Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

ElMaruecan82 In my review of the 1998 "Elizabeth", I said that it was more than your average costume drama since it had more to offer than the … well, costumes to begin with, and the usual antechamber plots, dizzying castle shots and climactic outbursts of blood. It wasn't the most original comment but I'm even more partial to it after watching the sequel of nine years later.Shekhar Kapur's first film was about the rise to power and the tactically efficient ascension of a courageous woman who stood tall against the Catholic establishment at a time it was still having a wide influence over British citizens. She defeated the odds by becoming the second Protestant sovereign of Britain, a captivating conquest from a heroine who, by cinematic standards, was an 'underdog'. Her climactic purge was a Machiavellian masterstroke often compared to the Baptism Massacre of "The Godfather", not the most unflattering comparison.In "The Golden Age", we meet Elizabeth again and she's not an underdog anymore, if she was Rocky, it would be the third: she's the Queen, as majestic and imperial as ever, but a bit too comfortable and accessible given her regal aura. I didn't mind it at the beginning and thought it fit the film's subtitle. But at the end, I wasn't sure I would give it the same compliment than the first film. It is entertaining and there's not a single bad performance, but there's a spice lacking somewhere. Like instead of dealing with the 'uneasy the head where lies the crown' trope, the focus was located this time a bit lower than the head, and maybe, just like Balboa, Elizabeth got too "civilized" for her own good.The Queen is in a zone of comfort indeed, smiling, laughing, throwing a few winks to Bess, her first lady-in-waiting (played by the distractingly beautiful Abbie Cornich), making naughty jokes about her virgin status despite the zealous and formal insistence of Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) to get her a husband. These parts tie the first act together and the sunny scenery, not to mention the magnificent art settings, make the whole thing a real visual delight. The problem is that these frivolous trivialities, rather than being the quietness before the storm are in fact the machinery structuring the whole first act, which makes the entrance of Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), supposedly one of the film's highlights, more problematic.Let me explain this: Owen is an extraordinarily charismatic actor, a man's man with a real presence, so instead of seeing in Raleigh the explorer who conquered a land he named Virginia in the name of you-know-who, who brought to England new resources such as potatoes, tobacco and gold, "borrowed" from Spanish ships… and not under their contentment, we see the dashing and dark brooding adventurer who immediately catches the eye of Cate Blanchett. We see the romance instead of the history, Elizabeth's heart-troubles contextualize the movie rather than the real problem 'out there', which is the rivalry with the most powerful Catholic country of the world: Spain. I wouldn't have minded an intimate angle… if it wasn't so superficial, not to mention, historically inaccurate.There's even a moment where the bond is so tight between Raleigh and Elizabeth that he crosses the line of insolence without even coming close to reach Elizabeth's breaking point. This Elizabeth is so hypnotized by the achievement of Raleigh that she forgot about her greatest conquest: power, and belittled herself in a way I didn't quite expect. I guess these artistic licenses were too blatant not to be deliberate, a sort of narrative choice meant to create a bigger contrast between Elizabeth's sudden vulnerability and the dark and scheming confidence of Philip II (Jordi Molla), ominously contemplating the conquest of England. The Spanish king is convinced that he's on the right side of God's Law while Elizabeth is the prey of doubt and love-sickness.It's not an uninteresting parallel between emotional fragility and unshakable faith, but the portrayal of Catholics isn't subtle and tends to reinforce that awkward feeling of something Manichean going on. I don't mind the Spanish being the antagonists, from a historical standpoint, it was true but it's all in the treatment and 'Golden Age" is too busy trading the authenticity for a few romantic subplots that I found myself lost more than once. The film shows an Elizabeth who's contested from within and from the exterior, whose loyal Bess gets pregnant from Raleigh but even the less literate in History knows that the real deal is the big fight against the Armada and couldn't care more about Elizabeth's self-esteem and existential issues.Yet the screenplay didn't establish solid hierarchies between the subplots. Everything is handled as if it was the same matter of life and death, to the point that we never really identify the moment where she Elizabeth overcame her demons, which basically means the whole second act. We have to accept that 'what didn't kill her made her stronger' to get ready for the big finale. It is ironic that in all this castle soap-opera, the most interesting character's arc is Marie Stuart (Samantha Morton) whose story-line is handled in better clarity and concludes in perhaps the most beautiful and memorable scene.I was baffled to read that the film took liberties with history, while it had the perfect material: the Spanish Enterprise, the assassination attempts, the execution of Marie and of course the Armada… whose climactic fight was too spectacular to elevate the film above conventionality, not that I believe Kapur tried to be unconventional. He was too busy making this visual ride that he forgot to stay focused on the few elements that made Elizabeth such an unconventional heroine.It's like Kapur was so carried away by the loss to "Shakespeare in Love" that he wanted his 'romantic' Best Picture contender. The film was "only" nominated for Best Actress and Costumes, not such a good idea, after all.

jsk32870 OK I admit the 20%/80% is a rough estimate....but wow, this film really, really plays fast and loose with the facts. I mean, really. I enjoyed the first film ("Elizabeth" (1998), for which I gave 8/10), and that one also took liberties with the truth...but this one goes a little too far in my opinion.I will focus on the numerous inaccuracies presented for just one character, Walter Raleigh, to illustrate the point. He is shown describing sea voyages to the new world to an enraptured Elizabeth (wrong - he never went to North America at all and only sailed to South America 10 years after the events in the film). He is shown having a potential romantic relationship with Elizabeth (there is no evidence for this). He is shown taking part in the battle against the Spanish Armada, igniting a 'fire ship,' when in fact he was on land at this time and played no active role in the fight. He is shown being named Captain of the Royal Guard prior to that battle when in fact that did not happen until four years later. And while it is true he impregnated one of the ladies of the court, and was imprisoned by Elizabeth for it, again these events happened several later than when they are presented in the film. This matters because it affects the 'why' - in the film, Raleigh is released from prison so that he can help defend England against the Spanish Armada - but of course in reality, that battle had happened years before, and when it did happen, he wasn't in it.And sadly, it doesn't end there. The craziness with this tortured history ranges from extremely minor points like portraying Elizabeth speaking German (she didn't) or Isabella of Spain as a child when in fact she was 19-22 years old for the periods shown in the film (why she is shown as a child I have no idea, it did not seem to contain any relevance whatsoever) to serious fabrications or omissions, such as showing King Phillip of Spain wanting to invade England solely or mainly because it was Protestant. Yes some mention is made of English piracy on the open seas, but the crucifix-clutching Phillip is clearly shown to be desirous of deposing Elizabeth for her 'heretic' leanings and nothing more. The fact that the historical Elizabeth in 1585 sent English troops to the Netherlands in an effort to frustrate Spanish plans of domination there is never mentioned, and of course English actions such as these contributed greatly to Spain's eventual decision to send the Armada. But to watch this film, we are led to believe that Elizabeth is happily hanging out in England, minding her own business, when the big bad wolf (i.e., Spain) decides it wants to be a bully and punish England for embracing Protestantism. Yeah, it's not that simple ~ Even more laughable in this film was Elizabeth's reasoning for why England could not fall to Spain. What was it? She refers to the Spanish Inquisition! She states that she cannot allow Spain to take over and impose the Inquisition on her people, that they have the right to follow their own consciences, etc. As if that is the FIRST thing you care about. Not that your country would be invaded, or that you'd lose the war, or that England itself would be wiped off that map - no. Your concern is not any of that, your concern is a fear of the Spanish Inquisition? Is this a joke? "I don't care about my country (or my kingdom), it's that freedom of conscience thing that really gets me..." This is revisionist at its worst.The film itself looks beautiful. The sets, costumes, locations are top-notch. That part of the film gets a 10. The music is mostly OK, although sometimes ramps up in needless intensity which could be annoying. But the truth...oh, the truth. Or lack of same. So so so far removed from reality it's egregious. And if you want to say it's fictional, fine. But then don't put this forward as history, giving textual preambles and postscripts about Elizabeth, because that suggests that what we are about to see, and then saw, was part of history...and of course it's not. Better to say this was Queen Elizabeth of fictional Freedonia (sorry, Groucho) and you're much better off. 6/10

SnoopyStyle It's 1585. An older Queen Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) navigates royal court intrigue and international affairs. Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) is the new man in her life with years of raiding Spanish gold. Spain is preparing to invade with its Armada, and Elizabeth is threatened by hidden dangers.Cate Blanchett returns to play an older Elizabeth from her amazing turn in 'Elizabeth' (1998). She has taken on the personality of the Queen. She has the presence of royalty. The story isn't as compelling as the earlier movie. It doesn't have the same intensity. It's more about the costumes and less about the drama. The Spanish Armada could have been a great counter supplying the movie with much needed action. There is far too little of it, and most of it end up being less than exciting. Cate Blanchett is still great but the movie isn't as great as the actress.

Tcarts76 This movie gets a 9 from me, and is a great example of how a Biopic should be done. Usually when you watch a biopic the producers and directors go in either one direction or another based on personal beliefs. They tend to either show somebody in a very negative or positive way regardless of any facts. This one showed an emotional sometimes irrational Queen in a humanistic light that was very refreshing. Cate Blanchett was amazing in the role of Queen Elizabeth. At times in the movie the viewer can't help but hate her, and at other times one can see the burdens that lay upon the Monarch and feels some compassion. Blanchett shows great skill in bringing this historic character to life in a very complex and extremely humanizing way. Never does one really grow to love the character but at the sametime you have to admire her. This surely was no puff piece (Kristen Dunst as Marie Antoinette anyone?) but it wasn't a negative one either.The only downside I saw was 2 fold. One Sir Walter Raleigh's relationship to the Queen. There was in fact rumors of a romantic relationship, but nothing substantiated as proof in history, and he wasn't a big hero against the Spanish Armada as portrayed. Second, I am kind of disappointed that the movie didn't mention more about her father. True, she probably had little love for the man, but I think he would have been a great topic since his split with the Catholic church brought about a lot of the turmoil Elizabeth had to face.All in all, This was a great movie, with great acting, sets, costumes, and pretty much many details. If you like period pieces and history definitely watch this one.