Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
User Score
6.2 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 55 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 55
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 55
  3. Negative: 13 out of 55

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. viv
    Oct 10, 2007
    8
    Wow...I'm surprised by the early negative reviews. My guy and I were fortunate to attend the LA premiere and were rather impressed by the epic grandeur of this film and Cate Blanchett's mesmerizing performance. Perhaps we were influenced by the surrounding glitz and hoopla...but nevertheless, Blanchett's portrayal of the steely-but-vulnerable queen all but makes up for some admittedly bombastic moments & discrepancies.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. PatG.
    Oct 20, 2007
    7
    Well, given the reviews I was surprised at how much I did like in this film. Cate Blanchett, as others have said, can do no wrong. It is worth every penny just to see her performance. But I also considered it a fine cinematic experience. Yes, there are flaws, but the costumes, settings, and cinematography are stunning. It is a visual delight. Those things are enough to make it worth your while to see this film. I enjoyed it in many ways.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. JordanM.
    Oct 23, 2007
    5
    A big "Ooops" goes here. Cate Blanchett - she's good, we knew that, so what else is new??? Nothing "golden" about the movie. Wish we did something better with our time.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. JohnB
    Jan 25, 2008
    9
    Not strong on historical facts but nevertheless great fun.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. AngelicaH.
    Feb 24, 2008
    7
    It was worth watching for the costumes alone. But the movie does not explore the queen herself and her own complexity as a human being. Too bad.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. PrinsM.
    Mar 6, 2008
    3
    The first one was awful. This is even worse.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. AndreaM.
    May 13, 2008
    5
    Ludicrous screenplay. Only Cate Blanchett shouldn't be embarrassed to have been involved.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. AdamT.
    Oct 11, 2007
    10
    This film is beautifully crafted and Cate Blanchett gives an Oscar worthy performance, supported by a strong cast. Although her leading man may be corny to say the least he still adds to the film and helps make this one of the years best films!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. WesM.
    Oct 12, 2007
    1
    Pathetic, historically inaccurate and boring. I was totally disappointed.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. KevinC.
    Oct 12, 2007
    3
    Very disappointing film. The history of this period is so interesting why not juat stick to the book? The worst is the portrayal of the Spanish, who come off like Orcs. Mary Stuart and all the the plots swirling around her were reduced to sound bites. The Raleigh thing would have been better as a movie on PBS (or Lifetime). Terrible camera work and sets. Editing, screenplay. I could go on. I guess the actors did the best they could, but GIGO. It's just not good, and that's too bad.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. NGarry
    Nov 3, 2007
    3
    Simply put this film failed in every way. Over the top, under researched, aiming for the middle ground film goer who is a glossy mag reader. It wasn't enough to have dear Cate and cheeky smiley Clive to pull it off. I reached for my glasses, too often, finding the cinema curiously silenced but fidgety. The scenes were just plain bad, bordering on the sad, Was it Lord of the Rings! Joan of Arc! Too much, - Clive what a beautiful swimmer!! though lost out to the horse. Anyway, give it a miss - on the grounds that Mary was given a harsh Scottish street accent...Nae bad for a lass who grew up in France.!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. ClintM
    Oct 15, 2007
    8
    I may not be a paid critic but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I URGE you to ignore the reviews, ignore the critics and see this movie for yourself! If not, you're missing out on a thoroughly entertaining movie!! Cate Blanchett held my attention w/every word she spoke and every emotion she didn't need to speak. The set, costume and FX were beautiful. HELP OUT THIS FILM AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!!!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. AdamA.
    Oct 15, 2007
    8
    Elizabeth: The Golden Age is an apt sequel to the acclaimed 1998 film. Its a film that is better accepted when viewed as it is a film that is what it is, an attempt to be commerically viable and a historical epic.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. DavidT.
    Oct 22, 2007
    8
    Much better than the critics are saying.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. JaredC.
    Oct 27, 2007
    7
    Unique as it is dazzling. Great outstanding performances from the two far most spectacular stars, Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen. This intense epic sequel is great for young adult viewers like myself. Although, it's not a masterpiece if that's what you're expecting. The trailer was so well done but barely had any of that style in the film. The trailer was most likely like The Queen and looked totally appealing. It's good, but not great. Out of my standard of rating films, Elizabeth: The Golden Age doesn't reach Pan's Labyrinth's or The Queen's standards by far. But still an alright sequel for real movie goers to see.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. TonyB.
    Nov 10, 2008
    5
    A major disappointment, the film is spectacular to look at but difficult to connect to. As she always is, Cate Blanchett is excellent and so are those around her. The background music was frequently intrusive.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. JudyT
    Feb 27, 2008
    2
    Waste of film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. AlexD
    Feb 7, 2008
    5
    The 1998 Elizabeth is probably one of the first movies I acquired on DVD back in the days; I absolutely love it. Oddly enough, I didn't rush to see E:TGA in the theaters, no particular reason, but I did pick it up on DVD while shopping the other day. What a complete disappointment, but I can't say it's very surprising. This sequel, because that's all it is and I mean that in the worst Hollywood sort of way, is visually striking.. and it somewhat ends there. I feel as if the visual ties to the 1998 original are intact, but the story is so light and half-baked in comparison. This is a shame given it's a great period of European history (much more interesting than how she obtained the crown in my opinion, dixit the 1998 original!), Elizabeth was a very interesting person and monarch in a complex situation. Clive Owen surprised me though, I thought he had the part of playing her lover, I was actually grateful it didn't sink that low (no pun, that's for the Spanish!).… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. JillP.
    Mar 20, 2008
    4
    Patently silly from start to finish. The whole thing seems like an endlessly long perfume ad, complete with billowing gauze and guttering candles in nearly every scene. All style, no substance, a movie does not make.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. TimurR.
    Apr 27, 2008
    10
    This highly underrated film is actually quite brilliantly directed with one of the best performances of all time. I am sure the studios cut it as it could have used another hour. However, this talk of being historically accurate is simply unfair. I don't know of any movies that are historically accurate. They are not lectures, they are art! If you want history, listen to some lectures or read a book. This is to give you the experience of the time. And as for bombastic, overripe and all the other nonsense comments, well I guess if a film shows some emotion, it is too much for our cynical age.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. TomasV.
    Oct 11, 2007
    2
    Very repetitive storyline. Music soundtrack was remarkably bad. Acting was strong with major roles however smaller roles were remarkably weak Editing was acceptable Overall You would get far more from a history channel documentary then wasting 10 dollars for this.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. Chris
    Nov 23, 2007
    4
    Sir Francis Drake, Martin Frobisher and John Hawkins are turning over in their graves after watching Clive Owen defeat the Armada as Raleigh, oh by the way he was on land the whole time.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  23. RoseJ
    Oct 13, 2007
    3
    While I liked Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen, the movie as a whole just didn't make it. The editing and direction were not good. This movie was much more impressed with itself than I was. The music was nice, though.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. SarahP.
    Oct 14, 2007
    5
    Extremely disappointing. Boring and so full of misinformation. Costumes and wigs were pretty decent.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  25. ClaireD.
    Oct 14, 2007
    1
    I don't demand that costume drama be historically accurate but even my tolerance for dramatic license is strained by this silly epic. The events surrounding the invasion of the Spanish Armada are distorted into near camp. Not evn as soap opera does this drama convince. Blanchette and Owen do their best and emerge unscathed, but the roles played by Geoffrey Rush, Samantha Morton, Rhys Ifans and Tom Hollander are criminally thrown away. Australian Abby Cornish is interesting as Elizabeth's favorite lady in waiting and will no doubt go on to bigger and better things. films. Too silly to be taken seriously, this bodice ripper (quite literally in this case) devolves into an exercise in costume porn - the wigs and clothes are the real stars of the movie.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  26. SteveK.
    Oct 16, 2007
    10
    I think I have a unique perspective. I try to watch a movie for all the points of quality. And I do not know what these reviewers saw. I saw Kate give a fabulous both powerful and nuanced performance. An academy award winner if I have ever seen it. While the story might have taken on too much breadth and lost the perfect tightness and focus of the first movie, I thought they did a spectacular job of holding this together. It was gripping and intensely interesting without beating you to numbness, with times of intense emotion brought right into your soul, mixed with sweeping grandur and joy. This may not be historically accurate, it is a dramatization, and gloriously over decorated. Yeah, I'm over the top for this - this is an over top movie - especially considering the endless disappointment of so much hollywood fare. I would consider this a must see. If you want pure history, read a history book!!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  27. ArthurC.
    Oct 17, 2007
    3
    Elizabeth was a stunning, moving historical epic that got all the intimate moments right. This one fails on every level. The epic scenes are ridiculous (How can you screw up the Spanish Armada battle?) with over the top histrionics that plays better like a soap opera than anything truly meaningful. We spend small amounts of time on the history and too much time on a ridiculous triangle with Elizabeth, Bess, and Sir Walter Raleigh. I am truly disappointed with this, after looking so forward to a movie that could equal Elizabeth. The Helen Mirren TV miniseries doesn't even show the Spanish Armada battle, but did a better job of conveying the subtext that the battle had on the queen and her people. Here, it feels like more of an inconvenience. Also, there was a definite emotional connection between Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots that is glossed over in the movie, so when she is upset at her death, Elizabeth appears to be unreasonable and ridiculous just because "she killed a queen." Oh, and let's not get into the suspect history either. See the original, but avoid this one.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  28. DianeM.
    Oct 19, 2007
    8
    Very enjoyable period drama. Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey R. are wonderful. Deserves a higher rating.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  29. PeterK.
    Oct 21, 2007
    4
    Played fast and loose with the facts and evolved into something much bigger and much less than the historical scenario that was Elizabeth's life and times. A pity that such great actors (and such a production) had such a poor treatment of history.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  30. DaleM
    Feb 13, 2008
    3
    The movie is constructed as a series of rather flashy scenes. You get a little story and then an expensive scene with the camera circling the Queen looking pretty in a fancy wig and special lighting techniques. Then you get a little story and another expensive scene with the Queen in a different wig. And so on and so on. Eventually you get a nice scene of Elizabeth wearing armor while on horseback in a long red wig and another scene of ships burning and a horse swimming. You'd never suspect that Elizabethans didn't bathe much from this film, and that they couldn't just go to the Gap to get their skin-tight armor on demand. I suggest you wait until the movie comes out on a View-Master. This move is an abomination of all things Elizabethan.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  31. FrankM.
    Feb 13, 2008
    8
    I had a great time watching this melodrama. The people who enjoyed the first one seem to dislike this one for being over the top and corny but forget that "Elizabeth" was pretty much the same.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  32. ChadS.
    Nov 11, 2007
    5
    Cate Blanchett is forced to ride a horse and deliver a Mel Gibson-like speech because Sir Walter Raleigh(Clive Owen) is the pro-active character during the last moments of "Elizabeth: The Golden Age". Like Ed Harris("The Abyss") and Harrison Ford("Indiana Jones and the Lost Crusade") before him, Owen gets to perform the most dramatic of aquatic stunts, swim underwater. That should tip you off as to the problem with this most unlikely sequel. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is too big in scale. The film also goes overboard in demystifying "The Virgin Queen". She's too vulnerable, too weepy, in other words, too contemporary. The hissy fit she throws in the pavilion after Bess(Abbie Cornish) betrays her is an eye-roller. Blanchett is good, but this isn't "Dynasty".… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  33. ElaineS.
    Nov 19, 2007
    9
    Brilliant wigs, makeup and costuming. A bit casual on historical interpretation.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  34. ArielG
    Dec 15, 2007
    8
    It wasn't quite as engrossing as its prequel. It stays light on political intrigues and some historical facts, but still I quite enjoyed it. Think of this film as the more accessible to the masses, easily digestible and faster paced Elizabeth, compared to its more historical 1998 predecessor. Cate Blanchett was brilliant on her role, as usual.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
45 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 35
  2. Mixed: 26 out of 35
  3. Negative: 2 out of 35
  1. New York Magazine (Vulture)
    Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    40
    An unholy mixture of the banal and the bombastic.
    Read full review
  2. Rolling Stone
    Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    50
    Cate Blanchett can do anything, even play Bob Dylan, but she can't save this creaky sequel to her star-making 1998 biopic of Elizabeth I.
    Read full review
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    40
    Without the pleasure of watching Cate Blanchett continue the role that launched her to stardom, there would be little to recommend this latest of many cinematic and television accounts of the celebrated monarch's life.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »