Elizabeth: The Golden Age

i personally think this was a great movie. All of it may not be true to form but it still a great movie to watch. Great acting by all of the cast and very good special affects. This movie is a must see !!!!

we watched this at school and everyone loved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the actors are amazing and the set, costumes and music make you really in the time of elizabeth. WATCH IT IS AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xx

I wish that this was in the rent movie group as it's too expensive and I need to see it for uni as I'm doing media and this would be helpful. I've read the reviews, seen the trailer and I was interested in it beforehand but now I just think it's way too expensive and not worth the money.

I must admit I did really enjoy this film but it holds nothing over Elizabeth

While it is forgiveable for a little "dramatic licence" to be used to help a storyline, this film really oversteps the mark. Elizabeth is shown as being far too young for her actual age at the time of the Armada, she has nothing to do with her principal adviser Lord Burleigh, apparently dealing only with his subordinate Sir Francis Walsingham, and the role of the Earl of Leicester as leader in the preparations to deal with the Spanish invasion appears to have been taken over by Sir Francis Drake. Mary, Queen of Scots was apparently executed in a castle built on an Island in the middle of a lake or sea, instead of in Fotheringay Castle in the English Midlands and nothing is said of the way Elizabeth tried to absolve herself from the death of the Scottish Queen by signing the death warrant and then directing that it should not be used without her specific authority. A sequel so poor that it detracts greatly from the justifiably famous and well received first episode.

All those reviewers belly-aching about "historical inaccuracies" etc have kind of missed the point with this sequel to the majestic 1998 "Elizabeth". While the key tenets of the time are undoubtedly present in this film, no one claims it to be an exact representation of what happened. No historical film ever is - it would be relatively tedious if it were exactly as it all happened. What this film has going for it is another stellar performance by Cate Blanchett, a superb OST, fantastic cinematography and great suspense. What is slightly irritating is Samantha Morton's comedy Scots accent - Mary Stuart actually spoke with a French accent. Overall, a highly entertaining, satisfying film experience!

Terrible, historically inaccurate, over the top effects, an unusually poor performance from Cate, and Clive Owen is awful in it. Elizabeth (the previous film) meanwhile is brilliant. I can't believe they messed this one up so much. Don't waste your time warching it.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is about as historically inaccurate as you can get. It lacks any kind of force or dynamic impact, and doesn't seem to get anywhere by the end. It's worth a watch if you're looking for an easy film, just bear in mind that what is advertised as fact didn't really happen.

As a big fan of ‘Elizabeth’ I was looking forward to ‘The Golden Years’ and eagerly waited for it to come out on DVD. Having reprised the role she played so well ten years earlier, Cate Blanchett returns as a more experienced, and steely monarch, sure of herself and God’s role in placing her upon the throne (a view she held all her life), but although Blanchett tries hard, she somehow does not quite convince this time. So much is passed over, and much of the story was completely inaccurate. Where was The Earl of Leicester? Not in this film that's for sure, even though he was the most constant figure in her life. The director quite wrongly asserted at the end of 'Elizabeth' that she never saw him again in private. In fact he was a constant for the rest of his life, and was a General in the Armada, (dying a few months after) having come afresh from acting as 'Governor' (much to her displeasure) in the Netherlands, the Dutch wanting her to become their sovereign. Although Raleigh was one of her favourites, it is very doubtful she acted in such a manner with him, it would have been unthinkable. The film portrays Raleigh as the leader of the Armada, but again where was one of the main players Sir Francis Drake? The speech Elizabeth gave at Tilbury, which has been taught in History classes in Britain for the last couple of hundred years, was pared down, and missed the most important and inspiring speech she gave in her life. Not only that, but by the end of 'The Golden Years' she looks as if she 30 odd years old and is in the prime of her life, where in fact she was 55 years old and balding, had an ulcer in her leg (just Like her father had) as well as bad teeth. This film came nowhere near that of the first, even with the support of Geoffrey Rush reprising his role as Sir Francis Walsingham. And where did they get the idea that one of his brothers was involved in the Babington plot? If that had happened, it is very unlikely that he would have kept his position, let alone worse. Visually this film is impressive, but apart from that, it is left wanting.

this is a fantastic film, i wanted to buy the dvd and make an evening of it, but now I've been able to watch it on the way to work on my pod and do something else with my evening