th century monarch. Her commanding presence on the screen really gives the majestic qualities that the real queen certainly had. At the same time, she gives us a personal glance inside the woman's heart, where she has suppressed from public view an inner vulnerability and melancholy. Elizabeth certainly endured many sorrows, and this portrayal gives us a glance inside the woman's who carried all this upon her shoulders, and is credited with raising England to prominent status on the world stage.

In addition to Blanchett, the supporting cast all turn in superior work. The sets, costuming, and period speech are all mastered well, creating a true feel for the era being depicted. Although many of the people and events are real, a few liberties have been taken apparently to spice up the drama. Such fictionalizing probably wasn't necessary; enough happened during this queen's rule to make the story interesting without it. One example: the flashy Sir Walter Raleigh was indeed a favorite of the queen, but this movie puts them in a romantic triangle that just gets in the way of other things going on. Also, Raleigh, better known as an explorer, was not the hero in the battle with the Spanish Armada.

Blanchett shines when she delivers the famous speech to the troops on the eve of the Spanish invasion. But even she is burdened by the director's preoccupation with Elizabeth as a suffering angst-filled woman facing middle-age with less bravery than facing the world's most powerful fleet at that time. We get endless views of her taking her wig off in secret, and staring at a mirror. The first time this device is used is fine to get the point across of her hopeless situation of never taking a husband (and the slow advance of time having its way), but we see her looking like a shriveled ghost in too many such scenes, and it's way overdone in this context. Her "real" hair sans the wig looks like an inebriated Edward Scissorhands was her hairdresser, and her pale complexion looks like somebody pasted white-out all over her face.

Those few mistakes notwithstanding, this is a fine biopic with superior acting by Blanchett, and is recommended.

A tale of obsession and infatuation - and that's just the director...

[rich-445 · 6/10 · 4 November 2007]

I am somewhat baffled by this movie.

On the face of it, this is an immensely powerful, beautifully shot and splendidly acted follow-up to the excellent 'Elizabeth', featuring a cast to die for, a top-notch script and a wardrobe of enormous expense.

Never mind that it 'plays fast and loose with history', or that it feels like a Tudor Braveheart - I can put up with such minor irritants for the sake of a good yarn.

Yet somewhere along the line, this movie becomes deeply unsatisfying. Perhaps even unsettling. If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say that the director has simply gotten carried away - he has immersed himself so much in the subject that the result is a work of obsession - and that always sits uncomfortably.

We are, therefore, treated to a movie that (hopefully) inadvertently proclaims that Protestants are good and god-favoured, whereas Catholics are a bad lot generally. That the English are a grand bunch of people, while the Spanish are vile and evil. That absolute monarchy and divine right are the only way to really run the town, so long as the monarch in question is virtuous, English and Protestant.

Of course, all of these things are fine and well for the story itself; the misfortune is that Kapur broadcasts these ideas through the film as his message to the audience.

It perhaps doesn't help that Philip of Spain is portrayed as a demented dancing dwarf with Tourette's Syndrome.

I'm going to watch this movie again at some point, but I have to say that it is, I think, a glorious Ozymandine failure.

Flawed, but actually one of the better follow up movies to anything I've seen

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 17 September 2009]

I absolutely loved the first film, and do think if it was released at a different year to Shakespeare in Love(though that is still a good film), it would've got the accolades it deserved. The Golden Age is definitely not as good as its predecessor, it is very loosely based on fact, and the direction wasn't always rock solid. However, there are a number of things that do fully compensate. The film did look absolutely exquisite, just like the first film did, with the breathtaking scenery, stunning photography and sumptuous costumes. Just look at the dresses Cate Blanchett wears in the film, they were just wondrous. The screenplay is quite extraordinarily crafted, and the performances were superb. Cate Blanchett, though Elizabeth does look a little more youthful than I expected her to be, was simply mesmerising in the title role, and Geoffrey Rush(an example of an actor who rarely disappoints in anything he's in) and Clive Owen both give rock solid performances. And the music was absolutely beautiful. The film was in conclusion to this review, just beautiful to watch, and save the flaws, is almost as good as the first film. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

The woman and the queen

[hapiores · 7/10 · 25 November 2007]

With a view clearly centered on the woman behind the figure of the queen, "Elizabeth" is a passionate portrait of the XVI century. The court, the costumes, the social hierarchy and procedures are thoroughly depicted showing both the richness and darkness of the time.

The queen (Cate Blanchett) is the main character, showed intimately, almost striped before our eyes. She starts as a monarch and with the pose one would expect from her. And yet soon we see that there is something more to that persona: the loneliness, the sense of duty with the lack of freedom it implies, the desire to love and simply be loved in return; to be loved by what she really his and only that.

As she lowers her defenses and allows Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), a charming pirate with news of a world she has never seen, to come close, we could almost say she was only a woman during that time; no title, no obligations, pure will to be what she feels like. However the intrigue around the crown rushes in, the plot thickens, and the woman is set aside, giving room for the queen. It is after this, when it comes to the end of the movie, that something changes. Our intimate view of her character is lost and instead there seem's to be a little twist, as the overall feeling of the movie changes to that of an epic. In the final shots there's almost a deification of her and it's hard to believe it. And most of all it's less interesting because the woman behind the "queen" is more captivating than the idea of the "queen".

A fairy tale about the "Faerie Queene"? I love it!

[janyeap · 9/10 · 10 October 2007]

Another Elizabeth I film? Why not? The Elizabethan Era's, indeed, a fascinating periods in English history - an era when England was relatively well off compared to other nations – even if its wealth was unevenly distributed!

Director Kapur interestingly puts dramatic and chilling appeal and emphasis on Elizabeth's Golden Age to reveal her personality and struggles to keep her throne and save her country from falling into the hands of conspirators and invaders. Does he give his audience any insight into the Golden Age when English Literature, poetry, music, theater, architecture, scientific and technological advancement, and exploration expansion flourished? Nope. His film does offer some interesting hints that women did enjoy the freedom of movement (ah ha, even a queen's closest and dearest lady-in-waiting could play cuckold to her mistress' favorite man!) and that competing interests and ambitions of colonial powers made it easy for ambitious sailors to legalize acts of piracy! Serious crimes could well resort in severe tortures. Director Kapur does stress that she was the "peoples" queen!

The story continues from where Cate Blanchett's young, flighty, and reckless Elizabeth made her finale masculine-like entrance in the prequel, "Elizabeth", as the Virgin Queen with her face heavily laced with the 'white-as-milke' make-up - an image of a queen ready to lead her citizens.

At a deliberate slow pacing, the introduction with its scenes, characters and their dialog prepare the audience to receive Elizabeth as the Queen with a more focused, more rigid personality, in charge of hers and her country's destinies. Yep, a woman with ready suitors, but offering a sense that she is wedded to her Empire! She seems very philosophical in her ideals and yet we see her court filled with sorts of political characters. Elizabeth, then, is seen with roving eyes, easily distracted by the presence of attractive men. Indeed, it's a crafty way to introduce Elizabeth before Director Kapur plunges his audience into a compelling tale of treachery, assassination attempts and romance that affects the Virgin Queen during her reign.

The film carries a mix of intriguing historical facts, legends and myths in ways that one can only expect history teachers of English public schools to apply to make their lessons interesting, or hear from gossipy English peers, from history classes, wanting to impress their friends with stranger-than-fiction tidbits and hearsay of those times. This film does promise a refreshing tale to grasp! There are those tongue-in-cheek whims and antics that mischievously provoke thoughts of the political and religious changing tides of modern times. Director Kapur has certainly avoided the creation of a history epic, based on dull, dry substance!

Blanchett is magnificent in her strange, enigmatic and multi-dimensional character, constantly faced with the challenges of her foes plotting and counter-plotting to take her down at her Court, in her government, and, from foreign lands. She's seen as almost as a brutal ruler at times and on her consistent guard in her determination to hold on to her throne, alternating between her seemingly vicious whims, her heroism and tangled romantic emotions! Yet, she comes off gracefully as a person who has the heart to forgive. Oh yes, there's also that scene that prompts me to think of Joan of Arc! It's not hard to want to cheer for the Queen in her determination to fight against the religious intolerance, barbarism and fundamentalism of the Spanish Inquisition. Spain was a very powerful Catholic foe and the Church did try to destroy this Protestant Queen and to restore England back to Catholism!

The battle in the calm-to-storm scene is exhilarating to watch. We also witness her struggles in her attempt to balance her duties to her country and her vulnerability to infatuation and tempestuous relationship. Clive Owens superbly handles his role as the dashing Walter Raleigh – indeed, one of the most colorful and controversial character of the times and of whom English history has spun numerous tales about. This film also charts Raleigh's colonizing dreams, his involvement in a love triangle, his sweeping in and out of the Queen's favor and his immense dislike for Catholics - that did historically determine his fate beyond this film's exposure. Geoffrey Rush returns as the loyal and polished spy master, Sir Walsingham and historically seen as the man who attracted conspiracy theories. Hhhmh, was he responsible for the birth of modern espionage? He's truly fascinating to watch. This film has a great stellar cast of actors who don't disappoint. There's so much on-screen chemistry oozing out between characters in this film. Oh yes, the villains are so agitating and annoying to the core.

The background music soundtracks come across as dramatically bold and nail-biting, poignant at times, and emotionally mystifying at others- appropriately matching the many guises, moods and whims of the Virgin Queen – the cold and strong and always majestic personality vs .her sentimentally vulnerable images - and also effectively reinforce the moments of gripping horrors of the events witnessed or felt. The sounds do have an interesting mix. Some of the scenes really deliver visual cinematic effects that remind me of the paintings of the period. The somber settings work beautifully to support and give intensity to the horrifying scenes and moments. Just love the way the sets and backgrounds are crafted to avoid overshadowing the characters. Oh yes, I love the color schemes presented in this movie to bring credibility to the scenes! The naval battle and Sir Walters' underwater escapade are so fabulously and stunningly crafted - without going over-the-board with extreme flashy special effects and colors to highlight the events.

I was captivated from beginning to end. Oh yes, this film does entertain, sending me on a delightfully exciting spell-bound journey in my attempt to separate legend and myths from historical facts. Oh yes, this film will make English history fun to browse all over again. Yep, I was absolutely entertained!!!

Entertaining, pompous, inaccurate

[Superunknovvn · 6/10 · 3 December 2007]

For a movie set in the 16th century I really didn't expect "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" to be so entertaining and fast-paced. Having not seen the first part, I was a bit worried that I wouldn't be able to follow the plot, but thankfully the movie pretty much stands on his own (which is probably why producers chose not to call it "Elizabeth I. II" or maybe "Elizabeth 1.2"... just kidding).

So, yes, it's an entertaining movie, but in the third act it becomes incredibly pompous. The imagery is very theatrical all the way through, but at the end director Shekhar Kapur just takes it one step too far. There are epic battles at sea with horses jumping into the water, thunderstorms and so on and so forth. Even though, I'm not an historian, I'm pretty sure most events aren't portrayed authentically. At least I can't imagine that all Spanish people back then were gay-ish psychopaths.

Well, yeah, big surprise: as a historical document this movie doesn't really serve well. It's popcorn cinema. Nothing more, nothing less. I heard part 1 was different. If it's true, then the sequel is a step down.

Flashy, disappointing sequel

[Hancock_the_Superb · 5/10 · 22 December 2007]

It is now 1588, and Queen Elizabeth I (Cate Blanchett) is no longer the fragile, naive young princess of England, but an accomplished monarch with a knack for public relations. England's empire is growing, and Elizabeth develops an attraction towards explorer Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). But soon war looms as Spain's King Phillip II (Jordan Molla) threatens to invade England, and a cabal of Catholics led by the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) plots against the Queen's life. With the aid of Raleigh and aging spy-master Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), Elizabeth confronts these foes and earns her place in history.

Shekhar Kapur's "Elizabeth" was a visually stunning, brilliantly acted, and extremely compelling film which depicted a young Princess forced by circumstances into one of the most delicate situations imaginable. The movie was gorgeous to behold in its art direction, cinematography and costumes, but also had an intriguing story and a very strong cast, headed by the brilliant Cate Blanchett. "Elizabeth: the Golden Age" has a lot to live up to, but surely the history behind the film would ensure an entertaining sequel about one of the history's most compelling individuals.

Unfortunately, 'twas not to be. "The Golden Age" is a very weak, disappointing sequel to a great film. The story plods, the characters become two-dimensional, and the impressive cinematography and visuals bog down rather than enhance the film. With all of the intriguing aspects of Elizabeth's reign, and the fact that director and star were back from the original, it's doubly disappointing.

Where shall we begin our criticism? The story, which is all over the place. The original film has a multi-faceted plot, but all of the characters and actions tie together with consummate skill. Here, the various intrigues and plots are introduced incrementally; we don't even know who the English Catholics are until well into the film, and their relation to the plot, despite a lengthy introductory scene. "Golden Age"'s various subplots cease to be layered and interesting and simply become a great big muddle.

Another huge criticism of the film is its characterization of historical personages, notably the Spanish. Elizabeth's portrayal is spot-on, but otherwise? King Phillip in particular is a hateful stereotype; most of his dialog is pronouncing Elizabeth as evil, even saying at one point "Elizabeth is the darkness, I am the light." He might as well twirl his mustache and laugh maniacally a la Snidley Whiplash. Mary Queen of Scots is the only villain who comes across as remotely human, and even she is hurt by very little screen time. The film makes very little of Mary herself, relegating her and the other supporting characters to the background, choosing to focus on a ridiculously overwrought, historically-improbable love triangle between Elizabeth, Raleigh, and Elizabeth's servant (Abbie Cornish).

All this might have been forgivable if the movie had delivered on its promise of a rip-roaring climax. Throughout the film's length we are impressed upon of the Spanish Armada's vast size and perceived invincibility. We see epic CGI shots of the fleet setting sail. We hear Elizabeth's ministers portentously pronouncing the Spanish as unstoppable. We get Elizabeth's rousing speech to the troops in full battle armor. And the payoff for all this build-up is... nothing. A few brief CGI shots of ships in battle, and an oh-so-fancy shot of a single horse swimming through the wreckage of a sinking Spanish ship. Pathetic, and unforgivable. I wasn't expecting a Rambo film but I was expecting a scene that made all of the dread mutterings of the past two and a half hours worthwhile.

The movie is as visually splendid as any you'd care to name. The use of imaginative lighting, costumes, and art direction is simply a site to behold. The film reaches its high point during an abortive attempt on the Queen's life, when her would-be assassin pronounces her a "whore" - followed by a shot of Elizabeth, dressed in white with immaculate sunlight streaming down around her. This scene is absolutely stunning, but it is also indicative of the film's basic problem. All of the interest is in the visuals and costumes, and there is no real substance to them.

The movie has one major redeeming factor, and that's Cate Blanchett. Blanchett is a brilliant Elizabeth, showing her to be a great leader, but also a desperately lonely woman whose best asset is her PR abilities. The supporting cast is woefully under-used, particularly Geoffrey Rush. In the original, Rush's Walsingham was an intriguing, slippery character. In this film, his contribution is to sit in the background and mumble a portentous line every once in awhile. The rest of the cast, except Samantha Morton, is unexceptional, through no fault of their own.

"Elizabeth: the Golden Age" should have been a great follow-up to a great film. With a talented director, an amazing lead performance, and one of the most compelling chapters in history, "Golden Age" should have been something special. Unfortunately, it is nothing more than a big, shiny, leaden disappointment.

5/10

Ambitious period film.

[Blueghost · 16 October 2007]

I hadn't heard too much about this film, but had seen the posters for it, so I gave it a shot. And after leaving the theatre I really wasn't sure what to say about it.

There's a lot of good stuff in this film, but there're some pitfalls as well. On the plus side the sets and costumes are magnificent. A great deal of care and love when into the art direction to bring us an Elizabethan renaissance film, replete with court intrigue and foreign emissaries who threaten invasion because of high seas thievery courtesy Clive Owen's character. Visually this film is very lush and impressive, though somewhat confining at times. We're never really shown Elizabethan England, just the "important parts" that are salient to the story.

And, as Elizabeth's favorite playwright would say, "there's the rub". And by this I mean that the film is a bit all over the place. It's a costume drama, it's a romance, it's a period political thriller, it's a military epic, and so forth. It even skids the fantasy genre with some of the fancy camera work that was done. But, all in all, the film's primary thrust is to try and grab hold of all of these genres, and tie them together into some kind of cohesive and suscint manner.

The romance, the intrigue, the sisterly emotions, the rivalry between matriarchs, and the "battle scene" hearken back to a time when Hollywood used to crank out these kinds of movies with some regularity. But the context between those films and "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" are nearly day and night, even though both are striving for a high water mark in historical drama.

I thought "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" was technically a competent production. In fact, given the difficulties there must have been getting some of the shots I'll give it high marks as a pure production effort. But as a film I simply found it to be a touch too ambitious, and over-indulgent near the end.

That's not to say that I didn't enjoy a lot of the film, because I did. Blanchet's Elizabeth is a strong woman; full of zest, energy, and a bit of anger, which she levels at her adversaries. But she's also a chief of state, internationalist, and, of course, the queen of England. She doesn't wear several hats. She wears a crown. But even so, and this is where the film falls a bit short, she doesn't demonstrate a cohesive ability to command all. She shows she's in charge, but doesn't act like she's in charge until near the end.

The film was geared and aimed at a female audience (a thing which I had not expected), and so a lot of the energy is directed at that audience, with the appropriate emotional flourishes. Combined with some so-so CGI for the action sequences (and a horse with a perm which almost had me laughing), one wonders where the film was headed. Elizabeth didn't save England with her emotional power alone, and yet this is the gist of the film. It's a real let down in this regard.

The film is a mixed blessing. There's a lot of decent acting, and some exceptional performances by the leads. Married to a rather extravagant art director to bring to life palace, throne room, chambers, and galleons at sea, and one can easily see that this was meant to be a top notch production. But some of the logical loopholes where Blanchet's character is concerned conspire with some of the story loopholes to hold back a better film.

As a guy all I can say is that it's not something I'd watch again, and I'm not too sure I'd recommend it to any female audiences. But, if you don't mind your period dramas skirting the edge of high kamp, then splurge on a ticket, and see what "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is all about.

Nicely entertaining movie... but..

[mthurau · 6/10 · 30 December 2007]

Great performances by Blanchet for sure and also a entertaining contribution by Owen and clear a wonderful description of that part of the Queen's life with all her sorrows and problems she faces, trying to rule the country at best. But first shocking phrase by the Queen when she said "Turkey has a sultan" ... err... since when does Turkey exists again? Maybe Mr Kapur should read his history books again about the great Ottoman empire. At the end of the story when the Queen wants to bless the new born baby we see a nice round globe behind her with the exact world map on it.. is that not a product of the 20th century? At that time the great explorers (Magellan / V. De Gama) were still busy discovering the world and drawing maps. That piece does not belong there. Overall an entertaining piece and a great acting by the main actors but don't see with it an 'educational' eye...

Not touched

[ruud-35 · 6/10 · 7 January 2008]

Sometimes you watch an movie, you see brilliant actors, an Oscar winning role maybe for Cate Blanchett, but you are not emotionally involved when you leave the cinema. Tonight I went to Elisabeth, The golden Age, a beautifully produced film, with fantastic actors and i was not disappointed when we left the cinema but also not overwhelmed. In fact we went to a bar and i asked my friend, can you tell me what you really liked about this movie. There was only silence between us. Not a bad movie, don't misunderstand me, but just not a movie which will be remembered for a long time. Anyway is suppose the film will be loaded with Oscars, if Miss Blanchette doesn't get one, than the costumes will definitely win the Oscars. Stunning costumes.. but that is not enough..

Entertaining, But Not Historically Accurate

[eric262003 · 6/10 · 23 November 2015]

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" tells the tale of veteran ruler Elizabeth I (Cate Blanchett) at the fear of being overthrown by the powerful King of Spain Philip II (Jordi Molla) as he's on a crusade to declare full Catholic dominance in Europe in hopes that his young daughter becomes the new Queen of England. Meanwhile the scheming Mary Queen of the Scots (Samantha Morton) has plans of her own to dethrone Elizabeth by throwing her into her prison. When Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) returns from England after spending years in the New World, Elizabeth becomes enthralled by his presence as well as her lady in waiting Bess (Abbie Cornish). Chief Adviser Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) continues to negotiate with the court affairs as he listens in on Mary's evil plots. Mary's demise was the perfect foil for Philip to release the infamous Spanish Armada in hopes to overthrow Elizabeth as the Queen of England.

"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too; and think foul scorn that ... Spain, or any prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and reward of every one of your virtues in the field." This was the words of encouragement Her Majesty as she gathers her troops in Tilbury to take down the Spanish Armada in 1588. This "Golden Speech" is one of the most quotable words in British history that's up there with the many that was said by Shakespeare and Churchill and that neither Hollywood can ever botch or paraphrase those famous words. No matter how hard they try.

In 1998, I had the chance to see 1998's "Elizabeth" directed by Shekhar Kapur and my reaction was that is was incredibly stunning, but I had some issues with the pacing and I didn't really like Joseph Fiennes. In spite of those shortcoming it had plenty of Academy Awards nominations and other accolades to its credits. Nine years after that, they made the much anticipated sequel which is emphasizing on Elizabeth I and her relationship with Raleigh and the Religion Wars with Spain. From my knowledge I read that the Spanish couldn't get through because the English bays were not overly deep enough and the usages of fire ships and were also problematic. Strange as it seems, but Britain has been spared many times thanks to the waters surrounding the little country. Even their biggest ships were overturned due to excess stacking and abysmal weather conditions.

As for the film itself the costumes were quite gorgeous, but the historical inaccuracies were way overwhelming. Whether it's the fictionalized homicidal attempt by gunpoint, or the uses of historical locations, the undermining of Sir Walter Raleigh and the condemning of the Roman Catholic Church, the misconceptions in the motives of Mary Stuart and the Spanish as a whole, the falsifying will likely scratch the heads of any historical fanatic.

On the entertaining level, it is quite satisfying and will keep you on the edge of your seat, but the Spanish Armada is overwrought with a tedious montage sequence proceeded by an unorthodox shot of Elizabeth standing in a hallway. The entertainment value is pretty good and should leave a positive impression to the open public (not as good the first installment), however is there another reason why we should see another retelling of Elizabeth's life? I mean she's making more screen appearances than Abe Lincoln who seems to be in everything.

One of the things that underwhelmed me about this movie was the lack of a grandeur epic moment. This sequel should've been flooded with highlights to usurp the predecessor, but with the exception of the Armada, this film was watered down badly. I guess the scene that caught my eyes was the one involving Philip II of Spain. Not because of the green hue or his personality as a cowering religious radical, but the peculiar ways the shots were handled. Which also includes the rather obscene dance scenes ever shot on film. Acting wise the supporting cast seemed underdeveloped, but Blanchett shows her true dominance as a leading performer.

Even though this movie was very flawed, historically inaccurate and not overpowering in its delivery, this sequel is still strongly entertaining to watch if you like costume dramas, but if you want historical accuracy, it would better if you just read about in textbook.

Cate Blanchett is the definitive Elizabeth, and she proved it in the first film

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 15 March 2009]

"Elizabeth," the first film, was about a young woman coming to the throne in a period of great turmoil, and how she dealt with that… It was love in the context of power, betrayal, and survival…

In "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," we're dealing with the most famous aspects of her regime, the Spanish Armada, the Babington Plot, which was a major plot against her, and Walter Raleigh bringing back the very early understanding of the New World, and the horizons beyond Britain… It is the exploration of unrestricted power…

Elizabeth, as cultured and as intelligent and eloquent as she was, had never left the shores of England… And into her court, strides an explorer who has literally been where the maps end… The gallant Raleigh (Clive Owen) was a free spirit who thrills the queen with his tales and discoveries at sea … The classic 16th-century adventurer who doesn't play by any official rules, and he does bring into the world of the court something very alluring, enigmatic and charismatic, which has a big impact on the queen…

The relationship between Raleigh and Elizabeth was very complicated… There were things holding Elizabeth back… "We mortals have many weaknesses; we feel too much, hurt too much or too soon we die, but we do have the chance of love." These words were spoken by Sir Walter Raleigh to the Virgin Quenn…It's very rare that the Queen takes interest in a man, and she does…

At this special point, England was very weak militarily… Elizabeth had discharged the navy… And once again it was the old problem of religious instability, which harasses the human race frequently…

Anybody that's interested in this period of history will find it fascinating just how capable Elizabeth was in regards to how she dealt with the captive Queen of Scots…

Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) had great respect for the Protestant Elizabeth, and was remarkably intrigued by her, and desperate to meet her, and fascinated… For several years Elizabeth suffered about her execution because she really believed two things… She believed that any queen was divine… She accepted as true that her Catholic cousin was there by the will of God, and therefore, Mary was there by the will of God… And in executing Mary, she would disintegrate her one belief that she herself was divine…

Mary found it in death… Elizabeth had to find it in life… So if you look at the Armada, Elizabeth finally does become divine, and that's why we had to admire how the scene of the Armada is shot, by Shekhar Kapur, in that way… It's not actually a fiery sea battle between two countries… It's a 'Holy War' with Spain… Therefore, the defining moments of the Armada is when Elizabeth walks up across the verdant cliffs in flowing white nightgown… She's no longer the Avenging Queen… She's instead a supernatural being, a disembodied soul defeating the enemy, dominating the fearless of the waves, the force of the storm, and the strength of fire…

Dripping with intrigues, plots, battles, mysteries, and strong emotions, the film captured the ecclesiastical spaces of the cathedrals to look more like a palace environment… It also captured the feel of the16th century architecture, linking and matching it to the proper locations

Lacklustre

[daniakay · 6/10 · 8 November 2007]

As a huge fan of the first film, I was very disappointed with the outcome of the Golden Age. Even though I cannot deny the fantastic performances from most of the cast, I thought that the script was terrible. Remedial remarks about relationships and men...it felt like a 16th century chick flick. Even though I do enjoy chick flicks,I personally feel that the film should not have been portrayed in this way.

There was absolutely no chemistry between Abbie Cornish and Clive Owen; whether this was intentional I do not know. This is in addition to the unbelievable relationship between the Queen and Bess. I just didn't feel any bond between them what so ever!

Great costumes, cinematography etc...it's just the storyline that lets it down. Perhaps it is because the first one was such a masterpiece that it set an unreachable standard. All in all a 6/10....but Clive Owen made it all worthwhile!!!

Cate Blanchett is wonderful

[PWNYCNY · 10/10 · 12 October 2007]

This movie approaches the brink of becoming another corny, hokey Hollywood travesty but recovers to become an incredibly powerful and unique portrayal of Elizabeth I and her closest advisers and the political situation in Western Europe in the late 16th century. Cate Blanchett offers a masterful, powerful and provocative portrayal of the Virgin Queen which unlike most Hollywood portrayals of historical personages does not devolve into a laughable caricature. Elizabeth has feelings too and cares about ALL of her people, not just those who are of her religious persuasion. Also, the movie offers a credible portrayal of Elizabeth's relationship with her cousin Mary as well as a credible and comprehensible explanation of King Philip's decision to go to war against England. Whether Spain in 1585 was the most powerful country in the world as the movie purports is a matter for debate but the fact that there was a time in history when Spain actually wanted to invade England is amazing and is a story in itself. This movie is worth watching.

Historical? No. A nice fairy-tale.

[latinese · 6/10 · 15 March 2008]

As a fairy tale with the good queen who defeats the black hats, it's quite nice. Let's add that Blanchett is a wonderful actress, and one would like to see her in something more serious.

Not that you get bored while seeing the film. And if you're totally ignorant of English history, you won't be annoyed by the many inaccuracies and lies.

The film is obviously victim of political correctness. Since Elizabeth is a woman who managed to stay free in that age of male domination, she must be good. Well, historian says she was tough, she was ruthless, and she knew politics... but she was quite different from the protagonist of this fairy tale.

Then, the producers of the film are trying to sell British people the idea that the British empire was founded by a progressive and open-minded queen. Not at all. The real founder was one who is totally out of fashion today, a blood-thirsty white male protestant Anglo-Saxon bastard called Oliver Cromwell, who is totally politically incorrect, but actually did the job. And Elizabeth was not such a progressive woman.

However, as I have already said, it's a nice fairy tale, the costumes are very good, Blanchett is special... and the 1588 battle in the Channel is not bad, though it's mostly computer graphics and it shows--looks a bit like a video game.

Majestic Storytelling

[aharmas · 10/10 · 1 October 2007]

Most of the time it's the casting that makes a film and keeps us coming back for more. This is the case for "The Golden Age", the sequel to "Elizabeth", a film that turned Cate Blanchett into a star, introducing her considerable talents to the masses. In "The Golden Age", Blanchett is given more screen time and the opportunity to show the range she is capable of, giving us a portrayal that is complex, rich, exquisite, and ultimately glorious.

As a matter of fact, it's hard to imagine anyone else, having the power this actress is capable of showing on screen. She carries the film, and it's her ability to interact with such varied characters that gives the film its strength. It all depends on the chemistry between her and the talented actors that support her, particularly, Clive Owen's rogue pirate.

"The Golden Age" depicts another critical moment in the life of the Virgin Queen, as she must find the strength in herself to gather the support and strength she needs to save England from a brutal military attack by the Spanish Armada, the most powerful navy at the time. Elizabeth must deal with family issues, ethical issues, sentimental turmoil, another self-confidence crisis, and much more intrigue and attacks from both the Spaniards and their supporters on both sides of the ocean.

There are scenes in this film that will be remembered as perfect examples of what cinema can achieve, as the camera frames key characters during critical times in the story... Most impressive are all the scenes in which Cate participates, as she is able to show the amazing nature of a woman who endured much criticism and political turmoil and eventually transformed herself and her nation into one of the most powerful empires in the world.

There are interesting analogies in the film, particularly as Elizabeth adopts one life over another and allows her spirit to soar, vanquishing any negative impulses and nurture the surrogate child that her country becomes. According to the film, she finds herself incapable of finding an equal mate because of special circumstances, and then she rediscovers the strength that she has always possessed and turns into the leader everyone will respect, follow, and somehow adore.

"The Golden Age" is a very handsome film, with superb production, and some spectacular costumes, exquisitely worn by Ms. Blanchett. It's definitely on its way to becoming a classic, a proud example of what some might call an intimate epic.

Money makes the world go round..........

[kh-40 · 6/10 · 28 September 2007]

I went to the crew screening. SPOILERS.

I don't do this but I was very disappointed with this film and felt I had to get some things off my chest. It's an assumption but whole film has seemingly suffered from the big budget that has been pumped into this. The producers have obviously taken more control and in doing so have demanded a more mainstream picture for returns. I say this because all the conspiracies and intrigue that made the first film so great are now replaced with a very predictable love triangle plot. It is predictable to the point I was left bored during the majority of the film. Only the scenes with Mary were engaging. Samantha Morton is superb in this but is sadly neglected with very little screen time. It was again for the mainstream that the film ignored the fact that Mary was bought up in France and would've had a French accent but maybe this would be a tad confusing for the majority so here she speaks in broad scots. Sir Walter Raleigh is all that is wrong in this film. Looking perfect throughout to the point of camp he is the focus of this film. The worst moment being during the Armada battle sequence where he single handedly steers a fire ship in a Spainish ship hanging from the bow in a scene not dissimilar from Leo in 'Titanic'. It is so clichéd people were laughing. Elizabeth is too pretty in the film. Apparently Cate refused to shave her hairline which would've made her look more in period which is disappointing considering Samantha went for it. the severe look achieved at the end of the first is forgotten about. She was tough, divine and now she is portrayed like a giggling schoolgirl who can't get laid.

I feel disappointed films are becoming increasingly controlled by accountants rather than creatives. This film is a prime example of this.

Could be better

[Samwise77 · 5/10 · 2 January 2008]

Well, the story is interesting and Cate Blanchett play her role very good, but the story is stretched and at the end when Spain attacks with its armada is quickly finishes end the attack scene is really short.

They could have made this a spectacular movie, nice story, great costumes. But after the first 45 minutes it get boring and you ask yourself why. Then towards the end i hoped to see a great battle at sea, but it didn't happen.

The movie is watchable but don't expect too much.

It might be wiser to rent this one on DVD instead of going to the movies.