Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Universal Pictures | Release Date: October 12, 2007
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 101 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
57
Mixed:
24
Negative:
20
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
10
Sam2Aug 26, 2019
Nuevamente la actuacion de cate blanchett es fenomenal definitivamente una de las mejores actrices de su generacion
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
vivOct 10, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
7
PatG.Oct 20, 2007
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. 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 found this helpful
5
JordanM.Oct 23, 2007
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 found this helpful
9
JohnBJan 25, 2008
Not strong on historical facts but nevertheless great fun.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AngelicaH.Feb 24, 2008
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 found this helpful
3
PrinsM.Mar 6, 2008
The first one was awful. This is even worse.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AndreaM.May 13, 2008
Ludicrous screenplay. Only Cate Blanchett shouldn't be embarrassed to have been involved.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AdamT.Oct 11, 2007
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 found this helpful
1
WesM.Oct 12, 2007
Pathetic, historically inaccurate and boring. I was totally disappointed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KevinC.Oct 12, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
3
NGarryNov 3, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
8
ClintMOct 15, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
8
AdamA.Oct 15, 2007
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 found this helpful
8
DavidT.Oct 22, 2007
Much better than the critics are saying.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JaredC.Oct 27, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
5
TonyB.Nov 10, 2008
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 found this helpful
2
JudyTFeb 27, 2008
Waste of film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AlexDFeb 7, 2008
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 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 found this helpful
4
JillP.Mar 20, 2008
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 found this helpful
10
TimurR.Apr 27, 2008
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 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 found this helpful
2
TomasV.Oct 11, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisNov 23, 2007
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 found this helpful
3
RoseJOct 13, 2007
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 found this helpful
5
SarahP.Oct 14, 2007
Extremely disappointing. Boring and so full of misinformation. Costumes and wigs were pretty decent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ClaireD.Oct 14, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
10
SteveK.Oct 16, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
3
ArthurC.Oct 17, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
8
DianeM.Oct 19, 2007
Very enjoyable period drama. Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey R. are wonderful. Deserves a higher rating.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PeterK.Oct 21, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DaleMFeb 13, 2008
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 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 found this helpful
8
FrankM.Feb 13, 2008
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 found this helpful
5
ChadS.Nov 11, 2007
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 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 found this helpful
9
ElaineS.Nov 19, 2007
Brilliant wigs, makeup and costuming. A bit casual on historical interpretation.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ArielGDec 15, 2007
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TokyochuchuJan 3, 2015
Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a great sequel to the excellent original film. It doesn't quite scale the heights of the first film, mostly because the theme isn't as stirring as the first's 'loss-of-innocence' motif. But the costumes areElizabeth: The Golden Age is a great sequel to the excellent original film. It doesn't quite scale the heights of the first film, mostly because the theme isn't as stirring as the first's 'loss-of-innocence' motif. But the costumes are sumptuous, the performances are amazing, the pacing flows well and it never dips into tedium. One small annoyance; as a person with a passion for history, the historical inaccuracies were much more notable than the first film. Oh well. Still great, though.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TyranianApr 7, 2019
Decent drama with good acting and visuals, reasonable writing though not that engaging.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Trev29Sep 3, 2012
Cate was a very convincing queen. It was kind of boring at times, but I don't think the critics got it right. She put on an amazing performance and that is worth watching it for.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
FilmQueenNov 19, 2015
This is just as great as the first one. Cate Blanchett is superb, the costumes are stunning. (The story is just fine,I guess.) I don't understand why this film got much worse reviews compared to the first one.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
FilipeNetoApr 4, 2018
This movie is the sequel to "Elizabeth - The Virgin Queen" (1998) and, like all sequels, suffers from an inferiority complex towards the original film. It is a regular historical film, which depicts a key moment of Elizabeth I's reign ofThis movie is the sequel to "Elizabeth - The Virgin Queen" (1998) and, like all sequels, suffers from an inferiority complex towards the original film. It is a regular historical film, which depicts a key moment of Elizabeth I's reign of England: the Invincible Armada and the English resistance to Spanish ambitions. And Cate Blanchett (who continues to give life to the English queen) is still brilliant in her role, almost being able to become the queen that herself. Unfortunately, as in the first film, this effort follows without the merit and appreciation of the critics and the Hollywood Academy (the Oscar nomination for Best Actress that year did not pass that same). Geoffrey Rush continues to give body to Sir Francis Walsingham and do it with great talent and ability, even though his character has not here the strength it had previously. Clive Owen is perfect in the role of Sir Walter Raleigh and reaches, with this film, one of the most interesting works of his career so far.

Historically, unlike the previous film, it didn't seem very able to be faithful to the truth. The script is too imaginative and too much focused on an unlikely and theatrical affair between the Queen and Walter Raleigh. The Spanish Armada is barely portrayed and the struggle between English and Spanish, the natural film climax, ends up being completely emptied of relevance, which makes no sense and puts in question the film edition, and the quality of the script. In fact, there was no ability to foresee the importance of this point for the film's outcome. If the director (Shekhar Kapur) and writers (William Nicholson and Michael Hirst) thought that Blanchett's great interpretation, a very good cast, scenery, clothes and some romantic suggestions would be enough to save the film, they're wrong. Do not make omelets without eggs, says the people, rightly so. This film had everything to be better, to match its predecessor, but a bad script and editing laid everything to lose.

Despite its a very still and boring movie (sometimes seems that people have forgotten that they're almost to be invaded), this film is quite reasonable and worth seeing, especially for the excellent work of the actors.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
HabibiehakimJun 18, 2022
8.5/10
I was coming to this movie with a very concerned feeling because i feel like it's unnecessary to make a sequel to the 1998 Elizabeth film, and i was even more concerned when i see the synopsis compare to the title, i don't want this8.5/10
I was coming to this movie with a very concerned feeling because i feel like it's unnecessary to make a sequel to the 1998 Elizabeth film, and i was even more concerned when i see the synopsis compare to the title, i don't want this film to have a story about Elizabeth Golden Age of romance instead of Golden Age of Elizabeth war lead supporter, and thank goodness they did not do that at least mostly, now i'm not gonna lie at the first 30 minutes i still have that strong concerned feeling, but as the time goes the movie became a little bit greater and better movie and story than the first one surprisingly, i also thoroughly enjoy the film from the beginning till the end, Cate Blanchett performance as Elizabeth is still as great if not better than the first one, there is still some mentionable nit picky here and there, and i believe my concerned feeling kinda impact my rating but it didn't really matter overall Elizabeth: The Golden Age is still an unnecessary sequel but like i said it's surprisingly a slightly greater and better movie and story than the first Elizabeth.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

45 Critic Reviews

6.3 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL