Elizabeth - L'âge d'or

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.

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.

one of her magnificent performances. and a great story, wise script, superb cinematography and fascinating manner to give not exactly the perfect second part but a subtle, smart and seductive history lesson. because it is one of films who seems changing theories, information, doubts. and the basic motif is the impeccable performance of Cate Blanchett. and the inspiration of director to give one of films who do not gives explanations but only the reflection, in large mirror, of scenes from a reign defined by the force of nuances of vulnerability. the purpose, in this case, has not to build a magnificent monument. but to use a great cast, the traces of others adaptations, the flavor of a period, for a realistic drawing of an unique woman. the result - honestly, impressive.

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.

It's really not so odd that director Shekhar Kapur would wait nine years and then craft a loud, bombastic sequel to his only claim to fame, the lavish period drama "Elizabeth" which rightfully launched the career of uber-actress Cate Blanchett, in an attempt to resurrect his own floundering career. It is rather odd that Blanchett, a consummate actress of incalculable range, seems to never turn down a script, including this dud of a sequel to the film that first allowed her to shine. The oddest thing, however, is that the completely uncalled for "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is actually quite entertaining and might've received higher praise had the intrusive music score not induced such a numbing headache.

Blanchett, of course, is terrific, and doesn't seem to mind that the screenwriters have turned her signature character into a woman with split personalities: a raving love-scorned woman in private who constantly crumbles under pressure, and a powerful monarch who commands the wind and becomes a divinity to her people in public. Elizabeth has no character arc here like she did in the original film that saw her mature from frightened princess to calculating queen. The sequel suffers from this lack of development for its titular historical icon, but Blanchett rules the madhouse with an iron fist, chewing the scenery when necessary for dramatic effect and maximum entertainment value.

The sequel also suffers from too much focus on a silly love triangle involving Elizabeth, Sir Walter Raleigh (an uninspired Clive Owen), and one of her ladies in waiting (a ravishingly gorgeous but ultimately lifeless Abbie Cornish). The rest of the film covers events that were already treated in a more respectful and quietly powerful manner in HBO's miniseries starring Helen Mirren. These include Elizabeth's divisive relationship with Mary Stuart (a blistering Samantha Morton doing an entertaining bit of over-acting), and the defeat of the Spanish Armada, whose sinking is done up in a rock opera style that serves as a guilty pleasure to watch.

Meanwhile, director Kapur, who never saw an overhead shot, candlelit scene, or 360 degree crane movement he didn't love, uses his bigger budget to ridiculously grand effect creating immaculate set designs populated with over the top costuming and epic pageantry. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is completely unnecessary, but despite some of its stunning ineptitude, it turns out not to be a colossal waste of time and will entertain those who will allow it to bludgeon them. Where the first film was a smart period piece inspired by "The Godfather", the silly sequel is a dumb art-house film inspired by obnoxious action flicks. Blanchett, who hopefully will become more selective in her roles as she ages, oddly seems at home in both. I'm not sure if that's the mark of a great actress or a desperate movie star.