"Elizabeth, The Golden Age"

superstring01

superstring01

Moderator
Did anybody see this movie?

The first one ("Elizabeth") was an excellent movie, despite its historical deviations. The sequel, however, seemed to relish in historical deviation. In fact, it would appear that they just threw out history altogether and just kept the rather interesting notion of a renaissance queen of England named Elizabeth who was a compelling leader who did some revolutionary things. The rest of the story, it would seem, was totally invented (and quite badly, actually).

~String
 
It's attractive to look at. Good sets. Solid looking costumes. Plus: Cate Blanchett (one of my absolute favorite actresses) does an amazing job portraying QE1. Shame about the horrible script.

~String
 
I still didn't, but I will soon.
Mrs Blanchett was astonishing in first Elizabeth.

How was Geoffrey Rush (my favourite actor, BTW)? He had excellent performance as Sir Walsingham in first part.
 
I also have to add to my comments, that Geoffrey Rush was amazing. His portrayal of Walsingham, coupled with Blanchett's Elizabeth is what made the first movie what it was. In the sequel, his performance was a bit less stellar. It lacked some of the qualities of the first one.

Don't get me wrong, were it not for him and Blanchett, the second movie would have been altogether unwatchable-- they were its only saving grace.

I wanted to love this film. I rank the first move in my top ten list-- I will forever consider the 1998 Academy Award for best actress to have been stolen by that simpleton, Gwyneth Paltrow, for her role in "Shakespeare In Love" (which, oddly enough, had the OTHER greatest female actor in the world playing Elizabeth: Judy Dench, who DID win for best supporting actress... it could have been the year for QE1...). As I said, wanted to love this film, but it fell miserably short.

~String
 
superstring99 said:
I also have to add to my comments, that Geoffrey Rush was amazing. His portrayal of Walsingham, coupled with Blanchett's Elizabeth is what made the first movie what it was. In the sequel, his performance was a bit less stellar. It lacked some of the qualities of the first one.

Don't get me wrong, were it not for him and Blanchett, the second movie would have been altogether unwatchable-- they were its only saving grace.

I wanted to love this film. I rank the first move in my top ten list-- I will forever consider the 1998 Academy Award for best actress to have been stolen by that simpleton, Gwyneth Paltrow, for her role in "Shakespeare In Love" (which, oddly enough, had the OTHER greatest female actor in the world playing Elizabeth: Judy Dench, who DID win for best supporting actress... it could have been the year for QE1...). As I said, wanted to love this film, but it fell miserably short.

~String
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info. :)

I've heard that 'Golden Age' is not so good as the first part, but it's still one of my 'the most anticipated' movies in this year.
I hope I'll see it soon.
 
S.A.M. said:
Did Shekhar Kapur direct the second one too?
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. Which is such a surprise considering how great of a job he did in the first one.

I just can't get over how far they diverged from history. I'm okay with dispensing with exact details in order to facilitate a more fluid plot... but there were things that were totally invented and or substituted where they weren't required to further the plot.

Also, as a person who's not fond of the Catholic Church, I can say honestly that the church isn't pure evil-- much in contrast with how the movie attempted to portray it.

~String
 
I saw it String. My verdict is it's worth seeing, but not worth going to see.

As for the historical blunders, I think the main thrusts of the plot were accurate. Though the soap opera fashion of it annoyed me, Raliegh did carry on with one of the Queen's attendents. My main complaint was they had him fighting in a battle he didn't fight in, and in doing so, completely overlooked Sir Francis Drake, who was the real hero...
 
countezero said:
I saw it String. My verdict is it's worth seeing, but not worth going to see.

As for the historical blunders, I think the main thrusts of the plot were accurate. Though the soap opera fashion of it annoyed me, Raliegh did carry on with one of the Queen's attendants. My main complaint was they had him fighting in a battle he didn't fight in, and in doing so, completely overlooked Sir Francis Drake, who was the real hero...
Click to expand...

Hmm. Not to mention that the entire battle at sea took place nothing like portrayed in the movie. Also, the Armada didn't set sail to "bring the inquisition to England." The Spanish court couldn't have given two shits who the English prayed to, they were sailing to England to stop the English from meddling in the affairs of the Low Countries and to curtail the English support of privateers in the New World. No tribute was payed to the aid that the Dutch Navy played in the whole affair, and the movie made it look like the Armada ended then and there, which is false, as I'm sure you know.

I was happy to see how they showed Elizabeth amongst her troops, and though the speech she gave was nothing like what I've read, it was close enough to convey the emotional nut of the matter.

In the epilogue, it stated that after that defeat the Spanish began to decline (or something like that), which is also false. Though that time marked the beginning of the English Empire, the size and strength of the Spanish Empire and it's powerful fleet actually continued to increase for about another fifty years, not beginning to show any marked decline for over a century. Indeed, it was so powerful, that by and large, the English steared way clear of any serious confrontation with the Spanish for another century.

Other notes: 1) potatoes had existed in Europe for about fifty years and though they weren't eaten at court, they were already proliferating in the British Isles, 2) I know of no historical reference to Native Americans being brought to the court of Elizabeth.

mountainhare said:
Golden Age?

Is that anything like golden showers?
Click to expand...

Similar, but without all that pesky piss.

~String
 
Last edited:
superstring99 said:
Hmm. Not to mention that the entire battle at sea took place nothing like portrayed in the movie.
Click to expand...

I was extremely disappointed in the battle. I was hoping to see the realistic and historical equivalent of Master and Commander. What little we get in the film is laughable and overly grandiose.

superstring99 said:
Also, the Armada didn't set sail to "bring the inquisition to England." The Spanish court couldn't have given two shits who the English prayed to, they were sailing to England to stop the English from meddling in the affairs of the Low Countries and to curtail the English support of privateers in the New World.
Click to expand...

Philip, per my recollection, was very much the religious nut he is portrayed as in the film. And although your political calculations are correct, the zealot angle was never entirely absent from his thoughts, either. He was very much a Catholic and very much inclined to take his position as a sort of defender of the faith seriously.

superstring99 said:
No tribute was payed to the aid that the Dutch Navy played in the whole affair, and the movie made it look like the Armada ended then and there, which is false, as I'm sure you know.
Click to expand...

I don't know a heck of lot about the actual battles, so my knowledge of the role of the Dutch Navy is scarce. But I do agree with you that the battle with the armada was a long and drawn out affair, though the Battle of Gravelines was something of a decisive engagement. What particularly irked me about the movie is that it made the win look like the result of quirky combination of luck, God's Will and astrology. Strange, that...

superstring99 said:
Other notes: 1) potatoes had existed in Europe for about fifty years and though they weren't eaten at court, they were already proliferating in the British Isles
Click to expand...

According to legend, Raleigh is the man who took the potato to Ireland...
 
countezero said:
Philip, per my recollection, was very much the religious nut he is portrayed as in the film. And although your political calculations are correct, the zealot angle was never entirely absent from his thoughts, either. He was very much a Catholic and very much inclined to take his position as a sort of defender of the faith seriously.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about that. Though Philip was, indeed, the prod behind Mary's ambitious plans to make England totally catholic (he was married to her). Though I'm sure he would LOVED to have been THE man who made England "catholic again", I don't think that THAT was enough to send 130 ships to fight the British Crown-- it was more of a slogan to motivate the troops. "Kill the Japs" and all that nonsense.

countezero said:
According to legend, Raleigh is the man who took the potato to Ireland...
Click to expand...

From a reading of mine (Bill Bryson's "Made In America") posits that the potato blight was traced to the only two varieties of potato plants that were brought to Spain and were then sent as a gift to England, were kept as interesting house plants for a time, and then sent to Ireland and were promptly adopted by the populous. Though Bryson isn't beyond making a mistake, I trust his research.

~String
 
superstring99 said:
The first one ("Elizabeth") was an excellent movie, despite its historical deviations.
Click to expand...

Thought the first one was awful.

It was the kind of pretentious, sentimental crap you'd expect from an Indian director (originally trained as an accountant by the way...LOL...typical of people in that spineless culture) - who tend to glorify European women.

All those swooping camera angles and empty visuals blinded people to the shit script and even shitter acting.

A piece of passionless crap with none of the reality of life amongst the English.

(Letting Asians anywhere near our culture is a bad idea)
 
Last edited:
DeepThought said:
Thought the first one was awful.

It was the kind of pretentious, sentimental crap you'd expect from an Indian director (originally trained as an accountant by the way...LOL...typical of people in that spineless culture) - who tend to glorify European women.

All those swooping camera angles and empty visuals blinded people to the shit script and even shitter acting.

A piece of passionless crap with none of the reality of life amongst the English.

(Letting Asians anywhere near our culture is a bad idea)
Click to expand...

Sure. You hate the film... but nothing like showing your true racist attitudes to boot!

~String
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top