Manuel Veloria
An overindulgence of 16th century attire and melodramatic scenes characterizes Cate Blanchett’s return to her role as the queen of England in the movie, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.”The film’s extravagant plot is like a revival of old plays, targeting younger audiences to get involved in an old, eastern historic era, where horses are the main form of transportation and religious wars are being waged over the eastern continents. As for the queen’s historical achievements, the story of the movie is well known enough, but the film didn’t do a great job delivering a sense of history as it drifted away from the arising problems during the queen’s reign and shifted its main focus into vibrant dress and over-exaggerated, dramatic relationship issues between a royal beauty and a charming, swashbuckling explorer.Though he did well in the first “Elizabeth” film in 1998, the second time around, director Shekhar Kapur failed to deliver the power and dynamic characters of the queen and her followers, as well as the historical facts of the political uprising against the Protestants and Catholics.For instance, when Elizabeth grew fond of Sir Walter Raleigh because of his chivalrous deeds and encompassed dedication to the queen and England, this idea may have been tampered with, because historically, Raleigh was known as a “favorite” of the queen, not as her secret admirer.Despite the eyesores that served as costumes, the actors and actresses gave great performances.As a returning star in the sequel, the ever-favored Blanchett once again gave her best in the role of Elizabeth I. Her character has now been transposed to a senile woman who’s going through a mid-life crisis and she did a superb job in creating the new iconic queen of England who’s going into her 50s (The Golden Age.) The phenomenal emotions she showed, and her physical appearance, are enough to make movie watchers believe that the queen of England looked quite similar and produced the same gut-wrenching weeps and screams, just as she did in the first movie.Clive Owen, who plays Sir Walter Raleigh, is commendable in the movie, as he is well known as an “actions speak louder than words” type of guy. However, he changes that image into a persuasive conquistador who blended quite perfectly with Blacnchett’s portrayal of Elizabeth I. Not only does he use his charms in his role, but he persuades audiences that he can conquer both unexplored lands and overly pale women, which merits him as a splendid, flexible actor. Also returning from the first film, Geoffrey Rush presented his best and didn’t relinquish his role as Sir Francis Walsingham, the closest advisor of Elizabeth I.The musical score of the movie is a bit dull and doesn’t go with scenes. The sound and music the scenes doesn’t quite fit what is being portrayed. One example is when the queen addresses her army for the climactic battle against the upcoming Spanish Armada; the music gave an impression of distress, instead of hopes being uplifted. The movie is set in the 1580s, when the queen of England, Elizabeth I, is being overthrown by King Phillip II (Jordi Molla) and must choose to take a stand and give strength to her beloved nation while dealing with personal romantic troubles. The film is 114 minutes long and is rated PG-13 for violence, some sexual content and brief nudity.The beautiful production of the film may have allured and fascinated audiences with the aesthetic beauty of how it was during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, but constant references by King Phillip II to Elizabeth as “Bastard Queen,” and the overflowing melodramatic events of “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” made the film sail back to the old world.
Overall Rating: C+