Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Rather Silly

Well I saw the new Elizabeth movie last nightand just thought I would give a review since it’s a relatively doper-ish movie.

Overall I would say that the director, editor, cinematographer, and soundtrack composer did their very best to ignore some very good acting and a decent script about a rather fascinating and impressive section of history and actors. The end effect being that after you are done watching the movie, it’s like you’d just watched a really long trailer by some ham-handed advertising studio for a much better movie that actually cared about the history and letting the actors really get roaring. Just unfortunately you know that no such movie is in the making and you’re stuck with the somewhat cheesy, two hour long trailer for it.

To go over the list of the various sins of each of the guilty parties:

Directing / The Script: While each of the actors gave wonderful performances, they were wonderful performances of poorly chosen reactions. In every other scene Elizabeth is either crying and distraught or sitting absolutely still telling everyone how dispassionate she is, or switching immediately from one state to the other. It would have been rather nice to have seen some middle ground between wise and cool, and distraught and screaming. And similar for all the other actors, they each get one monotonous emotion that they play throughout the movie, regardless of what is happening about them. Raleigh, in one scene, happens upon his wife being screamed at by the Queen. Does he get angry or scared or any other emotion? No of course not, since Sir Raleigh only has the part of a suave, confident do-gooder. And so he walks up with the same swagger as he had in any other scene to seduce the Queen away from his wife with a smile–while the Queen is still physically hitting his wife. Yeesh.

Editing: So as to show the evilness of Spain and all the other bad guys in the film, and sometimes just because they needed such a scene or otherwise just felt in the mood for it, every ten or fifteen minutes or so we’re suddenly presented with a scene of some random people doing something dastardly. The context is rarely linked to anything, we’ll just suddenly be presented with some random group of people killing some poor sod and not much more, and then back to the story. :confused: Whyyyy? I ask you, whyyyy?

Cinematography: This is the films weakest point. While any one scene of the movie might be visually impressive, after the fourth time that the camera does a full circle around Elizabeth for two minutes straight, you really start wishing that they would just get on with it. It’s like, since they failed to win the Best Costume and Best Cinematography with the first Elizabeth movie that they only cared about topping whatever costumery and cinamatography they had in the original, but at the expense of it making any sense whatsoever for the flow of the movie. Indeed, while they do take the two mintes in each scene to do a full circle of the actors with the camera you do sit there thinking how impressive all the detail is on the costumes are–I’d never realised that they had chicken wire to hold up the frills around women’s necks at the time of Elizabeth. But NOW I intimately know this fact for I was treated to a circling close up of Elizabeth’s neck at least two times (and yes I mean her neck–who cares about the main character’s face while she is talking…)

Soundtrack: Bombastic. Bombastic. Bombastic. The amount of melodrama pumped into the score was just silly. Listening to something remniscent of the climax of the most emotional scene ever put on film for nothing more glamorous than doing a circle of Queen Elizabeth’s neck in her red dress is just stupid. When the film finally came to scenes that could be said to have been worthy of music like that you were just shaking your head and remaining firmly planted against the uplifting melody. Bleh.

For the sake of the quality of the acting (if not the rationality of the things they were made to act) and the simple interestingness of the history (bastardized as it may be), I’d still give the movie 2 stars, for it isn’t awful. But that’s a high 2, with a desire to slap the production crew on the head thrown in.

I liked the original and was looking forward to the sequel. Now I find out it sucks. Oh well. Maybe I’ll check it out on DVD.

Woa! :stuck_out_tongue:

Sounds like my kind of movie.

-FrL-

I just saw it this afternoon. I was an okay movie, but not as good as the first. The costumes, sets, etc were the best part. I thought they’d end the film with Elizabeth on her deathbed, but no. Is that really how the famouse puddle incident happened? It does make more sense that the version I learned in middle school (that Elizabeth was shopping in at the market).

I saw it on the weekend. I thought it was an okay silly historical movie. I mainly wanted to see the costumes. It wasn’t as good as the first one. The random shots of dyeing robes red were kind of annoying. I assume it was in preparation for the Inquisition arriving.
Apropros of the Inquisitorial imagery, does anyone know how many people in England were executed during Elizabeth’s rule for heresy (or being Catholic)? I’ve heard it was a reasonable number.

Among other things, I understand that Sir Walter Raleigh is depicted as quite the swashbuckler during the 1588 attempted Armada invasion, when in reality he stayed on shore.

I thought the first one took way too many historical liberties, particularly the ridiculous Godfather style “Today we settle Tudor Family business” ending and the “presto chango you’re a mother goddess” bits, and how the hell do you poison a dress? The notion of 30-something Cate Blanchett playing 55 year old Elizabeth was just a bit more than I could handle so I haven’t gone to see it (though going from the bustline in pics of her painted when she was over 60, I’m sure Elizabeth I would quite have approved the casting!).

My WAG:

  1. Cut out the respective parts of your dress–petticoat, bodice, sleeves.
  2. Fill up a vat with your intended colour of dye.
  3. [del]Profit[/del] Add your choice of poison. [del]Or get Opal to do it.[/del]
  4. Dye your cloth. Wear very heavy gloves at all times and change them frequently.
  5. Hang up to dry. Do not touch, don’t be in the room with it; open a window and wait for the fumes to clear out.
  6. Using the same gloves, stitch your pieces together. Add embroidery and pearls and stuff.
  7. Wrap up, pack up, deliver. The Queen gets her gift, slips on her gown, gets all hot and sweaty–and trust me, in Elizabethan England she will–hey presto! Instant poisoned queen. (Or, in this case, instant poisoned serving maid.)

I haven’t seen the first one. I saw the second one last weekend. It was worth the price of a ticket. Barely.

The acting was quality. I agree with **Sage Rat ** about the cinematography. My main beef was with the audio. I know they were shooting in cavernous cathedrals and castles, but the echoes made it hard for me to understand some of the dialogue. I know it’s kind of artificial to record the sound without the echoes, but what’s the point of dialogue if I can’t understand it?

Still, it was better than anything else that was showing.

The most impressive vision I retained from the movie was Rosie O’Donnell as a dwarf lady-in-waiting…

Just a nit, but the formation “Sir Surname” is never used. He would have been referred to as Sir Walter Raleigh, Raleigh or as Sir Walter.

I was a bit annoyed at the dreadful Spanish accents the Spaniards had. Seriously, would it have been that difficult to use real Spaniards to play Spaniards in the movie?

Haven’t seen it, but after the first movie, I had to wonder – with one of the most eventful, dramatic reigns in history to write about, why make stuff up?

Thanks for the review. I had problems with the first movie, so I won’t rush out to see Elizabeth II: Acoustic Boogaloo.

I’m still reeling from the sheer weight of historical innacuracies that plagued the first film. Sure, it was an entertaining movie, but as someone with a keen interest in the period I found myself wincing every 10 minutes as an anachronism or sheer made up sequence occured. If you want a good and accurate rendition of Elizabeth’s reign I recommend the version with Anne Marie Macduff which is excellent.

I’m in two minds as to whether to go and see the second movie as I’ve heard from a lot of sources that it’s a bit rubbish.

I liked the cameo of Lou Dobbs, though, standing on the cliffs and screaming “Send the Spanish speakers back before they take over!” (no wait, that was on CNN).

Was Mary, Queen of Scots really executed in the throne room before an empty throne? Other versions I’ve seen have her execution taking place outdoors and in public.

Not before an empty throne, but definitely indoors: in the great hall at Fotheringhay Castle in Northamptonshire, February 8, 1587.

(Incidentally, her portrait looks exactly like Kathy Burke, the woman who played Queen Mary in the first Elizabeth movie. It’s eerie.)

Out of curiosity, did they have her red dress and her dog in this version? I was surprised that they didn’t in the Helen Mirren version (they may have had the red dress but not the dog).

Sorry, I’m spamming this thread: definitely the red dress (Samantha Morton looks completely ethereal in it) but as far as I remember, no dog.