For a movie set in the 16th century I really didn't expect "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" to be so entertaining and fast-paced. Having not seen the first part, I was a bit worried that I wouldn't be able to follow the plot, but thankfully the movie pretty much stands on his own (which is probably why producers chose not to call it "Elizabeth I. II" or maybe "Elizabeth 1.2"... just kidding).
So, yes, it's an entertaining movie, but in the third act it becomes incredibly pompous. The imagery is very theatrical all the way through, but at the end director Shekhar Kapur just takes it one step too far. There are epic battles at sea with horses jumping into the water, thunderstorms and so on and so forth. Even though, I'm not an historian, I'm pretty sure most events aren't portrayed authentically. At least I can't imagine that all Spanish people back then were gay-ish psychopaths.
Well, yeah, big surprise: as a historical document this movie doesn't really serve well. It's popcorn cinema. Nothing more, nothing less. I heard part 1 was different. If it's true, then the sequel is a step down.
So, yes, it's an entertaining movie, but in the third act it becomes incredibly pompous. The imagery is very theatrical all the way through, but at the end director Shekhar Kapur just takes it one step too far. There are epic battles at sea with horses jumping into the water, thunderstorms and so on and so forth. Even though, I'm not an historian, I'm pretty sure most events aren't portrayed authentically. At least I can't imagine that all Spanish people back then were gay-ish psychopaths.
Well, yeah, big surprise: as a historical document this movie doesn't really serve well. It's popcorn cinema. Nothing more, nothing less. I heard part 1 was different. If it's true, then the sequel is a step down.