Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Even though Cate is consistently excellent and incredibly asexual, which is nothing unusual in her case, the film itself is quite boring. Yes, there are significant historical events, but one gets the feeling that a different director made this. It's something like the difference between "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal". However, in the case of "Elizabeth", the director is still the same, he just tries to be extremely pompous and overly dramatic after nine years, resulting in an inflated film that cannot decide what is more important - the queen's personal life or the historical events. Neither is as well-balanced in this case as it is in the film "Elizabeth". (26/02/2014)

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. (11/10/2019)

Queen Elizabeth II. Or rather, Elizabeth the First, Kapur’s "part two". Bess’s life story is so abundant, and offers a number of perspectives and can easily withstand the overwhelming quantity of adaptations that have emerged in the last couple of years. An opulent (and how opulent!), but intimate picture, shot in such a way that it seems as it was painted by the Dutch masters. And up until the execution (oops, spoiler alert) of Mary Stuart it is an amazing movie in every sense possible. But then it shifts toward the conflict with the Spanish Armada and Kapur starts to overindulge the kitschy slow motion shots of all kinds of things fluttering, waves crashing, bosoms heaving, uplifting speeches and so on. Luckily he has Cate Blanchett to back him up, who could be able shoulder two hours of completely still footage. (27/02/2009)

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. (02/02/2008)

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. (14/10/2008)