Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  Phenomenal sequel to Elizabeth, Cate Blanchett delivers a stunning performance in the title role. Though the film has gotten some flack for its romantic storyline, it's also part of history. I thought that this film was just as strong as the first, and that Blanchett delivered… More
  Phenomenal sequel to Elizabeth, Cate Blanchett delivers a stunning performance in the title role. Though the film has gotten some flack for its romantic storyline, it's also part of history. I thought that this film was just as strong as the first, and that Blanchett delivered yet again. The film is a great looking piece of cinema, and the story, though slow at times is well plotted, and the pacing is just right for the great climax of the film. There are enough good things going for this film to forgive its slight imperfections. The performances alone make this a strong, flawless and powerful film. As far as sequels are concerned, Elizabeth: The Golden Age belongs on the short list of films that are just as good as or better than the original. Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a great film with a strong story and great performances. The film is just as good as the original, and despite its flaws, there are enough good things about this film to really enjoy it. The film is entertaining, and slow, but for a film like this, the pacing is just perfect. Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a great film, and along with the first film is a solid piece of cinema that should appeal to history fans. If you can forgive the love story, you'll enjoy this. A brilliant film with great performances make this a must see. A very enjoyable film that is a splendid period piece. A must see.

• Chris W

  
  This is the sequel to the film that made Cate Blanchett's career, and, while it does have it's moments, it doesn't quite live up to the level set by its predecessor. The story this time out focuses on a few things: the schemings of Mary Queen of Scots, the campaign… More
  This is the sequel to the film that made Cate Blanchett's career, and, while it does have it's moments, it doesn't quite live up to the level set by its predecessor. The story this time out focuses on a few things: the schemings of Mary Queen of Scots, the campaign against the Spanish Armada, and a possible romance between Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh. It's all some good stuff, but there's not quite as much subtext present this time around. The cosumes and sets are wonderful yes, but the film seems to favor them more over having a stronger story with more historical accuracy and more development. Also, the film is rather slow and plodding, and feels far longer than it is. On the other hand though, there's great cinematography, the battle at the end is well done and provides some sort of pay off, and the performances are pretty good. Blanchett once again shows why she was born to play this part, Rush is once again good as Sir Francis Walsingham (though not quite as scary/badass as before), and Clive Owen is quite good as Sir Walter Raleigh, really owning the screen everytime he shows up. This isn't a terrible film, but it was kind of disappointing. I still kinda liked it, or at least some parts more than others, but I say stick with the first one instead, and maybe only see this if you feel you need to be a completist.

• Curtis L

  
  Not quite as good as the first one, but still pretty interesting.

• xGary X

  
  "Based upon" the life of Elizabeth I, The Golden Age is the kind of film that causes the words "sumptuous" and "lavish" to be bandied around, but it seemed to me to be somehow very TV standard. It is littered with historical innaccuracies and the… More
  "Based upon" the life of Elizabeth I, The Golden Age is the kind of film that causes the words "sumptuous" and "lavish" to be bandied around, but it seemed to me to be somehow very TV standard. It is littered with historical innaccuracies and the superficial script plays out like a greatest hits of the events of her life, spending little time on the inter-relationship of characters, their motivations or the context in which they acted. Elizabeth is shown as a strong, perceptive and wily monarch while Clive Owen's Raleigh is little more than a Mills & Boon style swashbuckler who single handedly defeated the Spanish Armada (quite how he got promoted from potato discoverer to one man seventh fleet I don't know...) The direction concentrates far too much on pre-Raphaelite imagery and demotes the dialogue to brief exchanges of clipped soundbites and for a historical epic, it all seems very unconvincing. Taken as a romanticized adventure, the attractive visuals and appealing cast make it watchable enough, but peek beneath its petticoats and it's little more than a medieval soap opera.

• Daniel P

  
  As good as the first one, but for different reasons. I liked the second Elizabeth film for its increased action and for Clive Owen, who steadily stole every scene he was in. I was wishing for Shakespeare to make an appearance, but the defeat of the Spanish Armada was a fine… More
  As good as the first one, but for different reasons. I liked the second Elizabeth film for its increased action and for Clive Owen, who steadily stole every scene he was in. I was wishing for Shakespeare to make an appearance, but the defeat of the Spanish Armada was a fine consolation prize. While watching it, there was an element that I liked less than the original, but looking back it's already escaped me. Clearly not an important flaw! Both Elizabeth films are worthwhile pursuits, grand and epic and more-or-less historically accurate without being boring. I do recommend.

• Spencer S

  
  Two Aussies playing the roles of Britain's historical figures, and yet everything works out for the best. It feels like an episode of the Tudors mixed with The Man for All Seasons.

• Richard C

  
  really boring and a waste of my time. C-

• Anthony L

  
  Unlike the first and far superior film, this film is riddled with historical inaccuracies. It's actually quite shocking and insulting and I'm afraid Shekhar Kapur's reputation is in tatters. The film looks beautiful and the Armada scene was visually stunning, it just… More
  Unlike the first and far superior film, this film is riddled with historical inaccuracies. It's actually quite shocking and insulting and I'm afraid Shekhar Kapur's reputation is in tatters. The film looks beautiful and the Armada scene was visually stunning, it just needed to be longer (I'd like to see it have its own film to be honest) and more truthful, Sir Walter Raleigh had nothing to do with it, he wasn't even there! Visually stunning, brilliant performances but it makes a complete mockery of British history and it is both insulting and unforgivable. No wonder kids are so bleeding thick these days! A real shame. One and a half stars for Cate Blanchett and Samantha Morton?s performances only.

• Dan S

  
  A decent, but overall flawed look on Queen Elizabeth, her love affair with Sir Walter Raleigh, and how she ignited a war with Spain. It seems the love story was meant to be secondary, but it takes on more importance as the film goes on, while the plot that should've been primary,… More
  A decent, but overall flawed look on Queen Elizabeth, her love affair with Sir Walter Raleigh, and how she ignited a war with Spain. It seems the love story was meant to be secondary, but it takes on more importance as the film goes on, while the plot that should've been primary, that being Elizabeth and the war with Spain, takes a step back. The acting, as expected, is very good, with Owen proving to be a fine fit as Raleigh. However, when the excitement finally kicks into gear, it seems a little too late.

• Julie B

  
  I found this one to be rather slow and plodding, and some of the swash-buckling a bit giggle-inducing. And really the title should be "Elizabeth: mental breakdown on the perilous path to the golden age."

• Mike S

  
  Well-written, well-acted and all the while severely underrated by the critics. When first walking into the theatre I was expecting to gravely dislike this movie, as I had read so many negative reviews. However, to my great joy and surprise, it ended up being one of my favourite movies… More
  Well-written, well-acted and all the while severely underrated by the critics. When first walking into the theatre I was expecting to gravely dislike this movie, as I had read so many negative reviews. However, to my great joy and surprise, it ended up being one of my favourite movies of the year, lulling me into a really comfortable and enchanting medieval atmosphere. Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush reprise their roles here from the first movie, and suit them just as well as they did previously. Clive Owen was also a great addition as the famous explorer Sir Walter Raleigh. Now, the events of this film have been accused of not being historically correct, which is something I frankly couldn't care less about, as it's not something I value dearly. At least, not as long as the story is thoroughly intriguing, which fortunately was the case here. The only part of it I didn't really like was the side-plot revolving around a certain love triangle, which just felt kind of unnecessary and time consuming. For some reason the movie also gave me a very strong Lord of the Rings vibe. Most likely because of all the beautiful scenery and epic music, as well as some scenes where Cate reminded me a bit of her role as Galadriel. As for the final sea battle, it was very well done and believable, altough it felt slightly rushed. Either way it provided all the things that I felt (as for a comparison) the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie lacked in its own final battle (which obviously also took place at sea). So what's the final verdict? Well, if you, like me, love well-acted historical dramas, you're gonna find this one right to your taste. It doesn't hurt either that The Golden Age gave me goosebumps once or twice, which is always the emblem of a memorable movie, despite its minor flaws and blemishes. So if you can forgive some odd choices in the directing, as well as its pompous sense of style and semi-uninteresting love triangle, you'll find that this movie is well worth the watch, even if the first one still holds the crown.

• paul s

  
  One of the sader sequels in movie history. Falling from the award winning heights of the first film to this disjointed mismatch of pagentry and attempted intimacy that comes off totally flat and uninvolving. To take such a well worn tale and suck all the life out of it is quite a… More
  One of the sader sequels in movie history. Falling from the award winning heights of the first film to this disjointed mismatch of pagentry and attempted intimacy that comes off totally flat and uninvolving. To take such a well worn tale and suck all the life out of it is quite a feat. Not much to reccommend here at all. Not even Geoffrey Rush can save this one, although his is about the only interesting charactor in the entire film. The interplay between Raleigh and the Queen, which as intended is front and center, comes off badly and ackwardly written, and in the case of Raleigh, badly acted, and in the case of Blanchett, overwrought. Even the climatic fight scene against the great Armada comes off passionless, and the struggle between Mary and Liz, to which many a book and play has been written, is shuffled off to the the dark corners. Wrong decisions abound here, especially the ending text "the defeat of the Armada was Spain's most embarassing naval loss" - no kidding, really?

• Kylie B

  
  Very visually attractive, but somewhat lacking in substance. The war with Spain seemed to be almost an afterthought though much screen time was devoted to it, it was all about her supposed relationship with Raleigh. That's fine, but they seemed to want to squeeze too much into… More
  Very visually attractive, but somewhat lacking in substance. The war with Spain seemed to be almost an afterthought though much screen time was devoted to it, it was all about her supposed relationship with Raleigh. That's fine, but they seemed to want to squeeze too much into one film, leaving it slightly overlong and not very engaging to me. It might have been better if they chose one side of the plot and focused on it.

• Ross C

  
  Off with her head! Essentially this film is a painfully slow and awkward account of the Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots, saga. The Spanish Armada tale is resigned to the background for most of the movie, with the King of Spain portrayed like the Evil Sauron with his horde of orcs.… More
  Off with her head! Essentially this film is a painfully slow and awkward account of the Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots, saga. The Spanish Armada tale is resigned to the background for most of the movie, with the King of Spain portrayed like the Evil Sauron with his horde of orcs. The great climax is rushed into the final 10 minutes of the movie, skipping out so many possibilities for classic scenes like Drake's game of bowls at Plymouth Hoe. Being neither historically accurate nor entertaining, I just couldn't see the point of this movie.

• Gordon A

  
  Strident performance from Blanchett, ably supported by Cornish, Owen and Rush. Kapur handles the skulduggery amongst the corridors of power with aplomb but is much less sure footed at sea.

• Alexander W

  
  Excellent costumes and good attempt at period drama, and i mean that in light that it touched as a historical documentary also. Good plot, and enough acting to deam worthy to watch again.

• Morgan S

  
  ugggh way must clive owen be soooo stupid!!! i liked it...it had the same mood at the frist except majority of the time her hair was UGLY!!

• Dean M

  
  Cate Blanchett makes a stunning performance to reprise her role as the Virgin Queen in this sequel to 1998's <i>Elizabeth</i>. This historical drama film is an enthralling epic - complete with breaktaking scenery and sumptuous costumes.

• Fernando Rafael Q

  
  Not as good as the first one, ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE has a lot of accomplishments, but fails to work as a whole. The Academy Award winning costume design and the art direction are amazing, so is the original score. Blanchett is again, perfect, in the title role. Geoffrey Rush was… More
  Not as good as the first one, ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE has a lot of accomplishments, but fails to work as a whole. The Academy Award winning costume design and the art direction are amazing, so is the original score. Blanchett is again, perfect, in the title role. Geoffrey Rush was good, but not as the last time. Samantha Morton is fantastic. Clive Owen's performance could've been better (but then again, so could the role). One of my favorite spanish actors, Jordi Molla, is a total disappointment here. Abbie Cornish and Rhys Ifans did an OK job. The writing was not very good. The movie felt at times, like a comedy, which is not very good for a period drama. It was flat and the ending too easy.

• Nate Z

  
  [CENTER][img]http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3326/michaelclayton1tu8.jpg[/img][/CENTER] [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial]Gone Baby Gone - Ben Affleck doesn't necessarily establish any gifted visual style with his directing debut, however, Affleck the Screenwriter and Affleck the… More
  [CENTER][img]http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3326/michaelclayton1tu8.jpg[/img][/CENTER] [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial]Gone Baby Gone - Ben Affleck doesn't necessarily establish any gifted visual style with his directing debut, however, Affleck the Screenwriter and Affleck the Actor ensure that the movie succeeds swimmingly as a murky morality play. The film is an actor's showcase and they get plenty of room to maneuver, with standout performances by Ed Harris as an embittered cop and Amy Ryan as the living embodiment of the worst white trash would-be mother on the planet. Where Affleck earns his artistic stripes is by asking hard questions with moral ambiguity and not dishing out easy answers. This is an above average crime thriller that uses its lower class Boston setting as an additional character. There are only a handful of relevant flaws, like Michelle Mongahan's character being pointless except to cry, and a mystery that clever moviegoers will have figured it out early thanks to the economy of characters and some shifty glances. The missing child mystery allows Affleck to explore some very dark places and non darker than the human soul. Affleck may not dazzle with visual prowess, but the man sure knows how to tell a damn good story and direct actors to award-winning levels. Give this man another movie. Nate's Grade: B+ Ratatouille - This movie continues to grow on me every day after I saw it. Writer/director Brad Bird yet again impresses with a deceptively simple story that manages to hit big themes in organic ways. The comic possibilities are fully realized with the setup of a man and a rat teaming up to be a great Parisian chef. There is a jubilant spirit alive and well throughout the film, and it's difficult not to get swept up in the wit, the wonder, and the magnificent visual feast. Nate's Grade: A In the Valley of Elah - Is anyone more polarizing in the film world at this moment than writer/director Paul Haggis? He takes a far subtler approach to exploring difficult subject matter this time, and the lack of histrionics makes the message far more serviceable. The film begins as a mystery, with Tommy Lee Jones investigating the disappearance of his son who was supposed to return from Iraq. Then the film transforms into an examination on the hidden, psychological costs of a war that continues to backslide into incivility and chaos. Jones gives a terrific taciturn performance, expressing so much sorrow with his hangdog expressions and sad, soulful eyes. There isn't a moment in the movie that feels trite or contrived, and its conclusion is surprising in how subdued it plays out, which makes it far more emotionally troublesome. The title is in reference to the location of the famous biblical battle between David and Goliath. Is America Goliath? Are we David? I can't honestly decode all the metaphors in this solid slow burn anti-war flick. Haggis is bristling with things to say but effectively buries them below the surface so that the viewer is not beaten over the head but yet left with many significant questions. And what police investigation, even in a war away from home flick, would be complete without a visit to a strip club? Nate's Grade: B+ Michael Clayton - A smart, suspenseful, terrifically acted corporate thriller, this movie hums along with great precision thanks to a deeply articulate screenplay by writer/director Tony Gilroy. The acting trio (George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton) delivers sensational performances muddled with doubt and weary, nervy complexity; each comes across a full human being in what could have come across as a dull Law and Order episode. I don't understand why Gilroy plays around with the film's timeframe, because he spends nearly ten minutes at the end in a suspenseful car chase where we already know the outcome. There is a murder that is played against Hollywood convention; it's quick, grimly efficient, and scary in how soon it's all over. [I]Michael Clayton[/I] is a first-class movie that respects the intelligence of an audience. Nate's Grade: A Elizabeth: The Golden Age - This unanticipated sequel to the 1998 film that put Cate Blanchett on the map is pretty much the same setup from the original go-round. Once again, Elizabeth is trying to assert her authority, once again Catholics are plotting an assassination to place Elizabeth's good Catholic sister on the throne, once again Elizabeth pines for a man she cannot have, this time in the dashing form of Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). Everything is cranked into overkill, which means there are plenty of speeches and plenty of bellowing. The romantic triangle between Elizabeth, Raleigh, and Elizabeth's most beloved assistant to the Queen (Abbie Cornish) is a waste of time and does not dignify any of the three. The camerawork ranges from awe-inspiring to maddening, with the director relying on bird-eye-view long shots and always throwing some object in the foreground to obscure the action. It gets old quickly. Blanchett gets to suit up with armor and ride a horse around, but this [I]Elizabeth[/I] redux leaves much to be desired. If they ever kick around an [I]Elizabeth 3[/I] in, oh, 10 or so years, hopefully they can move on to a new story structure while I watch the aging queen through a lattice 300 feet high. Nate's Grade: B-[/FONT][/COLOR]

Read all 20 featured audience ratings