"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.

I absolutely loved the first film, and do think if it was released at a different year to Shakespeare in Love(though that is still a good film),it would've got the accolades it deserved. The Golden Age is definitely not as good as its predecessor, it is very loosely based on fact, and the direction wasn't always rock solid. However, there are a number of things that do fully compensate. The film did look absolutely exquisite, just like the first film did, with the breathtaking scenery, stunning photography and sumptuous costumes. Just look at the dresses Cate Blanchett wears in the film, they were just wondrous. The screenplay is quite extraordinarily crafted, and the performances were superb. Cate Blanchett, though Elizabeth does look a little more youthful than I expected her to be, was simply mesmerising in the title role, and Geoffrey Rush(an example of an actor who rarely disappoints in anything he's in) and Clive Owen both give rock solid performances. And the music was absolutely beautiful. The film was in conclusion to this review, just beautiful to watch, and save the flaws, is almost as good as the first film. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

It's 1585. An older Queen Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) navigates royal court intrigue and international affairs. Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) is the new man in her life with years of raiding Spanish gold. Spain is preparing to invade with its Armada, and Elizabeth is threatened by hidden dangers.

Cate Blanchett returns to play an older Elizabeth from her amazing turn in 'Elizabeth' (1998). She has taken on the personality of the Queen. She has the presence of royalty. The story isn't as compelling as the earlier movie. It doesn't have the same intensity. It's more about the costumes and less about the drama. The Spanish Armada could have been a great counter supplying the movie with much needed action. There is far too little of it, and most of it end up being less than exciting. Cate Blanchett is still great but the movie isn't as great as the actress.