criterionforum.org

So, since the first film was a Tudor-reworking of The Godfather, will this one be a Tudor-reworking of The Godfather, part II?

New trailer (thanks, Jem)

That's ok, for the life of me I couldn't find the original post!

If that's a still from the actual film, it looks more like the postmodern larks of Gremlins 2 than The Godfather Part II.

Though I'm guessing it probably isn't.

Jem wrote:Poster

I dig the German version more.

Matt wrote:I dig the German version more.

Hmmm, the German poster is the original image I submitted, someone changed it to the one that is shown now. Anyway good comparisons, yes agree the German poster is far superior.

What the hell does this mean?

More bad advance press regarding the film. From Dave Poland's blog:

We finally got the first real shock of the 2007 Toronto Film Festival today. Elizabeth: The Golden Age is tarnished on an epic level.

I'll keep it simple. The movie has way too much story, way too few places where an audience can link in emotionally, an absolute waste of a parade of excellent Oscar-nominated and winning actors including Clive Owens, Samantha Morton and this time, even Geoffrey Rush, enough music to choke an iPod, and a hyperkinetic parade of cool, but logic-free shots that at some point feels like you are choking on The Scott Brothers' leftovers.

Todd McCarthy clocked the running time at 114 minutes. It didn't seem that long…though it felt much longer.

And The Great Cate, who may well win an Oscar for her turn in I'm Not There this year, is called upon to pull her goodies from her bag of tricks, but really, she too often feels like a mannequin with a string that Shekhar Kapur pulls whenever he wants a power acting moment. Now do that great power scream… look pained… brighten up your eyes mischievously. You can't really complain about the performance, but any awards talk will be for Cate being Cate, since her role here simply doesn't demand a single new curve or twist out of this brilliant actress.

I can't say it was the most painful movie I have seen this year, this month, or this week. But simply put, it's not good. It will get a Costume nod and maybe production design and in a desperate chase for women to nominate, maybe Ms Blanchett can still go lead here and Supporting for her Dylan. But I really, really loved the original. And this one, for all intents of purposes, is much more in the troubled vein of Kapur's The Four Feathers than of my beloved Elizabeth.

From Variety:

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is a follow-up less golden than its 1998 predecessor. Without the pleasure of watching Cate Blanchett continue the role that launched her to stardom, there would be little to recommend this latest of many cinematic and television accounts of the celebrated monarch's life, which is melodramatic, narrowly concerned with portraying her human vulnerabilities, and, thanks to a constantly pounding musical score, bombastic. Commercial prospects look OK but less promising than what a first-rate film of this nature would command.

Hollywood Reporter thinks Cate has a date with OSCAR®!!!!

Barmy wrote:Hollywood Reporter thinks Cate has a date with OSCAR®!!!!

Is this satire?

Kirk Honeycutt's review is among very few positive ones for the film. The film has taken a beating from quite a few pundits, and it's going to end a with a mixed-to-negative reaction overall. It sounds like more of the same problems that I had with the first film -- Kapur's tendency to say, "how about if we tried this shot with the camera on the fucking ceiling?"

To look seriously at Blanchett's Oscar prospects for a moment (since her nominations will directly affect your presence on this forum), I am now thoroughly convinced that if she is nominated for anything, it will be for I'm Not There. Her performance has been singled out by every critic that has reviewed the film, and will likely win many of the critic's association awards at the end of the year. Academy voters may also be reluctant to nominate her for The Golden Age since they already nominated her for the same role in the first film. That said, it wouldn't entirely surprise me to see her pick up nods for both films since one role is supporting and the other is lead. It's certainly not unheard of.

At first, I didn't give a damn about this movie but the more I read about it, the more convinced I become that I MUST see it at any cost.

I imagine few of the people on this forum have went out to see this considering the overwhelmingly negative reviews it's received (well, at least in the US) and I planned to steer clear of it as well until my date tonight expressed a strong desire to see it. I went along and consoled myself with the thought of staring at the lovely Cate Blanchett for two hours would make the film bearable, but I was pleasantly surprised to find myself caught up with Kapur's film from start to finish.

The acting, cinematography, set-design and direction are excellent from my point-of-view, but like Jeff guessed, there are some moments where Kapur places the camera in odd places for no apparent reason. The story is compelling if a bit historically inaccurate and Cate Blanchett is simply marvelous as Queen Elizabeth I. I can't compare this film to the first one from 1998 because I haven't seen it, but I'm very interested in giving it a look after watching The Golden Age.

But, unfortunately, The Golden Age is flawed, very flawed in many respects. The Spanish are one-dimensional evil religious fanatics and the film's sure to annoy a few Catholics with the thinly-veiled anti-Catholic subtext running through it. For the record, I was raised Catholic and it didn't bother me but if the same was done to Islam heads would be rolling (literally).

The supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough because the film is simply too short to give them enough time to do so. I know many Hollywood films these days run perhaps too long, especially period pieces and epics, but The Golden Years could've benefited with more character building scenes of the supporting cast. I wonder if the film was heavily cut? Blanchett's character, I think, is finely molded and poignantly performed by her. The critcisms of the film as being "campy" or the music being instrusive baffles me. I didn't get that sense while watching it and who wouldn't get stirred up by seeing England saved from the Spanish Armada?

Finally, the scene that really made the film especially worthwhile for me was Samantha Morton's final scene as Mary Stuart. Sadly, like the other supporting characters, she's fairly one-dimensional but her last scene is wonderfully directed, acted, and edited and almost makes up for the flaws in her characterization. And, if you're familiar with the history of this period, I'm pretty sure you know what her last scene involves.

Download the script here.

I went to see this tonight hoping it wouldn't be as bad the reviews have been saying but it's actually worse. I haven't seen filmmaking this ham-fisted and soggy in quite a long time. I'm not sure how he does it, but director Shekhar Kapur, in his quest to make Elizabeth a powerful "woman warrior queen" manages to make her a nearly intolerable, whiny, woman for most of the film. When she isn't talking ponderously with the court she's weeping about Sir Walter Raleigh. The film plays like a period version of The OC. The only thing missing is Peter Gallagher's impressive eyebrows. Moreover, I can't remember when I've seen a film shot this badly. Kapur doesn't have a camera angle he doesn't love and manages to throw in awkward angles, weird overhead and tracking shots for no apparent reason seeming to think by just by the virtue of having them, it adds dramatic weight. And don't get me started on the characterizations. The Spanish particularly get dumped on, being portrayed as effeminate, ugly, mincing dudes with dark circles under their eyes.

This is an awful film and having not seen the first one, I have trouble believing it is something worth seeing. While she is perfectly fine in the film (given the shitty script she has to work with) it would be criminal if Cate gets nominated for her work in such a turd of a movie.

This is one of the biggest misfires of the year and one worst films of the year as well.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The film plays like a period version of The OC.

This actually makes it sound interesting.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The only thing missing is Peter Gallagher's impressive eyebrows.

Darn!

I saw this too. Its pretty awful.

I think Antoine Doinel sums up the problems very well. Especially:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Moreover, I can't remember when I've seen a film shot this badly. Kapur doesn't have a camera angle he doesn't love and manages to throw in awkward angles, weird overhead and tracking shots for no apparent reason seeming to think by just by the virtue of having them, it adds dramatic weight.