Has anybody seen "Elizabeth, The golden Age"?

[AlCzervik]

i watched it tonight and while i thought the cast was excellent, still waiting for Cate Blanchett and Helen Mirren to have an Elizabeth off, i thought the movie was kind of blah, a bit of a disappointment.

[leeroysphitz]

1. It was good for what it was: Pop History.

The costumes and visuals were great. I love how they went to some trouble to use REAL locations (in the castles) instead of trying to CGI everything (other than the naval battle...)

It wasn't great but I enjoyed it.

[AlCzervik]

2. i thought the best stuff was in the beginning, i think seen about 5 different versions at least

of this time period and i love a good sweeping costume drama this one just did not deliver me the goods. I'm going back to England next month so i'm getting back in the spirit, the 2nd part of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice" is on 10 minutes, that i know is good because i've seen that exact one before.

[Deep13]

3. Sucked on toast. Cerrrrrrrap!

The first film was an engrossing film, however much of a historical lie it was. (That departing sentence about Elizabeth never seeing Dudley again was particularly dishonest. The fact is they were almost inseperable the rest of his life.)

The sequel was just crap. It was good-looking and that is about it. I especially found the new-thing-sniff-it-and poke-at-it routine with the potatoes especially comical. Stink-o-ramma. Did I mention Raleigh had nothing to do with that sea battle? Well, he didn't.

[mondo joe]

4. Thought it almost hurt to watch, it was so bad. And I adore Cate Blanchett.

The real history is so good, I don't see the need to make so much shit up.

[Seeking Serenity]

5. I love movies about history and period pieces

but I HATE IT when the directors take too many liberties with historical facts (Oliver Stone, I'm looking in your direction).

Braveheart was an exception because so little is known about Wallace, but even there, the movie's depiction of, say, the battle of Stirling Bridge, of which much is known, was wholly inaccurate (the only accuracy being that the Scots won). It didn't even feature the bridge.

It is reported that at the Scottish premiere of Braveheart, one reporter/person/whomever asked Mel Gibson why the battle of Stirling Bridge didn't feature the bridge, which is what helped the Scots to win. Gibson reportedly replied, in explaining how the logistics of a bridge and all would make it too difficult to film, that "The bridge just got in the way." To which someone overhearing said, "Aye, that's what the English found, too."

I don't know if that's a true story, but it ought to be.

I liked "Elizabeth," but the historical inaccuracies made my willing suspension of disbelief frustratingly difficult. I few artistic licenses to fill out holes in a story or to add in supposed dialogue is one thing, but why mangle a historical story, when so much is known about the story, beyond all recognition? After reading the reviews of the sequel, I couldn't bring myself to go see it and be tortured with historical errors for 2+ hours.