Elizabeth - Das goldene Königreich

There is something stubbornly old-fashioned about Shekhar Kapur's 2007 sequel to his 1998 art-house triumph, "Elizabeth". I don't mean the newer movie is a stodgy historical pageant. Far from it, all the production values are first-rate, including a relatively seamless use of CGI in the Spanish Armada sequence, but beyond all the pomp and circumstance, the mindset of the story is pure 1940's-era studio melodrama. Set in 1585, the film picks up the Queen's life a quarter century after the first film, and what follows in the strangely cautious screenplay by Michael Hirst and William Nicholson is a simplistic portrait of an aging, superstitious woman aware of her power but ironically at a loss to define her own fate. This period of her life is familiar from a number of previous films and miniseries, but this time, the psychological complexity behind such a fascinating historical figure has been downgraded in favor of romance novel plot turns and paper-thin character development.

The set-up is rich with possibilities only partially realized on screen. Protestant England is on its knees, as Roman Catholic Spain has become Europe's most powerful country. Now in her early fifties, Elizabeth is vulnerable since Phillip II of Spain is intent on conquering England and especially because she has not married and produced an heir. Next in line is her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, a devout Roman Catholic imprisoned in a castle in Northamptonshire. Elizabeth has proved to be a tolerant ruler as she allows her country's Roman Catholics to maintain their religious beliefs, even though they see Mary as the only rightful Queen. In the meantime, Sir Walter Raleigh has just returned from the New World and stimulated Elizabeth's passion for adventure and her long-dormant desire for romance. Complicating matters is Elizabeth's devoted lady-in-waiting, Bess, a comely beauty who attracts Raleigh's attention. Just as this standard triangle is established, there is a threat on Elizabeth's life known historically as the Babington Plot. Mary is beheaded for her connection to the plot, which gives Philip free rein to gain the Pope's approval to attack England. Elizabeth inspires her troops to face off with the much larger Spanish Armada, and the rest, as they say, is history.

It's no surprise that Cate Blanchett commands the screen in the title role and does her best to fill in the blanks left by the routine script. She manages to imbue the Queen with a hidden vulnerability at which comparatively imperious predecessors like Bette Davis and Glenda Jackson merely hint. The one drawback is that she is too young for the role, a point emphasized by the periodic and somewhat conceited use of flashbacks from the previous film in which her appearance has not changed significantly despite the make-up. Geoffrey Rush returns from the first film as Elizabeth's adviser, Sir Francis Walsingham, but he has less to do this time. As Raleigh, Clive Owen has no problem playing a dashing figure, but he seems more like a romantic's fabrication of what a bodice-ripping swashbuckler should be. Speaking with a strange burr, Samantha Morton has precious few scenes as the fanatical but forgiving Mary, and her pouty face and petulant manner seem at odds with previous characterizations. As Philip, Jordi Mollà is forced to play the king as a religious zealot, while Abbie Cornish's Bess strikes me as far too contemporary in manner to be credible as a lady-in-waiting, especially with the ongoing hints of lesbianism and a soft porn-like lovemaking scene with Raleigh.

Guy Dyas' production design, Alexandra Byrne's costumes and Remi Adefarasin's cinematography are all impressive in their splendor and meticulous detail, though I found the music by Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman far too intrusive. There are several extras with the 2008 DVD release starting with Kapur's commentary track, often insightful but excessively verbose. An eleven-minute making-of featurette is included, of course, but it is pretty standard with plenty of now-and-then comparisons with the 1998 film. Three other shorts are included – one on Dyas' intensive work on the production design, one on the recreation of the climactic battle with a mix of ship replicas and CGI, and one on the actual locations used for the filming. There are nine minutes of deleted and extended scenes including one that too-realistically shows Mary's decapitated head. None of these extras helps make the experience of watching this film any more involving.

I hadn't heard too much about this film, but had seen the posters for it, so I gave it a shot. And after leaving the theatre I really wasn't sure what to say about it.

There's a lot of good stuff in this film, but there're some pitfalls as well. On the plus side the sets and costumes are magnificent. A great deal of care and love when into the art direction to bring us an Elizabethan renaissance film, replete with court intrigue and foreign emissaries who threaten invasion because of high seas thievery courtesy Clive Owen's character. Visually this film is very lush and impressive, though somewhat confining at times. We're never really shown Elizabethan England, just the "important parts" that are salient to the story.

And, as Elizabeth's favorite playwright would say, "there's the rub". And by this I mean that the film is a bit all over the place. It's a costume drama, it's a romance, it's a period political thriller, it's a military epic, and so forth. It even skids the fantasy genre with some of the fancy camera work that was done. But, all in all, the film's primary thrust is to try and grab hold of all of these genres, and tie them together into some kind of cohesive and suscint manner.

The romance, the intrigue, the sisterly emotions, the rivalry between matriarchs, and the "battle scene" hearken back to a time when Hollywood used to crank out these kinds of movies with some regularity. But the context between those films and "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" are nearly day and night, even though both are striving for a high water mark in historical drama.

I thought "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" was technically a competent production. In fact, given the difficulties there must have been getting some of the shots I'll give it high marks as a pure production effort. But as a film I simply found it to be a touch too ambitious, and over-indulgent near the end.

That's not to say that I didn't enjoy a lot of the film, because I did. Blanchet's Elizabeth is a strong woman; full of zest, energy, and a bit of anger, which she levels at her adversaries. But she's also a chief of state, internationalist, and, of course, the queen of England. She doesn't wear several hats. She wears a crown. But even so, and this is where the film falls a bit short, she doesn't demonstrate a cohesive ability to command all. She shows she's in charge, but doesn't act like she's in charge until near the end.

The film was geared and aimed at a female audience (a thing which I had not expected), and so a lot of the energy is directed at that audience, with the appropriate emotional flourishes. Combined with some so-so CGI for the action sequences (and a horse with a perm which almost had me laughing), one wonders where the film was headed. Elizabeth didn't save England with her emotional power alone, and yet this is the gist of the film. It's a real let down in this regard.

The film is a mixed blessing. There's a lot of decent acting, and some exceptional performances by the leads. Married to a rather extravagant art director to bring to life palace, throne room, chambers, and galleons at sea, and one can easily see that this was meant to be a top notch production. But some of the logical loopholes where Blanchet's character is concerned conspire with some of the story loopholes to hold back a better film.

As a guy all I can say is that it's not something I'd watch again, and I'm not too sure I'd recommend it to any female audiences. But, if you don't mind your period dramas skirting the edge of high kamp, then splurge on a ticket, and see what "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is all about.

Don't believe the poor reviews "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" has received.

While it may be true the film is not historically correct, most of us do not go to the movies for a history lesson. We go to be entertained. On that basis, this film is a winner. It has romance, intrigue and betrayal. It is basically a melodrama.

The photography is great, although sometimes the director gets carried away with the camera movements. The orchestral score in fine, although it is overwhelming at times. The acting is absolutely first rate.

I thought that "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" was more entertaining than any of the "Pirates of the Carribian" movies. If you want an entertaining movie that is geared more towards adults than children, then you should check the movie out.

Cate Blanchett reprises her role as the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I, and is the film's greatest highlight. She exudes power, strength and influence in portraying the 16th century monarch. Her commanding presence on the screen really gives the majestic qualities that the real queen certainly had. At the same time, she gives us a personal glance inside the woman's heart, where she has suppressed from public view an inner vulnerability and melancholy. Elizabeth certainly endured many sorrows, and this portrayal gives us a glance inside the woman's who carried all this upon her shoulders, and is credited with raising England to prominent status on the world stage.

In addition to Blanchett, the supporting cast all turn in superior work. The sets, costuming, and period speech are all mastered well, creating a true feel for the era being depicted. Although many of the people and events are real, a few liberties have been taken apparently to spice up the drama. Such fictionalizing probably wasn't necessary; enough happened during this queen's rule to make the story interesting without it. One example: the flashy Sir Walter Raleigh was indeed a favorite of the queen, but this movie puts them in a romantic triangle that just gets in the way of other things going on. Also, Raleigh, better known as an explorer, was not the hero in the battle with the Spanish Armada.

Blanchett shines when she delivers the famous speech to the troops on the eve of the Spanish invasion. But even she is burdened by the director's preoccupation with Elizabeth as a suffering angst-filled woman facing middle-age with less bravery than facing the world's most powerful fleet at that time. We get endless views of her taking her wig off in secret, and staring at a mirror. The first time this device is used is fine to get the point across of her hopeless situation of never taking a husband (and the slow advance of time having its way), but we see her looking like a shriveled ghost in too many such scenes, and it's way overdone in this context. Her "real" hair sans the wig looks like an inebriated Edward Scissorhands was her hairdresser, and her pale complexion looks like somebody pasted white-out all over her face.

Those few mistakes notwithstanding, this is a fine biopic with superior acting by Blanchett, and is recommended.

Well, the story is interesting and Cate Blanchett play her role very good, but the story is stretched and at the end when Spain attacks with its armada is quickly finishes end the attack scene is really short.

They could have made this a spectacular movie, nice story, great costumes. But after the first 45 minutes it get boring and you ask yourself why. Then towards the end i hoped to see a great battle at sea, but it didn't happen.

The movie is watchable but don't expect too much.

It might be wiser to rent this one on DVD instead of going to the movies.