Leave a comment

Comments 2

writer560 February 19 2008, 20:50:20 UTC
I completely agree with you about "Golden Age," but I still adore the first film, and I think I always will. Yes it was over the top, but there's really no other way to portray the intrigue and danger that surrounded Elizabeth's ascension to the throne. I love the way that all of the frivolity of Elizabeth's court is juxtaposed against the deadly maneuverings of her enemies. It's not historically accurate, but Blanchett's and Rush's performances were spectacular, and Gwyneth Paltrow stole Blanchett's Oscar, as far as I'm concerned.

"Golden Age" could have been so much better. It could have examined much more deeply the effects that a long and powerful reign had on someone as high-strung as Elizabeth I. Instead, we are treated to a petulant Elizabeth, an emasculated Walsingham, and a Walter Raleigh straight out of an Errol Flynn flick, with none of the energy and style of the original. Also, the score quite simply sucks ass.

Reply

andythesaint February 19 2008, 21:53:08 UTC
I thought the Godfather-by-way-of-the-Tudors theme of the first movie was a little too overdone, leading to a lot of scenary chewing by the cast. But what really did the movie in for me was the way Kapur bludgeoned the audience with overly staged gothic imagery and an incredibly intrusive score.

Of course, costume dramas about kings and queens rarely ever interest me, so I wasn't exactly expecting to love Elizabeth, but I thought I could at least admire it, and was surprised when I didn't.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up