Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

ElMaruecan82 In my review of the 1998 "Elizabeth", I said that it was more than your average costume drama since it had more to offer than the … well, costumes to begin with, and the usual antechamber plots, dizzying castle shots and climactic outbursts of blood. It wasn't the most original comment but I'm even more partial to it after watching the sequel of nine years later.Shekhar Kapur's first film was about the rise to power and the tactically efficient ascension of a courageous woman who stood tall against the Catholic establishment at a time it was still having a wide influence over British citizens. She defeated the odds by becoming the second Protestant sovereign of Britain, a captivating conquest from a heroine who, by cinematic standards, was an 'underdog'. Her climactic purge was a Machiavellian masterstroke often compared to the Baptism Massacre of "The Godfather", not the most unflattering comparison.In "The Golden Age", we meet Elizabeth again and she's not an underdog anymore, if she was Rocky, it would be the third: she's the Queen, as majestic and imperial as ever, but a bit too comfortable and accessible given her regal aura. I didn't mind it at the beginning and thought it fit the film's subtitle. But at the end, I wasn't sure I would give it the same compliment than the first film. It is entertaining and there's not a single bad performance, but there's a spice lacking somewhere. Like instead of dealing with the 'uneasy the head where lies the crown' trope, the focus was located this time a bit lower than the head, and maybe, just like Balboa, Elizabeth got too "civilized" for her own good.The Queen is in a zone of comfort indeed, smiling, laughing, throwing a few winks to Bess, her first lady-in-waiting (played by the distractingly beautiful Abbie Cornich), making naughty jokes about her virgin status despite the zealous and formal insistence of Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) to get her a husband. These parts tie the first act together and the sunny scenery, not to mention the magnificent art settings, make the whole thing a real visual delight. The problem is that these frivolous trivialities, rather than being the quietness before the storm are in fact the machinery structuring the whole first act, which makes the entrance of Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), supposedly one of the film's highlights, more problematic.Let me explain this: Owen is an extraordinarily charismatic actor, a man's man with a real presence, so instead of seeing in Raleigh the explorer who conquered a land he named Virginia in the name of you-know-who, who brought to England new resources such as potatoes, tobacco and gold, "borrowed" from Spanish ships… and not under their contentment, we see the dashing and dark brooding adventurer who immediately catches the eye of Cate Blanchett. We see the romance instead of the history, Elizabeth's heart-troubles contextualize the movie rather than the real problem 'out there', which is the rivalry with the most powerful Catholic country of the world: Spain. I wouldn't have minded an intimate angle… if it wasn't so superficial, not to mention, historically inaccurate.There's even a moment where the bond is so tight between Raleigh and Elizabeth that he crosses the line of insolence without even coming close to reach Elizabeth's breaking point. This Elizabeth is so hypnotized by the achievement of Raleigh that she forgot about her greatest conquest: power, and belittled herself in a way I didn't quite expect. I guess these artistic licenses were too blatant not to be deliberate, a sort of narrative choice meant to create a bigger contrast between Elizabeth's sudden vulnerability and the dark and scheming confidence of Philip II (Jordi Molla), ominously contemplating the conquest of England. The Spanish king is convinced that he's on the right side of God's Law while Elizabeth is the prey of doubt and love-sickness.It's not an uninteresting parallel between emotional fragility and unshakable faith, but the portrayal of Catholics isn't subtle and tends to reinforce that awkward feeling of something Manichean going on. I don't mind the Spanish being the antagonists, from a historical standpoint, it was true but it's all in the treatment and 'Golden Age" is too busy trading the authenticity for a few romantic subplots that I found myself lost more than once. The film shows an Elizabeth who's contested from within and from the exterior, whose loyal Bess gets pregnant from Raleigh but even the less literate in History knows that the real deal is the big fight against the Armada and couldn't care more about Elizabeth's self-esteem and existential issues.Yet the screenplay didn't establish solid hierarchies between the subplots. Everything is handled as if it was the same matter of life and death, to the point that we never really identify the moment where she Elizabeth overcame her demons, which basically means the whole second act. We have to accept that 'what didn't kill her made her stronger' to get ready for the big finale. It is ironic that in all this castle soap-opera, the most interesting character's arc is Marie Stuart (Samantha Morton) whose story-line is handled in better clarity and concludes in perhaps the most beautiful and memorable scene.I was baffled to read that the film took liberties with history, while it had the perfect material: the Spanish Enterprise, the assassination attempts, the execution of Marie and of course the Armada… whose climactic fight was too spectacular to elevate the film above conventionality, not that I believe Kapur tried to be unconventional. He was too busy making this visual ride that he forgot to stay focused on the few elements that made Elizabeth such an unconventional heroine.It's like Kapur was so carried away by the loss to "Shakespeare in Love" that he wanted his 'romantic' Best Picture contender. The film was "only" nominated for Best Actress and Costumes, not such a good idea, after all.

Sindre Kaspersen Indian screenwriter and director Shekhar Kapur's sixth feature film which was written by English screenwriters William Nicholson and Michael Hirst, is inspired by real events which took place in the late 16th century. It premiered in the Gala Presentations section at the 32nd Toronto International Film Festival in 2007, was shot on locations in England, Scotland and Spain and is a UK-Spain-France co- production which was produced by producers Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and Jonathan Cavendish. It tells the story about a Queen of England and Ireland who was born in the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, London, England in the early 1530s and who was the daughter of an English composer named Henry Tudor (1491-1547) and an English royal consort named Anne Boleyn (1501-1536).Distinctly and precisely directed by Indian filmmaker Shekhar Kapur, this quietly paced and somewhat fictional tale which is narrated mostly from the main character's point of view, draws a cinematographic portrayal of a Spanish King named Philip who aspires to make his daughter named Isabella Clara Eugenia who is an infante of Spain, the new Queen of the Kingdom of England and a Scottish Queen named Mary Stuart who is imprisoned in a castle called Fotheringhay in England. While notable for its versatile and atmospheric milieu depictions, cinematography by cinematographer Remi Adefarasin, production design by production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas and costume design by costume designer Alexandra Byrne, this dialog-driven and narrative-driven story about English history which was made seven years before an English polymath sang her words: "… think of it as a marriage refusal by me executioner … in a vertical impalement I hope you're not too tender … Mary … Queen of Scots…" depicts an abridged study of character and contains a great and timely score by composers Craig Armstrong and A.R. Rahman.This somewhat biographical, historic and terminologically spiritual character piece from the late 2000s which is set in England, Scotland and Spain in the late 16th century during the Tudor Dynasty (1485- 1603) and the Spanish Armada (1588) and where a pretender to the English throne who has legitimate claims to it thinks she knows what's best for England and the authentic Queen puts her loyalty to her nation before anything and anyone including herself, is impelled and reinforced by its cogent narrative structure, substantial character development, rhythmic continuity, soundless comment by Mary I of Scotland: "I forgive you with all my …" and the majestic acting performances by Australian actress Cate Blanchett, Australian actor Geoffrey Rush and English actress Samantha Morton. A grandiloquent narrative feature.

Ruben Malayan (RubenMalayan) I must admit, I am a sucker for historical films. But this one just confirmed what I see time and time again in the modern cinema - you may have all the money in the world, incredible cast, unbelievable production level and breath-taking art, but if your story and script are weak and the director lacks vision and pace - it will be a failure. This movie is a perfect example of that. The characters are very underdeveloped, the only one which is actually impressive is that of the King of Spain. Editing lacks pace, there is no climax and most of the time I wondered where all this is going? Ridley Scott should have directed this film and he'd make a masterpiece.

Red_Identity The film received mostly negative reviews when it came out, and still has to this day. To my surprise, it's adequate, although fairly average, and not that far below the quality of the original. It benefits from having a more structured plot, and the storyline is more about rising action and a climax (unlike the first). Blanchett is also quite impressive and I actually expected to think she was over the top (like I feel she sometimes is) but I think she plays it brilliantly, certainly not a nomination or performance I dismiss. Overall, it's definitely not nearly as bad as reviews would make me believe and once again the best thing about it is Blanchett.