In a Silly Sequel, All Hail Breaks Loose!

Okay, I have an idea here...it will satisfy everyone. If anyone wants to pick this up and run with it, it's yours for free:

Make a movie about Prince Phillip entitled, Why DID I GET MARRIED To That B*TCH ELIZABETH (My Cousin)

Sometimes I actually feel sorry for ole Phil. Not only does he have to go through life being his cousin's freeloading husband, but the poor guy is so emasculated that he spends half of his time wearing skirts.

The Spanish Armada had everything going for it.  130 ships, many of which were large ships, sailors, calvary, an army stationed in Flanders, etc.  Yet, in 1588, none of this helped.  Their experienced naval leader, Álvaro de Bazán, died shortly before the Armada set sail, so the whiny and inept Alonso Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, took over at the last minute.  An English fireship attack at Calais only managed to burn one ship in the Armada, but caused many to cut their anchors.  At the Battle of Gravelines, many Spanish ships had the wrong size shot for their cannons, the heaviness of their cannons made them unweildly, and their crews were not trained to reload.  The British ships were under Lord Charles Howard of Effington and Sir Francis Drake, were smaller and highly manueverable, and so were able to draw the fire of those Spanish ships that could shoot without being shot themselves, and were able to avoid being boarded, which was the Spanish fleet's strength.  The English lost no ships.  Although only three of the Spanish royal ships were destroyed in enemy action, several of the total Armada destroyed, and then another two dozen ships, especially the ones that cut their anchors in Calais, were destroyed off the rocky coasts of Scotland and Ireland on their return home.  50 ships of the Armada were lost.

So, one could say that despite all its assets, the performance of the Spanish Armada was underwhelming.

One could say the same thing about Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

This movie had everything going for it on paper.  It had one of the most exciting and decisive naval battles in history.  It had one of the most powerful monarchs in history.  It had Mary, Queen of Scots, conspiring in the Babington plot to assassinate her cousin.  The resulting execution of Mary, Queen of Scots forced Queen Elizabeth to give up her belief in the Divine Right of Monarchs and submit that even monarchs were under law.  And it had a king of Spain drunk with the thought that he was God's agent.  And then you have all the great actors giving great performances, with every scene beautifully filmed.

And through every single second of the movie, despite wanting to enjoy it, I felt let down.

Setting aside the bad history of the movie, which depicts that the English lost ships, the English couldn't get near the Armada and the fireships were the coup de grace, I knew the movie was in trouble when Jordi Mollà as King Phillip II walked funny in his tight outfit.  I don't know if this was historically correct or not, but damn it, little else about this movie cared no wit about history, so why not have the man walk right!

That aside, I have difficulty in explaining what the difficulty was with this picture except in one regard.  The only character I felt for was Elizabeth Throckmartin, played expertly by Abbie Cornish.  I found I didn't really care about any of the other characters, including Queen Elizabeth.  It seemed like Shekhar Kapur was so intent on telling his story, that he forgot about his audience.  If so, I'm glad he enjoyed it.  I know his investors are not, the movie pulling in only $30 million worldwide, and I'm sure the cast are not happy with this movie and their performances squandered and, deservedly, coming under consideration for Razzies.

Funniest moment:  Aside from Jordi Mollà's walk, next down the line is Clive Owen leaping off the fireship in a storm and swimming away to. . . where?  Next after that is Cate Blanchett, recreating the role which she was nominated for an Oscar the first time around, giving a speech that Queen Elizabeth is widely renowned for, perhaps one of her most important.  I kept looking for the spirit Bernard Hill gave as Theoden leading Rohan into the battle of Minas Tirith, and I received a confused Blanchett struggling in heavy armor talking to a film crew.  And the next funniest after that was any scene with Mary, Queen of Scots' maidens.  Oh, man. . . .

Worst Picture, Worst Sequel and, if the category comes up, Worst Oscar-Baiter, Worst Actress for Cate Blanchett, Worst Supporting Actor for both Clive Owen and Jordi Mollà, Worst Couple for Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen, Worst Screenplay for William Nicholson and Michael Hurst, and Worst Director for Shekhar Kapur.

You are correct...my mistake.  Gwyneth Paltrow won the Oscar that year for Shakespeare in Love.  I've corrected my review to say Blanchett was only nominated...   

Originally posted by whennow ^^^^^^ Blanchett did not win the Oscar.

They must have slept really well when they [ahem!] reviewed E:TGA.  

Originally posted by Sanndman228715 Cate Blanchett got nominated today by the Broadcast Film Critics for Best Supporting Actress for I'm Not There (Which everyone knew was coming), and also for Best Actress for Elizabeth: The Golden Age ( Which I'm sure no one saw coming), usually I agree with The Broadcast critics (The other nominees looked fine to me), but this is a bit of a head scratcher, to say the least.

 

 

 

For this reason, if Blanchett's on the Razzie Nominating Ballot, I'm voting for her!     

Originally posted by Sanndman228715 Golden Globes nominated her for the same two awards today. If she also ends up a Razzie contender, she may pull a James Coco (Nominated for an Oscar and a Razzie for the SAME performance).

 

Even SAG (although SAG made some really good choices this year). My three favorite movies that I've seen in 2007 all got nominated for Best Performance by an Ensemble Cast: No Country for Old Men, 3:10 to Yuma, and American Gangster. And kudos to SAG for nominating Viggo Mortensen as Best Actor for Eastern Promises, and Tommy Lee Jones for Best Supporting Actor for No Country For Old Men. ( I think Jones was just as great as Bardem was in that film). 

 

I have to defend this film a bit. It was merely poor. Well, poor to really quite bad. A 1.5 out of 5 stars. A 3 out of 10. Not a 0 out of 5 stars. Those films are special and should be cherished. This is really nowhere near "the worst movie ever made", anyone who says words to that effect should really take a moment to remember the competition for total awfulness is very VERY intense.

Costumes and makeup will/have been get/got nominations and they were very good costumes and makeup. Can't say that aspect rocks my world but the effort is to be appreciated. For goodness sake, when someone turns out to be competent or talented don't disrespect them because other people in the production are horribly misguided directors or incompetent screenplay writers.

The seasoned actors, Blanchett, Owen, Rush and Morton (an undervalued actress) were all doing their best, often REALLY trying (and it was), but it's obvious they didn't really have any cohesive direction (in the sense of 'a Director') in much the same way Natalie Portman in the Regrettable Star Wars Episodes ended up like a talking plank of wood largely because George Lucas couldn't direct his way out of heavy traffic. I can't help feeling Clive Owen gave up pretty early on - he seemed to be playing Robin Hood for all anyone knows.

So, 5 points for effort, minus several million for 1) mangling history and turning interesting events, magically, into boring ones, 2) the most  embarrassingly nationalistic parochial jingoistic Anglo-centric perspective of said history ever conceived by... er... an Indian (?!?), 3) making the Spanish humorously like Klingons, 4) having a story that makes very little sense and makes you wonder why they bothered, 5) did I mention a black and white view on history that's both annoying and really dull? and 6) throwing away the collective talents of numerous nominally very (very) good actors.

Disappointing but not really in the same league as Norbit or I am Legend (which seems to have, so far, escaped being called the dog of a film it is... must do something about that... Most Derivative Motion Picture award? Most Pompous Title But That's The Least Of Your Problems? Most Boring Horror/Suspense Film (after the 1960s)? The Help Help The People From 28 Days Later Are Suing Us award? The Most Money Spent For So Little Effect award? The Was That A Zombie Or Has Gollum Turned Up award for Derivative Live Action Character CGI Effects? It hurts us my precious!)

Oddly, Liz the Golden Age is doing quite well on IMDB with a 6.7 or so out of 10 rating. I guess people can have low expectations.

You're right, Nadir007, this isn't the worst film, especially in a year where we have way too many to choose from.  I'm just bowled over by how many good things turned out so, so wrong.  And I'm incredulous that Cate Blanchett was nominated for an Oscar for this awful sequel.