Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age picks up shortly after the first film (Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen) left off. Queen Elizabeth I has been in power for a few years, and she's comfortable, or as comfortable as a Queen can be, I suppose, in her Queenly duties. At the onset of this film, Elizabeth's (played again by Cate Blanchett) advisers are trying to marry her off, but she, knowing the consequences in this loss of power, will have none of it. King Phillip II of Spain (played by Jordi Molla) is plotting her death, and unleashing the Spanish Inquisition upon England's heretic shores. Wrapped up in his devious plot is imprisoned Mary Stuart (played by Samantha Morton), who wants the crown that she feels is rightfully hers. She's Catholic, too, so easy prey for Spanish advances. Meanwhile, enter Sir Walter Raleigh (played by Clive Owen), into the court. He's trying to gather more gold from the Queen to finance further trips to the Americas, so he spins delicious tales of new lands and travels for the Queen, who, living a sedentary life, eats it up readily, and who begins to feel the pull towards this new, and enticing creature. Too bad her servant, Elizabeth Throckmorton (played by Abbie Cornish) gets there first, and in a big way. So, feeling a bit frazzled by assassination attempts, forceful advisers, lovers' spats, and an impending fleet of Spanish ships sailing on England's shores, Elizabeth does the only thing she knows how to do: ride out on her white horse, and lead her troops into a glorious battle for Queen, country, and religious freedom!

If any of that sounds like a schlock pseudo-summer-blockbuster, it's because this movie played like one. Why those choices were made, I can only offer conjecture. Which follows...

So, let's talk about some of the good stuff about this film, ey? I was happy to see Cate Blanchett reprise her role as the young Queen Elizabeth. She really is stellar in this role. She went even further into this character, showing what age and wisdom brought to it. There was a substantial lacking when it came to any overly emotional scenes, though. She seemed straight out of a sappy melodrama, but I chalk that more up to the writing, than her acting. I think she handled the script professionally, and adequately.

That's about it for the good, though. This film was SORELY lacking in any substance whatsoever. I felt like I had been hit by a frying pan numerous times during this film. There was no subtlety. I list three main culprits for this: director Shekhar Kapur, and writers William Nicholson and Michael Hirst. Now, Kapur and Hirst worked on the first film, but Nicholson was new, and some of his credits include writing for such films as Gladiator, First Knight and Nell. One might be inclined to recognize his qualification through these credits. Alas, you might be sadly mistaken. These films possess saccharine, pseudo-historical, dolled-up-action qualities (some of those qualities listed are present, if not all), and this film could have done without them. Those tricks worked in the 90's, or 2000, but I, for one, wanted more. For a prime example of a frying pan moment, please refer to the scene where Elizabeth is watching the battle between the English and the Spanish. She is in the only patch of light, all luminescent in her armor and long, flowing locks, while King Phillip II is in the darkened candlelight, praying to God to help his cause. Oh, one represents the dark, and one represents the light. I get it!

The cinematography made me motion sick. There were trademark Michael Bay circular camera shots throughout this movie. Why? They served no purpose in furthering the impact for the audience. They just served to annoy the crap out of me while I'm trying to listen to the Queen's monologue about going to war, for crying out loud!

There were also too many cliches in this film to properly keep track of. One that I can mention, right off the bat, is the portrayal of the death of Mary Stuart. Now, picture this in your mind's eye: slow motion camera shots of Mary Stuart from her walk to the chopping block, and through the deed, intercut with shots of Elizabeth making herself sick over her decision to have her executed, Mary Stuart whispers "I forgive you" to the executioner, her lady in waiting screams in horror after her head's chopped off. Did you picture it? Now, take away any clever dialogue, any unique camera shots, and any true emotion you might have thought up. That's what the scene was like.

An angle that this film took in portraying Elizabeth I was to poke holes in her Queenly and powerful veneer. Most historical films do this, granted, but I think Hirst and Nicholson got a little too overzealous at this. Any time they could make Elizabeth seem out of control, they reveled in it. The whole love interest with Raleigh, petty power spats with Sir Francis Walshingham (played by Geoffrey Rush, who I didn't mention until now, because he's just in this film, really, because they wanted to cast Geoffrey Rush again), and working herself up into such a tizzy over her decision to execute Mary Stuart; all these things, in their portrayal, just served to make Elizabeth look like a poor, frail woman, rather than the ballsy ruler who we saw in the first film. It seemed misogynistic, more than anything.

One question I asked myself while watching was this: is it fun to watch a history movie if you already know how the history turns out? We know the British defeat the Spanish armada, so is it interesting to watch these parts? I know that directors and writers can choose to follow the history or not, and their interpretations can either be interesting or not, but do we still want to give our time in watching these? Maybe it was just because the movie trampled no new ground, that I asked myself this, but it still popped into my head, none the less.

Anyways, this movie was far too flashy for it's own good. You can make history interesting without repetitive, circular camera shots, and special effects of heroes swimming under burning boats.