Directed by:
Shekhar KapurCinematography:
Remi AdefarasinCast:
Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen, Samantha Morton, Abbie Cornish, Jordi Mollà, Tom Hollander, Geoffrey Rush, John Shrapnel, Rhys Ifans, Christian Brassington (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
When Queen Elizabeth's reign is threatened by ruthless familial betrayal and Spain's invading army, she and her shrewd advisor must act to safeguard to the lives of her people. But when a dashing seafarer, Walter Raleigh, captures her heart, she is forced to make her most tragic sacrifice for the good of her country. Elizabeth: The Golden Age tells the thrilling tale of one woman's crusade to control her love, destroy her enemies and secure her position as a beloved icon of the western world. (Universal Pictures US)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (9)
Nice set designs, gorgeous dresses and a great Cate Blanchett unfortunately does not a good movie make. The script is still quite crucial, and if it is not exactly simple in terms of the historical events portrayed, then it is very important to consider to what detail the creators want to go here. And they decided to go into such detail that I was emotionally absolutely detached and the only moment where one of my eyelids moved a little was the ending, where Clive Oven would have made even a statue cry. At the first glance, the viewer may think that the film may not be so bad a period drama, but unfortunately all that glitters is not gold.
()
As much as Clive Owen has an overwhelming charisma and his gaze makes more than one viewer's knees buckle, his character of Sir Raleigh is nothing but big popcorn indulgence, and his finger-licking love affairs (with both Bess and Elizabeth) turn the film into a soap opera. It called for more medieval darkness, dirt, rawness and backstage intrigue (which made the previous episode so interesting) and less implausible sugarplums. Cate Blanchett is initially superb, but over time, as the atmosphere thickens and the clouds gather over England, her Elizabeth becomes affected, theatrical and, for me, not very believable. The result is average, neither a full-fledged historical film nor an exciting probe into Elizabeth's soul and her inner feelings.
()
Even though Cate is still excellent and incredibly asexual, which is nothing unusual for her, the film itself is quite boring. Yes, there are significant historical events featured in it, but one feels like a different director made this. Something like the difference between The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. However, in the case of Elizabeth, the director remains the same, but after nine years, they're trying to be overly pompous and overly dramatic, resulting in a bloated film that can't decide what's more important - the queen's personal life or historical events. Neither aspect is as well balanced in this case as it was in the film Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen.
()
Cate Blanchett is an excellent Elizabeth, Geoffrey Rush - Walsingham (perhaps a direct relative of Captain Barbossa) - again excels and can say everything with one look, the costumes are breathtaking, the music is beautiful, the direction is pleasant, and the portrayal of the relationship of Elizabeth I and Walter Raleigh (a very likeable Clive Owen) is not offensive - on the contrary, it's unforced and historically somewhat faithful... For about an hour and a quarter, it was all positives and I was convinced that The Golden Age would get a full rating like the previous film. But then it came. The Battle of Gravelines. My favorite chapter. Ouch. While it looks very nice (the digital magic is complemented with one actually-built ship, which the filmmakers designed to play an English schooner on one side and a Spanish schooner on the other side - a real piece of work, I recommend the bonus DVD), I was glad for the fire ships... But! In the film, it looks like Raleigh won the battle on his own. The script made him a Hollywood arch-hero from Pirates of the Caribbean, while Francis Drake only makes a passing appearance (he says two or three boring sentences and his name doesn't even appear in the end credits - the poor actor who will boast that he "played that Drake"), and the name Charles Howard of Effingham (it was in fact he who chose the eight people who became the firebugs) does not appear at all. The fact that only one ship of the entire Spanish Armada was damaged in the attack of the fire ships, after which the fleet dispersed and the battle, full of pursuit and shelling, was not played out until the morning, did not seem to interest the screenwriters... etc. I don't mind historical "errors" in movies like Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. I can tolerate them there because they (more or less) don't tell about something that actually happened. But in this case, I'm not gonna turn a blind eye. Three stars for the terrible popcorn.
()
A big historical film that doesn’t know what it wants to be. On the one hand there are attempts at some sort of psychological storyline that often fall flat due to situations that are either awfully unfitting for a concept like this, or with a logic that is very misguided. As a result, the characters lose all their humanity, the viewer can get under the skin of the heroes, which is why some emotional outbursts en up causing laughter. On the other hand, for pure popcorn fun, there isn’t enough action. The camera and the direction also feel quite schizophrenic, in a sea of utterly unoriginal scenes, you get glimpses of something that with a bit of ambition could be called a signature, but alas, these are only exceptions. All this makes Elizabeth: The Golden Age nothing but an average historical film that is saved from total catastrophe mostly by the good actors. Kapur should try making a smaller genre piece.
()
Ads