Elisabet - Kultainen aikakausi

Don’t expect an intimate drama with characters portrayed in detail like in the first installment. Prepare for popcorn shortcuts, superficial glitter in the form of beautiful costumes and forceful milking of the audience’s emotions. Many obviously important characters disappear before the viewer realizes who they were. And the only two characters that make sense in the story (and are well played) are the villains played by Jordi Mollà and Samantha Morton. Director Shekhar Kapur is much better with darkness than with light, and he should try his hand at horror movies. The only thing Blanchett and Owen do is strike fancy poses. I’m afraid that this film was originally longer and we can only guess if it was cut down to size because the non-existent chemistry between Blanchett and Owen (the main failing of the film) was not helped by the additional scenes, or just for commercial reasons, for the consumer audience. At any rate, this resulting “fast” version is closer to Bruckheimer’s King Arthur than to the original Elizabeth. (16.10.2007)

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)

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)

A bland popcorn flick that can hardly be compared to the first one, which was more minimalistic and less mass audience-oriented. It lacks drama and a “realistic” portrayal of history, and it also lacks the typical action story and action itself. The characters deliver cliché dialogues, their relationships are black and white, leaving our eyes only for the excellent Cate Blanchett and a few very intimate scenes. Forget about seeing a thrilling naval battle, if you are seeking quality and interesting content better turn to the captivating Master and Commander. In the end, Elizabeth: The Golden Age it’s like seeing an average and completely unimpressive mediocre film. (02.12.2007)

Cate Blanchett is an excellent Elizabeth, Geoffrey Rush - Walsingham (perhaps a direct relative of Captain Barbossa) - again excels and can say everything with one look, the costumes are breathtaking, the music is beautiful, the direction is pleasant, and the portrayal of the relationship of Elizabeth I and Walter Raleigh (a very likeable Clive Owen) is not offensive - on the contrary, it's unforced and historically somewhat faithful... For about an hour and a quarter, it was all positives and I was convinced that The Golden Age would get a full rating like the previous film. But then it came. The Battle of Gravelines. My favorite chapter. Ouch. While it looks very nice (the digital magic is complemented with one actually-built ship, which the filmmakers designed to play an English schooner on one side and a Spanish schooner on the other side - a real piece of work, I recommend the bonus DVD), I was glad for the fire ships... But! In the film, it looks like Raleigh won the battle on his own. The script made him a Hollywood arch-hero from Pirates of the Caribbean, while Francis Drake only makes a passing appearance (he says two or three boring sentences and his name doesn't even appear in the end credits - the poor actor who will boast that he "played that Drake"), and the name Charles Howard of Effingham (it was in fact he who chose the eight people who became the firebugs) does not appear at all. The fact that only one ship of the entire Spanish Armada was damaged in the attack of the fire ships, after which the fleet dispersed and the battle, full of pursuit and shelling, was not played out until the morning, did not seem to interest the screenwriters... etc. I don't mind historical "errors" in movies like Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven. I can tolerate them there because they (more or less) don't tell about something that actually happened. But in this case, I'm not gonna turn a blind eye. Three stars for the terrible popcorn. (23.11.2011)

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)