Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Elizabeth: The Golden Age - 2/11/2007 11:06:25 AM

Empire Admin

Posts: 26334
Joined: 29/6/2005

Post your comments on this article

Post #: 1

Really Good. - 2/11/2007 5:05:26 PM

joanna likes films

Posts: 987
Joined: 27/10/2007
From: Bexhill

I've just seen it and I enjoyed every moment of it. It's stunning, beatiful to look at and the acting was top notch. Cate Blanchett was brillant, she plays Elizabeth with pain, passion and bravely. Geoffrey Rush was also brillant, he is stunning yet sometimes meancsing. But Clive Owen was very handsome and dashing, wooing not only Elizabeth but her lady in waiting. He was so passionate and romantic, especially when he talked about the New World. This is a great movie, I definaly want to see it again as me and my family totally enjoyed it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 2

Golden? Not quite. - 2/11/2007 8:11:49 PM

mafyou

Posts: 2565
Joined: 23/11/2005

I'm being slightly generous with 4 stars but i imagine on repeated viewings that this is what i would think of the film. Atm however, i'm slightly peeved at Shekhar Kapur. The man borders of genius and really very annoying director. He has a favourite type of shot that just didn't work for me. It was overused and so when it was in the right place, its effectivivity was negated because of prior overuse. And towards the end in a poignant scene, Rush is just not given the chance to act which is a shame.

Anyway, i really enjoyed the film. Apart from that little annoying trait of the director's (which is possibly a personal thing on my part) his direction is very good. Everybody's acting is superb. Blanchett and Rush are obviously brilliant (although Rush is a bit underused), Owen is fantastic like the reviewer above says and i agree with completely, particularly with regard to his retelling of the New World. Abbie Cornish is very good as is everyone else. Standouts for me though have to be Tom Hollander and David Threfall who, with very little, are brilliant.

The film is well made and beautiful to look at. Effects are fantastic. The script and story are very good with some lines that are beautiful and moving. And i imagine that some might be close to tears. I certainly was at points.

The film is hugely enjoyable but also very intelligent and most definitely worth a watch. I believe it has come under over- harsh criticism on its release. However, overtime i believe that will change.

I haven't even seen the first Elizabeth...

_____________________________

Et In Arcadia Ego

(in reply to joanna likes films)

Post #: 3

Stunning! - 2/11/2007 9:31:13 PM

chaskins_2004

Posts: 38
Joined: 28/5/2006
From: Bath

So the history was a little...'different'! Who cares? This film is absolutly stunning, beautifully directed, incredibly performed and incredibly gripping from start to finish. Don't wait for the DVD, this film warrants big screen treatment. The score is one of the best ive heard. Can't praise it enough...go see it!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 4

RE: Stunning! - 5/11/2007 8:10:10 AM

Timon

Posts: 14545
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol

About as accurate as the first film in terms of The Babington Plot, Mary's involvement and Ralegh's general presence throughout the film.....but what the hell.

Blatchett was fantastic once again and Owen did a decent job with Ralegh. Not sure why Dudley, Earl of Leicester wasn't in it (Joseph Fiennes from the first film) as he continued to be Elizabeth's favorite until his death after the Armada, then it's said she became taken with his son.

Either way, the film's not about that. It's about Elizabeth living her life through Bess and the chaos that causes. It was a beautiful scene where Ralegh and Bess were dancing and the queen remembers how she used to dance with Leicester but pictures herself in Bess's place. A very poignant moment for someone who, despite her power, doesn't have the freedom to engage in the simple pleasures of life.

Not quite sure why Philip II was a rubber legged, bubbling buffoon but I'll let that go.....

The Armada scenes were breathtaking and despite Francis Drake being sidelined and Ralegh straddling a fireship (!), it was an entertaining film.

3.5/5

< Message edited by Timon -- 5/11/2007 3:32:13 PM >

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to chaskins_2004)

Post #: 5

Golden Age - 5/11/2007 3:22:07 PM

solid snake

Posts: 209
Joined: 18/10/2006

This was amazing from start to finish. The acting is excellent and its very well made. This one of those films that you really should see on the big screen if you want he best experiance. I was hoping this was going to be a bit longer but it was still amazing.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 6

Beautifully Shot.. Over Indulgent - 5/11/2007 11:53:17 PM

omarx

Posts: 150
Joined: 7/10/2005
From: Somewhere that's neither here nor there

I loved the first Elizabeth, the innocent bastard who becomes Queen on England.. There was alot to absorb and be absorbed by, it was less fussy, less expensive, but more affecting.
This second installment, sees Elizabeth ruling England and listening to her advisors... giving her subjects the freedom of speech and beleif, while there is a storm brewing across in Spain as the King has got his knickers in a twist...
It is a gorgeous film to look at, the music was rousing, the customs were amazing, the production was, in my opinion, subtle, but faultless.... What really didn't work for me was the excessive use of symbolism and elevating Elizabeth from a mere mortal to goddess like state... all back lit and flowing hair, even Galadriel didn't get THAT MUCH WIND BLOWING IN HER FACE!!!!! and that should't happen, as we all know that she was a real person, and she actually has acheived alot, also, the espionage angle was not very satisfying, as how can a film about the middle ages be without a sufficient dose of blood, crossing, and double crossing.. I really wanted to love it, but I ended only liking it, which is a shame...

HOW GORGEOUS WAS JORDI MOLLA!!!!! COULDN'T GET MY EYES OF HIM

< Message edited by omarx -- 6/11/2007 12:06:45 AM >

_____________________________

I reject.. Therefore I exist........
I cut my own hair......
Fear does not stop you dying, but it sure does stop you living......

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 7

RE: Beautifully Shot.. Over Indulgent - 6/11/2007 12:14:08 AM

Hartigan

Posts: 441
Joined: 2/10/2005

I agree in wishing the film was longer, I would of happily sat though another hour as I felt the assassination plot and the actual amarda itself felt rushed or as though story elements were cut. Fantastic performances and as said before, gorgeous to look at (my favourite shot being Elizabeth looking out to sea), 4 stars from me.

_____________________________

An old man dies, a little girl lives. Fair trade

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

(in reply to omarx)

Post #: 8

Elizabeth:The Golden Age - 7/11/2007 8:02:18 PM

Dr Lenera

Posts: 3448
Joined: 19/10/2005

What a disappointment. Director Shahkar Kapur made Elizabeth ten years ago,an example of how to do a costume drama right. It successfully brought a perhaps difficult subject to the screen,made it accesible and relevant and by the end had great power. Now comes his belated follow up,except this time it's more a case of how to do a costume drama wrong.

Much of the intrigue and tension of the first film is either replaced by tedious scenes Elizabeth and Walter Raleigh mooning around,their chemistry non-existant,or the glorious costumes and sets-yes,they are great,but they almost suck the life out of the film. Potentially good scenes are persisently ruined by Kapur's direction,such as when an assassin tries to kill Elizabeth and he seems to be halted by her beauty or,her magnificence,or her psychic powers,who knows,as she lights up like Kate Blanchett's Galadriel from The Lord Of The Rings and he is transfixed.

When the Spanish Armada finally shows up,it's probably the best example of what should be a rule for filmmakers-if you don't have the budget to do a battle properly,don't attempt it. It's so choppy and disjointed. And what's with Elizabeth giving a speech to troops who don't even fight,or one of the most stupid battle tactics ever seen on film [set fire to your own ships and jump for freedom as they crash into the enemy],or the out of place bathos of a white horse jumping to safety? The film gets worse and worse as it reaches it's end,and by the end the writers and the director have clearly lost control of their material.

The first Elizabeth played fast and loose with historical fact a little but,as with Braveheart,if the film is very good than one can almost forgive such things. However in this film it's impossible to forgive the almost total omission of Francis Drake,who was most responsible for routing the Armada,in favour of Walter Raleigh,who wasn't even in the battle,or the battle itself being totally inaccurate in locale and tactics [infact there were two battles],or Elizabeth being 20 or so years too young,or none of Elizabeth's actual speech to her troops being used,or......well,one can go on forever,and the weakness of the film just shows this stuff up more. And in any case,when young people in particular are ignorant of history these days,it's irresponsible of filmmakers to peddle inventions and pretend they're fact. In a Pirates Of The Carribbean-style romp it wouldn't matter so much,or course,but it does somewhat in a film such as this.

Saving graces are the fine performances all round,with Kate Blanchett again superbly regal as Elizabeth,a solid score by Craig Armstrong and the great sets and costumes,overused as they are. There are far worse films than Elizabeth:The Golden Age around,but few at the moment as disappointing.

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 7/11/2007 8:24:31 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 9

RE: Elizabeth:The Golden Age - 8/11/2007 9:45:16 AM

Timon

Posts: 14545
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

And what's with Elizabeth giving a speech to troops who don't even fight,or one of the most stupid battle tactics ever seen on film [set fire to your own ships and jump for freedom as they crash into the enemy].

That's what fireships were. Ships you set fire to and sent at the enemy - it was a ploy that helped to defeat the Armada. Of course, they didn't plow into the fleet and set fire to them as shown in the film but rather caused them to scatter and get destroyed by the storm.....but they got it mostly right.

No idea why Ralegh was still on board though. The fool.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Dr Lenera)

Post #: 10

RE: Elizabeth:The Golden Age - 8/11/2007 10:34:33 AM

JagLover

Posts: 447
Joined: 11/5/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

And what's with Elizabeth giving a speech to troops who don't even fight,or one of the most stupid battle tactics ever seen on film [set fire to your own ships and jump for freedom as they crash into the enemy].

That's what fireships were. Ships you set fire to and sent at the enemy - it was a ploy that helped to defeat the Armada. Of course, they didn't plow into the fleet and set fire to them as shown in the film but rather caused them to scatter and get destroyed by the storm.....but they got it mostly right.
.

and they were usually ships you could afford to lose.

It's actually a good tactic against ships at anchor. Bearing in mind as well that the guns on the English ships usually weren't powerful enough to sink the Spanish ships of the Armada in any case.

(in reply to Timon)

Post #: 11

- 14/11/2007 11:53:09 AM

quizkid

Posts: 102
Joined: 22/3/2006
From: wymondham

weve had a glut of elizabeth drama in recent years with helen mirren and anne marie duff giving us there versions now cate is back with hers again they seem to have have toned down the sex and violence this time although a torture scene was pushing the.12 a envelope. having seen the mirren version there was some deja vu to the film but clive owen saves the film from being too pompous a touch of the errol flynns certainly in the cgi climax. perhaps nothing to trouble oscar this time but ok

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 12

KIng Philip = You're boys took one hell of a beating!!! - 10/7/2009 10:42:20 AM

johncarrelson

Posts: 29
Joined: 7/5/2009

I don't think its as good as the first but very well worth watching just to see the Spanish get put in their place. Some fantastic visuals during the battle scenes, and Blanchett and Rush are fantastic as usual

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 13

Flashes of brilliance lost in melodrama - 10/8/2011 7:19:55 PM

trainedasninja

Posts: 206
Joined: 25/5/2011
From: Kidderminster

This is dumbed down, melodramatic, more one-dimensional and noisier than the previous film. Instead of a focus on creating a belivability in its story it aims for glossy filmic heights. You would forgive it because Blanchett does such a fine job and the film provides some fair entertainment once you accept its epic nature.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 14

Elizabeth: The Golden Age Review - 19/1/2012 9:27:30 PM

the film man

Posts: 598
Joined: 13/10/2010

This sequel is full of lavish costumes and elaborate sets, but lacks the heart and creativity of the original Elizabeth.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 15