In 1998'sElizabeth, Shekhar Kapur added a layer of suds to his history lesson; the director follows the same audience-pleasing recipe inElizabeth: The Golden Age. Since the first film, Blanchett scored an Oscar for her note-perfect rendition of Katharine Hepburn inThe Aviator, and she plays the preternaturally bemused monarch in a similar fashion. By 1585, Elizabeth I is an experienced ruler about to face two of her biggest challenges: betrayal by her Catholic cousin, Mary Stuart (Control'sSamantha Morton), and invasion by the Spanish Armada. It isn't so much that the Protestant Elizabeth wishes to rid England of "papists," but that she wants her country to remain free from foreign domination. Closer to her home, she enjoys a sisterly relationship with lady-in-waiting Bess (rising Aussie star Abbie Cornish). That changes when Sir Walter Raleigh (a dashing Clive Owen) hits the scene. In order to continue exploring the New World, he seeks the queen’s sponsorship. She is charmed, but Raleigh only has eyes for Bess. As in the previous picture, Elizabeth enjoys better luck at affairs of state than affairs of the heart, but the conclusion is more beatific than before (and Kapur intends a third installment if Blanchett is willing).Elizabeth: The Golden Ageis a rush of royal intrigue, bloody torture, fantastic headpieces, and irresistibly ripe dialogue, like "I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!" To Kapur, victory for the Virgin Queen was a viable alternative to sex. --Kathleen C. Fennessy
BeyondElizabeth– The Golden Ageon DVD
More from Cate Blanchett
British Royalty on DVD
More Drama from Universal Studios
Stills fromElizabeth– The Golden Age(click for larger image)
Thirty Years Later Elizabeth is back and she is... well... 55... You wouldn't tell from the movie, would you? Bearing in mind that average life expectancy was below 30 in her times, she was positively ancient... Well, you shouldn't be able to tell her age and generally too much knowledge of history will spoil the fun. When the movie started I decided to follow Coleridge's advice to "suspend my disbelief" and enjoyed it OK. You don't get a lesson in history here (a very general but shouldn't you have known before about the Armada?) you get a picturesque vision of history and as such it works. Some twists made me smile. I found it quite amusing that all Roman Catholics look ugly and their behaviour is rather irrational. A comment to the ending - Elisabeth left England in debts (although not bankrupt as Philip did) and the quoted "age of prosperity" led directly to the Civil War half a century later. Show it to your children - if it makes them interested in history, it's for the best. If they can remember only the date 1588 after the movie it's a sufficient reason to spend an evening together.
Looks like 'the Tudors' HBO/BBC series This is a glossy sham - little historical accuracy or plot - all the focus is on a unsubstanciated romance between Queen Elizabeth&Walter Raleigh .
Why couldn't we see more about the Armada itself&what happened to Spain&Britain as a result . This was pivotal to both nations&indeed the future establishment of the US as an english speaking colony not a spanish or french or dutch colony . England bacame THE world seapower after this&spain fell in to long term decline - Spain's empire included most of Europe plus most of South&Central America .
Go on somebody - make us a real film about the Armanda plus Walter's adventures in Virginia etc .So very disappointing in every way I won't write 1,000+ words ranting or raving on about this film, but I will put in a few remarks without simply listing out a detailed summary of the film. A little background, I saw the original Elizabeth in 1998 when I was in high school and loved it; it's still one of my favorite movies of all time. I am a history buff in the strictest sense, I have a bachelors and masters in history and am now working on a PhD in British history in the UK, but I still love good movies. The first Elizabeth film admittedly had its flaws, but in the end it generally got across an accurate enough story. When I heard a sequel was being made, I was so excited. And then I saw this crap... Kapur said that he wanted this movie to be different from the first, as if he was making a totally different film, and boy did he succeed, but probably not in the way he intended. First of all, the characters were cardboard stereotypes and poorly written, directed and even acted. Don't get me wrong, I love Cate Blanchett, she's one of my favorites of all time, but in her defense, you can only do so much with what you are given. This Elizabeth is a one-dimensional, zombie of a spinster who the movie makers try so obviously and painfully to spell out for the audience that she isn't a woman that they want people to identify with, in fact they try in every way they can to set her apart as being as obviously abnormal as they can. For the whole movie she speaks in the same, old, monotone, voice, just like some kind of robot. It's painful to see such a great actress having to stunt all of her talent to force out such a stilted and shoddily developed character. The sloppy, sloppy attempt to show Elizabeth as having a possibly sexual relationship with Bess was just ridiculous and so poorly done that it ended up being insulting to the intelligence of the audience and even more so to the GLBT community by being so terribly written and performed. Equally as insulting was the depiction of Philip II. Was it really necessary to depict the Spanish Armada as losing their battle because they didn't notice approaching English fire ships because they were so feverishly involved in what was depicted as cultish prayer? Give the Spanish a little more credit than that, and give the English a little more credit at being able to defeat their enemies for reasons beyond their inability to observe approaching enemies... And one last thing, the one thing that I as an historian was picky about and was looking for going into the theater: showing Mary Queen of Scots as having a thick Scottish brogue? Seriously? Anyone who knows anything more about Mary than the pulp fiction legends and myths of the woman know that she grew up in France. It was an immediate signal to me that this film was going on sham research and would be pandering to an audience who they felt wouldn't notice or perhaps even care that they weren't just taking artistic liberties with histories but were turning it into a poorly written soap opera that wouldn't even be up to the level of quality one would expect on daytime TV. I only wish I could erase the memories of this movie from my mind and only remember the first Elizabeth film. If you want to see a well-done portrayal of the later years of the life of Elizabeth I which is up to the level of that first film, I would suggest that you instead watch 'Elizabeth I' with Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons.
