Another big budget sequel that falls short of the original

Rating: 4/10 (26 November 2010)

This movie demonstrates the same thing winning the lottery sometimes does - you can't give some people money.
This is the hugely disappointing sequel to the outstanding "Elizabeth", which was largely the film that launched the American career of Cate Blanchett. Here she returns to the role of Queen Elizabeth I. It is 1585 and England finds itself under the threat of Spain, whose king (Jordi Molla) is a Catholic religious fanatic waiting only for an excuse to topple the Protestant Elizabeth from her throne. As the Queen's right hand man, Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush), defends Elizabeth from plots at home and tries to find a politically advantageous husband for her and her country, Elizabeth's fancy settles on a privateer and explorer named Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). Eventually a scheme involving Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) and Walsingham's own brother gives the Spanish king a justification for war and the Spanish Armada, the greatest fleet in human history, sets sail to conquer England in the name of God. Unless you're intellectually allergic to the subject of history, you probably know how that turned out.
This isn't really that bad a movie. It's only mediocre or a bit worse. When judged against the quality of the first film, however, it is one of the worst sequels ever. We're talking Godfather III territory. "Elizabeth" was a low budget film that took the idea of the historical epic and turned it on its head. It took one of the most important moments in British history, the ascension of Elizabeth to the throne, and made those important events merely the setting for a deeply personal tale of a young woman in a dangerous and conflicting circumstance. All the other elements of the story, political, religious and cultural were secondary to human joy, ambition and anguish of the woman who would become one of the greatest rulers in world history.
"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" had a big budget, bigger stars and arguably focuses on an even more dramatic moment in the Queen's reign. But while the first movie subverted the concept of the historical epic, this movie fully embraces it. This is not the story of a woman, it's the story of a kingdom. And while Elizabeth may be the most significant character in the story, she isn't the most important. This story is really about the efforts of Francis Walsingham to defend his sovereign with deceit and strength. And it's about Charles Howard and Francis Drake, who actually led the British to victory over Spain's massive assembly of ships. Those men's actions may be in service to Elizabeth, but she's not directly involved in what they do.
The movie tries on occasion to go back to what the first film did and let us see the pressures and inner pain of Elizabeth, but it never quite figures out what to do with her. The Queen is mostly a bystander for these events of history and for what is going on in this movie. Even in the love triangle of Elizabeth, Raleigh and the Queen's handmaiden Bess Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish), Blanchett has nothing to actually do but fuss and fume. Yet the attention of the story is so completely fixed on Elizabeth, that none of the other characters get the chance to live and breathe on screen.
"Elizabeth" gave us a new and compelling look at the legendary monarch. "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" tells the same sort of story about her that every other historical epic tells about every famous ruler. If you've never seen the first film, you may find this one passable. But if you haven't seen the first film, definitely rent it instead of this.