Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) - Biography, Drama, History

Hohum Score

73

Boring

A mature Queen Elizabeth endures multiple crises late in her reign including court intrigues, an assassination plot, the Spanish Armada, and romantic disappointments.

IMDB: 6.8
Director: Shekhar Kapur
Stars: Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen
Length: 114 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 39 out of 239 found boring (16.31%)

One-line Reviews (228)

However, I really admire what Guy Dyas did as a production designer, all VFX, and costumes were absolutely stunning.

My wife summed it up well as we left the theater: "I feel like I've just flipped through a coffee table picture book for two hours and somebody turned up the stereo.

Other than being inaccurate, the screenplay is often confusing and riddling.

The intrigues and personal lives of folks of that time are really unknown in many ways and so the filmmakers too liberties with history--embellishing it here and there to make it seem more exciting.

Yet, for all its flaws, and despite its tendency to wander off into the realm of soap opera and melodrama a bit too often, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is still a fairly engrossing and entertaining piece of historical drama, and certainly nowhere near the unmitigated disaster many critics have accused it of being.

It is much tamer (garnering a PG-13 rating compared to the R rating of the other one) and more entertaining with the love story and the climatic battle at the end.

With 'Elizabeth: The Golden Ages' Shekhar Kapur returns to continuing the story of one of the most fascinating and enigmatic queens in history.

This was an absolutely stunning movie by director Shekhar Kapur, who has a history of doing very-well done films, as few as he has under his belt.

So I waited in intense excitement for this sequel - the Golden Age - hoping for more of the same.

"Elizabeth" is an enjoyable film, though much of it was supposition and fiction.

There are few, if any, dull moments.

Intense and well told .

There's no rhythm, it's very very slow, with many supposedly "key" scenes just dragging on & on & on (e.

Those who were expecting spectacular battle scenes, especially when the trailers have Elizabeth in full armour, rousing her troops, will be sorely disappointed, because history had already decided the outcome of the battle.

The film takes place as England, with an empty treasury, must defend its borders from Phillip II (Jordi Molla), King of Spain, and his Armada.

Technically, the sets and costumes were great, but as a previous commenter said, the love triangle was tedious and I felt the film relied too heavily on grand sweeping shots flooded with choral music, that dragged things down immensely.

"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.

Oh yes, this film does entertain, sending me on a delightfully exciting spell-bound journey in my attempt to separate legend and myths from historical facts.

With an exciting historical topic and a very influential all-star cast including Oscar winners Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush, this movie looked like the next grand epic since Kenneth Braughn's "King Henry V".

However, despite the promising premises of a story of love, war and politics centered around one of the most fascinating characters in the history of England and of the world he largely fails.

Elizabeth's rousing horseback speech to her troops before descending into battle should be stirring, the dramatic apex of the film where breaths are held and heartstrings tugged.

What precedes that epic showdown, however, is at times frustratingly uneven: certain scenes succumb to a bout of slowness, and certain dialogue exchanges between Blanchett and Owen (appropriately charismatic and "rude" as the Errol Flynn-like Raleigh) are corny to say the least.

He also employs the same narrative technique as he did last time, intertwining conspiracy thriller and romantic tragedy, with the addition of a little action in the third act, which sees the British fleet face the Spanish Armada in one of the most riveting naval battles to have been put on screen (it even manages to make Pirates of the Caribbean look lacking in explosions).

The scenes depicting this more or less "platonic" love affair are the most poorly written in the film, utilizing dialogue that ranges from the pedestrian and the pretentious to the downright laughable and silly.

Everything was stunning, from the settings and cinematography to the costumes.

Only that this ambition is sometimes risky: much as I would find Cate Blanched fascinating in the role of young Elisabeth, there is a predecessor that shadows her brilliant performance, and that's Glenda Jackson.

This movie PLODS along with pointless scenes and pointless characters.

It got a great cast and i find it relatively engaging with an "open" story that throws different threads at you.

The trailer pretty much shows what's worth watching out of the 2 hours movie, how sad is that?

Thoroughly boring, tedious and choppy film dealing with Queen Elizabeth.

But after the first 45 minutes it get boring and you ask yourself why.

As the man who charmed the Queen out of her heart and wits and dared to tell her not to act like a fool, Owen's Raleigh is daring at times, vulnerable at others, but always compelling and spectacular.

Although it does not meet the standards of the first film, it is a strong movie that is intriguing to watch and visually pleasing.

On the entertaining level, it is quite satisfying and will keep you on the edge of your seat, but the Spanish Armada is overwrought with a tedious montage sequence proceeded by an unorthodox shot of Elizabeth standing in a hallway.

In many respects it is a fantastic film; visually stunning, beautifully shot and decorated, always fascinating to watch.

His tale of making the crossing and reaching the new world was as gripping for the viewer as for Elizabeth.

All in all I thought this was a very enjoyable, rich movie.

Some historic 'liberties' have been taken to make the film plot more predictable and therefore somewhat boring near the end.

Propaganda .

I thought that "Elizebeth: The Golden Age" was more entertaining than any of the "Pirates of the Carribian" movies.

I am captivated by the intense acting and emotion in that movie and Cate Blanchett is simply mesmorising as Elizabeth.

This conspiracy is hard to follow; no names are given, so I don't know who is who, much less who ends up murdered and why.

His scenes became slightly tedious as a result, and this broke into the backbone of the plot.

Otherwise, you might find it a bit confusing and occasionally ponderous.

Disappointingly daft and clichéd but features a rich, fascinating performance from Blanchett .

Hence I was left feeling like I was watching a British propaganda film.

In addition to a wonderfully realized protagonist, the first film developed a rich cast of secondary characters like Sir Richard Attenborough's Lord Cecil and Geoffrey Rush's chilling but fascinating Sir Walsingham, Elizabeth's chief of security.

As "exciting" as the first...

" Their roles were smaller than I would like to have seen but both are riveting each time they are on screen, especially Morton.

At a deliberate slow pacing, the introduction with its scenes, characters and their dialog prepare the audience to receive Elizabeth as the Queen with a more focused, more rigid personality, in charge of hers and her country's destinies.

Kapur's attention to detail should be commended, and while the visuals are stunning and at times overwhelming, they never are at the detriment to the story being told.

Seems like the director/screenwriter couldn't choose which story they wanted to dramatize, so they tried to dramatize all five at once and ended up with a pointless hodge-podge.

Clive Owen is no more than a chick magnet and a typical action hero, and Geoffrey Rush seemed bored with the movie itself, and just went with the flow, following Blanchett's lead.

Except for Cate Blanchett in the title role all the players are dull and lifeless.

Unfortunately, like half the film, her demise is filmed entirely in slow motion, making her drawn-out execution last longer than her actual life.

good actors, great sets, exciting plots, the costumes were excellent.

Abbie Cornish is overrated, she is boring and even as Queen's lady she doesn't have the elegance.

The dry facts of history were made alive and engaging.

I am reduced to observations that are ordinary, banal because so.

I think I would have enjoyed the director make the English court do one of those pointless sing and dances in the monsoon rain.

Though I had just recently seen Elizabeth, and enjoyed it, and I've been known to go see just about any sequel.

Overall the movie was simply terrible in my opinion, it dragged and all the actors (excluding the always wonderful Cate Blanchett) gave lackluster performances.

Plot lines appeared and disappeared for fun, and it felt like it was going nowhere and taking the most convoluted route to get there.

Some shots that give you the perspective of an outsider looking in are really interesting, but then you have your fair share of pointless, excessive glamour shots, mostly of the queen in bright light trying to look like a queen, maybe even looking directly into the camera.

If I had to put my finger on it, I'd say that the director has simply gotten carried away - he has immersed himself so much in the subject that the result is a work of obsession - and that always sits uncomfortably.

British pamphlet, but entertaining .

The narrative is too slow and too confused and some of the lines are somewhat banal, while the attempt to create a romantic storyline between the 'virgin' queen and the adventurer Walter Raleigh (an able Clive Owen) is too contrived and unlikely.

So, added all together, it's a great compelling story that might or might not be true, and it's a great watch.

anyway, absolutely worth watching, a fav ...

Except that, the plot is interesting and intriguing.

As he troubles Elizabeth too, she leaves him in the hand of her most trusted maid (Abbie Cornish), inadvertently setting in motion a chain of events that could cause a quite unexpected reaction on her behalf: jealousy.

With a dream cast, a fascinating subject, and a budget larger than a pirate's booty, this film could have been great.

Very enjoyable viewing .

The film is beautiful to look at, is a bit sterile when it comes to much of the acting and is engaging--though I assume not to a large percentage of the folks out there.

He's truly fascinating to watch.

Most boring film I've seem since I saw The Fountain...

It's a visual feast as well as a compelling drama.

Continuity of events is often broken, confusing scenes at the beginning with young Queen and a doll, hard cuts between shots, loss of drama in events, it doesn't look like a feature film to me, it's more like Discovery Channel DVD to me.

My hopes were significantly raised; the film looked stunning.

This movie is worth watching.

All this can be confusing at times and the film seems to go off into different directions and tries to compact too much history into too little a time frame.

With a talented director, an amazing lead performance, and one of the most compelling chapters in history, "Golden Age" should have been something special.

In the past few years we have gotten HBO's stunning Elizabeth 1 and Helen Mirren's QE2, The Tudors, and the soon to be released Mary, Queen of Scots and The Other Boleyn Girl.

" These words were spoken by Sir Walter Raleigh to the Virgin Quenn…It's very rare that the Queen takes interest in a man, and she does… At this special point, England was very weak militarily… Elizabeth had discharged the navy… And once again it was the old problem of religious instability, which harasses the human race frequently… Anybody that's interested in this period of history will find it fascinating just how capable Elizabeth was in regards to how she dealt with the captive Queen of Scots… Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) had great respect for the Protestant Elizabeth, and was remarkably intrigued by her, and desperate to meet her, and fascinated… For several years Elizabeth suffered about her execution because she really believed two things… She believed that any queen was divine… She accepted as true that her Catholic cousin was there by the will of God, and therefore, Mary was there by the will of God… And in executing Mary, she would disintegrate her one belief that she herself was divine… Mary found it in death… Elizabeth had to find it in life… So if you look at the Armada, Elizabeth finally does become divine, and that's why we had to admire how the scene of the Armada is shot, by Shekhar Kapur, in that way… It's not actually a fiery sea battle between two countries… It's a 'Holy War' with Spain… Therefore, the defining moments of the Armada is when Elizabeth walks up across the verdant cliffs in flowing white nightgown… She's no longer the Avenging Queen… She's instead a supernatural being, a disembodied soul defeating the enemy, dominating the fearless of the waves, the force of the storm, and the strength of fire… Dripping with intrigues, plots, battles, mysteries, and strong emotions, the film captured the ecclesiastical spaces of the cathedrals to look more like a palace environment… It also captured the feel of the16th century architecture, linking and matching it to the proper locations

His style was too cliché and what really brought him down was not really realizing the point of his character.

Such direction involved blocking the characters form the camera with all manner of stupid objects from frames to walls and lights, shooting from ridiculously pointless angles such as ceilings and poorly edited scenes, jumping from time frames across England and Spain with no continuity of what is happening throughout the story.

Three other shorts are included – one on Dyas' intensive work on the production design, one on the recreation of the climactic battle with a mix of ship replicas and CGI, and one on the actual locations used for the filming.

The battle scenes only take up a small part of the film but were thrilling even though the result is known.

Save your money, and see something else

Nicely compelling .

The younger woman was dull, not worth betraying a queen.

faintly pointless and forgettable.

For the most part, though, this is an entertaining and well executed movie with good acting and interesting conflicts.

Yet, for all its flaws, and despite its tendency to wander off into the realm of soap opera and melodrama a bit too often, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is still a fairly engrossing and entertaining piece of historical drama, and certainly nowhere near the unmitigated disaster many critics have accused it of being.

The movie was gorgeous to behold in its art direction, cinematography and costumes, but also had an intriguing story and a very strong cast, headed by the brilliant Cate Blanchett.

There was no script.

Revolving too very often from one plot line after another, it just raises confusion and too many questions.

My Take: Not as bold, dashing or historically accurate as the first ELIZABETH, this sequel still has stunning visuals and superb acting.

Director Kapur has certainly avoided the creation of a history epic, based on dull, dry substance!

The Elizabethan Era's, indeed, a fascinating periods in English history - an era when England was relatively well off compared to other nations – even if its wealth was unevenly distributed!

In 1998, director Shekhar Kapur, along with one of Hollywood's most gifted performers, Cate Blanchett, brought new life to one of history's most compelling stories with a surprisingly powerful and entertaining film, ELIZABETH.

It takes forever to get to this sequence, and then it delivers as one of the most boring battle scenes I have ever seen.

) I thought the story often seemed to bog down, which sometimes made it hard to follow, and there was some questionable camera work which also made the movie difficult at times.

Although the latter film looks very good, (the costume department having done an especially fine job and the photography being on a par overall with the first film as well), there is just not the pace or human interest in it to sustain the attention of the audience over nearly two hours, (as testified to by the fact that this was the first film in 2007 which I had seen in a cinema in which more than one party walked out before the end!

Nicely entertaining movie...

So 'Elizabeth:The Golden Age' isn't a perfect movie,but there is enough about it that is right and it is well worth watching.

Sure it's as accurate to history as 300 was (or is that inaccurate), but its fancy and fancifully entertaining.

The film did look absolutely exquisite, just like the first film did, with the breathtaking scenery, stunning photography and sumptuous costumes.

Overall, it sinks with history and confuses with screenplay, but stuns with sheer beauty, breathtaking style and great performances.

If you enjoy great acting performances, stunning direction and cinematography and more (sets, costumes, etc.) you should be entertained for most of the two hours.

Rush likewise provides the voice of reason and calm with is portrayal of wise old Walsingham and the relationship between the two is a constantly fascinating golden thread running through this sometimes patchwork production.

As others have said, some of the dialogue is trite.

Finally, supporting actor Abbie Cornish (who played the role of Bess, Elizabeth's main lady-in-waiting) is a great looker, and the film is worth watching for her alone !

Clive Owen was good in the most inaccurate portrayal of all, dragged in only to have something romantic for the queen.

"Elizabeth: the Golden Age" has a lot to live up to, but surely the history behind the film would ensure an entertaining sequel about one of the history's most compelling individuals.

And the reign of Elizabeth was fascinating enough not to have to resort to falsities.

Returning as director, Shekhar Kapur has mounted this film with an eye toward mass audience consumption, focusing far more on the rather jejune - and largely fictionalized - romantic escapades of the Queen and Sir Walter Raleigh, than on the far more intriguing sociopolitical issues of the time.

sets, and costumes, and the camera work is stunning with clever compositions and remarkable fluidity and angles.

On the whole, this film is intense and the plot is told well.

One word sums up this flick: boring.

"Elizabeth" gave us a new and compelling look at the legendary monarch.

In the original, Rush's Walsingham was an intriguing, slippery character.

A history lesson dumbed down so much that 7-year-olds could understand what's going on, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is nevertheless a wholeheartedly entertaining film.

She is supported by the pretty but pointless in terms of story lady-in-waiting Bess Throckmorton, and Geoffrey Rush who is surprisingly reserved as her counsellor Sir Francis Walsingham.

This period of her life is familiar from a number of previous films and miniseries, but this time, the psychological complexity behind such a fascinating historical figure has been downgraded in favor of romance novel plot turns and paper-thin character development.

Beyond that, Universal has taken one of the most interesting situations in English history and filmed it with mundane boredom.

Despite its a very still and boring movie (sometimes seems that people have forgotten that they're almost to be invaded), this film is quite reasonable and worth seeing, especially for the excellent work of the actors.

Poor romantic propaganda - and then we have to put up with Clive Owen too.

We get Elizabeth's rousing speech to the troops in full battle armor.

Clive Owen sounded like he was reading everything off a script for the first time, and the rest of the cast were boring and uninteresting.

But if you are not a historian student for this period of history, who really doesn't know exactly what went on then, you most probably enjoyed it.

Cate Blanchett, not yet forty, is so stunning in every frame it seems laughable to see her grapple with Elizabeth's fear of old age and decay.

But this is all so formulaic, overdone and irrelevant.

I found the pacing, style and script wonderful and unusually entertaining and you'd have to ascribe a great deal of that to Kapur.

I gave an enormous cheer when I heard a sequel was planned; fantastic cast, fascinating director, good storyline, and a sure hit.

Some of the battle scenes were excellent, In most movies historical script research is a very labor intensive affair, so before you condemn a movie GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!

I say this because all the conspiracies and intrigue that made the first film so great are now replaced with a very predictable love triangle plot.

She's the Protestant Elizabeth , she was a brilliant stateswoman who managed to restore England to power and glory amidst public and private confusion .

It's confusing, riddled, but ravishingly entertaining.

I had forgotten that fascinating detail.

Simply Amazing and Entertaining.

The battle scenes dealing with the Spanish Armada are brief and confusing.

The story was rather boring.

A Visual Feast, A Tedious Film .

While the first segment is reasonably engrossing despite being convoluted, the second feels rushed.

Painfully long & slow .

THIS WAS THE WORST MOVIE EVER!!!

The story of Elizabeth is fascinating, as is the story of Raleigh as well.

Actually what a movie should be - Entertaining!

The costumes are the most breathtaking I've seen in a long time.

Then you'll giggle like a madman at the sight of Elizabeth wandering through her empty tent with a dazed look on her face, like the heroine of a romance novel waiting for a hot date.

Instead, it receives a ho hum reception.

Awful Boring Film.

This was a very exciting and enthralling period of British history, and particularly Elizabeth herself.

There's not enough explosions, death, and fighting to make it enjoyable.

Trite, forced, predictable.

If the film is not approached as a history lesson, it is moderately enjoyable in a very low-key way.

Shekhar Kapur's "Elizabeth" was a visually stunning, brilliantly acted, and extremely compelling film which depicted a young Princess forced by circumstances into one of the most delicate situations imaginable.

It is indeed a very well-made and entertaining movie, and I would definitely recommend watching it once in a hall on the large screen, some historical inaccuracies notwithstanding.

What a cliché!

With all of the intriguing aspects of Elizabeth's reign, and the fact that director and star were back from the original, it's doubly disappointing.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age – TRASH IT (C-) After watching Elizabeth it was hard to believe that the same director can make such shallow, tedious Elizabeth movie.

I'm talking about the writers of this rather boring film.

It is predictable to the point I was left bored during the majority of the film.

My advice: stop reading magazines about body consciousness, get the heck off your pointless cell phones, stop watching "Stupid Vapid Housewives from Any County, and read a book on this amazing woman in English history.

The film carries a mix of intriguing historical facts, legends and myths in ways that one can only expect history teachers of English public schools to apply to make their lessons interesting, or hear from gossipy English peers, from history classes, wanting to impress their friends with stranger-than-fiction tidbits and hearsay of those times.

If you have watched the first, in the end of the film when she cuts all her hair off and makes herself entirely hideous to 'Marry England' it continues as if she regretted doing that in 'The Golden Age'as she so obviously feels unattractive and like she has lost her youth and when the charming Sir Walter Rileigh appears problems occur and the plot takes a rather bland path.

Worst of all, the movie bordered propaganda in its political incorrectness and it is becoming more and more of a frustration - as a non Anglo-Saxon - to watch movies such as these.

I found myself to be pretty darn bored through just about everything.

While the first Elizabeth film served as a wondrous combination between dramatization of a fascinating period in England's history, deliciously lavish production design, and an intense, amazingly dedicated character study on Cate Blanchett's part as she dubiously explores every possible nook and cranny of the mysterious Virgin Queen.

The scenes depicting this more or less "platonic" love affair are the most poorly written in the film, utilizing dialogue that ranges from the pedestrian and the pretentious to the downright laughable and silly.

These two story lines supporting each other do so that are very few slow or dull moments in the movie.

Returning as director, Shekhar Kapur has mounted this film with an eye toward mass audience consumption, focusing far more on the rather jejune - and largely fictionalized - romantic escapades of the Queen and Sir Walter Raleigh, than on the far more intriguing sociopolitical issues of the time.

But for a period piece, with foundation laid in history, coupled with a dash of artistic and dramatic licensing, Elizabeth: The Golden Age does serve up copious amounts of excellent acting, courtesy of Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush reprising her role as trusted adviser Sir Francis Walsingham and Owen, that it still makes it compelling to witness historical events put up on screen (of course with accuracy never being 100% anyway).

The film indeed suffered from some inconsolable plot weaknesses, but does feature exquisitely lavish production design and an expertly poignant, rounded and fantastically intense performance from the always great Cate Blanchett, and that's enough to make it even somewhat worth a look.

Entertaining, pompous, inaccurate .

This film is entertaining and the acting for the most part is excellent.

Visually stunning, with an endless array of knockout costumes for Blanchett, special effects and scenery as majestic as any that have been photographed by fine cinematographer Remie Adefarasin and a musical score by Craig Armstrong and AR Rahman - all of these fine attributes cannot cover the weak script and the general lack of character development that hampers the usually exceptional core of actors.

It was enjoyable and griping in so many ways that the fluff and the silliness can be mostly forgiven.

The sequel also lacked the compelling villain supplied by Christopher Eccleston's Norfolk in the original.

It was enthralling, fully entertaining, and engaging every moment.

the other characters where OK, by that i mean that i did not find anything intriguing with the characters, also i found their story to be sort of weird and boring.

The music is horrible, too loud, too pretentious, detached from the image.

Could of been even better but still enjoyable .

And, since this magnificent film is based on a true story it makes it all the more gripping!

Magnificent, lavish, stunning -- all these words apply.

Completely disjointed, all over the place.

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.

It is very rare that we are bestowed with a historical film as engrossing and beautiful as this.

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.

It was fascinating to be able to compare these two movies from two different eras, to see how modern cinematography has developed in its depiction of Elizabeth and the late 16th century.

Elizabeth struggles to keep in check her straight-laced royal duties and a very unexpected relationship with the dashing seafaring man Sir Walter Raleigh(Clive Owen).

If anything his characterisation is overwritten for such a dull person.

Also, all of the extra female characters looked the same, which got incredibly confusing.

her sentimentally vulnerable images - and also effectively reinforce the moments of gripping horrors of the events witnessed or felt.

Enjoyable .

Very well made and entertaining film .

Contrary to some of the other comments on this site, I just saw the movie yesterday evening and I found it to be very enjoyable viewing with an excellent cast.

Blanchett, Owen, Rush, and Cornish are all fascinating to watch perform, and they could probably make a car commercial seem like high drama.

The most fascinating failure of all time.

just prancing about in long pointless dances dressed up in the beautiful dresses).

Cate Blanchett is breathtaking in her portrayal of the Virgin Queen.

Of course it is easy to pick apart the works of others, and I found this to be a highly engaging and entertaining film.

From Sir Walter Raleigh swimming underwater while ships burn above him to the execution of Mary Stuart, Kapur gives his share of emotionally stunning sequences.

The awkwardness of this film projected a feeling that various pages of the script must have been stuck together as it continues along - giving it a feel that can only be described as disjointed and forced.

If you want an entertaining movie that is geared more towards adults than children, then you should check the movie out.

Snore.

I would like to comment on some of the other reader postings as well as touch on some of the points I found enjoyable about the film.

A tedious, unfulfilling, disjointed, directionless mess.

Indeed, it's a crafty way to introduce Elizabeth before Director Kapur plunges his audience into a compelling tale of treachery, assassination attempts and romance that affects the Virgin Queen during her reign.

Great performances by Blanchet for sure and also a entertaining contribution by Owen and clear a wonderful description of that part of the Queen's life with all her sorrows and problems she faces, trying to rule the country at best.

It's so boring, awful.

Only Morton, using her three or four scenes to perfection, comes close to stealing the limelight from the protagonist, with a wounded, compelling depiction of dignified defeat.

The screenplay is a curate's egg of high passion and gory drama mixed with occasionally stilted and cliché-laden dialogue.

This film is enjoyable, even though, for me, its re-writing and omission of important historical incidents does detract somewhat from the whole in a way that "Elizabeth" did not.

Evocative and imaginative musical score fitting to the past time by Craig Armstrong .

She plays her with a wonderfully entertaining combination of authoritarian matriarch and playful, mischievous teenager.

I strongly suggest you do not see this movie, it is simply a waste of time and money.

It's an enjoyable film to watch.

this movie wasn't fun or entertaining, it was too stupid and boring and totally unreasonable in it's depiction of history to be enjoyable.

Which should all make for gripping stuff so why does Clive Owen bore us all to death for most of the time?

), the cinematography was murky, monochromatic and dull, the FX were corny and predictable and the script had contrived, silly, dialogue.

A miss opportunity for greatness, but enjoyable nonetheless .

Once again, best best bits of the screenplay goes to Ms. Blanchett, who delivers them with stunning power guaranteed to make a killing at the Oscars.

The film seemed a little disjointed, jumping from one grand, beautiful, melodramatic scene to the next.

But I feared that long stretches in between would be slow, dull and only about showing the costumes.

Overall, don't waste your time on this disappointing venture.

Only the scenes with Mary were engaging.