Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" tells the tale of veteran ruler Elizabeth I (Cate Blanchett) at the fear of being overthrown by the powerful King of Spain Philip II (Jordi Molla) as he's on a crusade to declare full Catholic dominance in Europe in hopes that his young daughter becomes the new Queen of England. Meanwhile the scheming Mary Queen of the Scots (Samantha Morton) has plans of her own to dethrone Elizabeth by throwing her into her prison. When Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) returns from England after spending years in the New World, Elizabeth becomes enthralled by his presence as well as her lady in waiting Bess (Abbie Cornish). Chief Adviser Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) continues to negotiate with the court affairs as he listens in on Mary's evil plots. Mary's demise was the perfect foil for Philip to release the infamous Spanish Armada in hopes to overthrow Elizabeth as the Queen of England. "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too; and think foul scorn that ... Spain, or any prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and reward of every one of your virtues in the field." This was the words of encouragement Her Majesty as she gathers her troops in Tilbury to take down the Spanish Armada in 1588. This "Golden Speech" is one of the most quotable words in British history that's up there with the many that was said by Shakespeare and Churchill and that neither Hollywood can ever botch or paraphrase those famous words. No matter how hard they try. In 1998, I had the chance to see 1998's "Elizabeth" directed by Shekhar Kapur and my reaction was that is was incredibly stunning, but I had some issues with the pacing and I didn't really like Joseph Fiennes. In spite of those shortcoming it had plenty of Academy Awards nominations and other accolades to its credits. Nine years after that, they made the much anticipated sequel which is emphasizing on Elizabeth I and her relationship with Raleigh and the Religion Wars with Spain. From my knowledge I read that the Spanish couldn't get through because the English bays were not overly deep enough and the usages of fire ships and were also problematic. Strange as it seems, but Britain has been spared many times thanks to the waters surrounding the little country. Even their biggest ships were overturned due to excess stacking and abysmal weather conditions. As for the film itself the costumes were quite gorgeous, but the historical inaccuracies were way overwhelming. Whether it's the fictionalized homicidal attempt by gunpoint, or the uses of historical locations, the undermining of Sir Walter Raleigh and the condemning of the Roman Catholic Church, the misconceptions in the motives of Mary Stuart and the Spanish as a whole, the falsifying will likely scratch the heads of any historical fanatic. On the entertaining level, it is quite satisfying and will keep you on the edge of your seat, but the Spanish Armada is overwrought with a tedious montage sequence proceeded by an unorthodox shot of Elizabeth standing in a hallway. The entertainment value is pretty good and should leave a positive impression to the open public (not as good the first installment), however is there another reason why we should see another retelling of Elizabeth's life? I mean she's making more screen appearances than Abe Lincoln who seems to be in everything. One of the things that underwhelmed me about this movie was the lack of a grandeur epic moment. This sequel should've been flooded with highlights to usurp the predecessor, but with the exception of the Armada, this film was watered down badly. I guess the scene that caught my eyes was the one involving Philip II of Spain. Not because of the green hue or his personality as a cowering religious radical, but the peculiar ways the shots were handled. Which also includes the rather obscene dance scenes ever shot on film. Acting wise the supporting cast seemed underdeveloped, but Blanchett shows her true dominance as a leading performer. Even though this movie was very flawed, historically inaccurate and not overpowering in its delivery, this sequel is still strongly entertaining to watch if you like costume dramas, but if you want historical accuracy, it would better if you just read about in textbook.

If, for no other reason, one rates this film on just it's visual appeal, it would score a 10. Perhaps the director is "drunk" on visual imagery. But compared to numerous pieces of mindless dross this film is just gorgeous to look upon. It does have an interesting plot and characters, and of course the excellent Cate Blanchett. Don't be put off by the negatives.. if you have the time and opportunity, put aside the negative reviews and just feast your eyes. I am not a particular fan of Clive Owen in this movie-he seems a little bland, but he performs adequately. But the center of the film is Elizabeth and as such Cate dominates-as she should.

"Elizabeth" is an enjoyable film, though much of it was supposition and fiction. The intrigues and personal lives of folks of that time are really unknown in many ways and so the filmmakers too liberties with history--embellishing it here and there to make it seem more exciting. Here with the follow-up film, however, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is less about intrigues and persons and more about grand events--and as such is much more factual and better history.This film has three main plot themes. First is the ultimate execution of Mary Queen of Scots. This is covered superficially--perhaps because the film was about her cousin, Elizabeth. Regardless, what sort of woman she was isn't really alluded to (she was a rather awful person). Second, her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh. Exactly how close it was is open to conjecture, but the film sure got it right that the Queen did not respond well to his secret marriage to another. Third, the climactic battle with the Spanish Armada. This is very grand, though exactly how the Spanish lost and how the weather did far more damage than the English navy isn't really discussed. Of course, me being a retired history teacher, I look for these things and assume the average viewer will not.The film is beautiful to look at, is a bit sterile when it comes to much of the acting and is engaging--though I assume not to a large percentage of the folks out there. If you like historical bio-pics, you'll enjoy this. Otherwise, you might find it a bit confusing and occasionally ponderous. As for me, I slightly preferred it to the prequel.

Synopsis: Feisty redhead Lizzie Tudor relishes her executive position, but her love life leaves something to be desired, and she also has to watch out for backstabbing colleagues and competitors. She falls for sea captain Wally Raleigh, but he betrays her with her best friend. So she plots her revenge, only to find she needs his help to see off a challenge from her Spanish competitors.This story of intrigue and suspense at the highest level is densely plotted and well acted by an excellent cast and Clive Owen. Production value is high and the film looks terrific - gorgeous locations, sets and costumes, and good special effects.Allegedly based on a true story, I'm not sure how accurate it is, though.