Print Page | Close Window

In a Silly Sequel, All Hail Breaks Loose!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
Forum Discription: It Was Supposed 2-B-A Noscar Contender...But It Looks Like One of OURS Instead!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2194
Printed Date: October 22 2014 at 10:40pm


Topic: In a Silly Sequel, All Hail Breaks Loose!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: In a Silly Sequel, All Hail Breaks Loose!
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 4:14am

CALL US PHILISTINES, BUT WE WEREN'T ACTUALLY ALL THAT IMPRESSED by CATE BLANCHETT's OSCAR® -NOMINATED FIRST TURN as http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084153-elizabeth/ - THAT REDHEAD from LONDON . IN THIS SEQUEL, HER BOMBAST KNOWS NO EQUAL. CRITICS HAVE JOKED THAT THIS SECOND ELIZABETHAN DRAMA IS MORE LIKE 'HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL' THAN a HISTORIC DRAMA, and MOST of 'EM GAVE BOTH the FILM and ITS STAR a ROYAL RIPPING. ...

PERHAPS the MOST INTERESTING QUESTION IS: SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN ACADEMY MEMBERS...   RAZZIE® MEMBERS... OR NEITHER WHO NOMINATED BLANCHETT for http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=226&PN=1 - LIZZIE #2: THE GOLDEN (RAZZ-BERRY) YEARS ??? 

Blanchett: "Actually, no...I wasn't trying to look like Keanu Reeves in drag!" 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 5:39am
I wasn't impressed by "Elizabeth" either, but it was a million times better than "Shakespeare In Love".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 7:12am

You would have to be insane not to think that Blanchett deserved the Oscar for Elizabeth.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Chalk me up as being insane, then -- I guess I'm bucking a trend here on the Forum, but I by far preferred SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE to the original ELIZABETH (which, to me, was bombastic, overlong and melodramatic -- As opposed to SHAKESPEARE, which actually assumed its audience not only brought their brains into the theatre with them, but were also familiar enough with the works of William Shakespeare to get the dozens of subtle references to them throughout the film)... 

 



-------------


Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 9:15am

But did you really prefer Paltrow to Blanchett in the actress category? Lots of people preferred SIL to Elizabeth, and even to Saving Private Ryan.

Response from Head RAZZberry: I personally thought http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001212/ - Joseph Fiennes   (as Shakespeare) was the best thing in the movie -- and he wasn't even nominated by the Academy!  1998 was a particularly weak year for Best Actress ( http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Academy_Awards_USA/1999 - LINK to IMDb page for that year's Oscar nominees) so I wasn't too upset when Paltrow won. It's also interesting to note that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001691/ - Geoffrey Rush , who wasn't then very well known (nor yet an Oscar winner himself) co-stars in SHAKESPEARE and both ELIZABETH movies...

 



-------------


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 1:02pm

This is attempting to be an Oscar contender?  One more argument for a Disappointment of the Year Razzie category (along with Pirates, Spidey 3, Shrek 3, etc).

Also, notice the Associated Press review.  It compares this movie with Showgirls



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 1:09pm
I loved Shakespeare in Love...one of the best movies ever made.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 10 2007 at 1:24pm
This has fallen to 19%! That's lower than "Lady In The Water"!

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 12:45am
Originally posted by whennow

It's also interesting to note that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001691/ - Geoffrey Rush , who wasn't then very well known (nor yet an Oscar winner himself) co-stars in SHAKESPEARE and both ELIZABETH movies...

 

I think he got those jobs because he was known from 1996 Shine which he won an Oscar for.



-------------


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 3:27am

I actually liked "Elizabeth". there's some historical inaccuracy like many historical films, but it looks like the screenwriter (Michael Hirst) actually did his homework in capturing the essence of 16th century England. I thought Blanchett was good, so was Geoffrey Rush. The cinematography was excellent, as were the costumes and make-up (its sole win out of 7 Oscar categories).

It's also worth noting that Dame Judi Dench also played Elizabeth I that same year, in "Shakespeare in Love". I thought she was the best part of THAT movie. That was the only year I said WTF to the Academy: I thought the Best Picture honor should've gone to "Saving Private Ryan"...



Also of note, Michael Hirst went on to write the hit Showtime series "The Tudors", which starts its second season next year.



-------------


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 4:18am

A few weeks ago, I came to the conclusion that this movie would be
overblown and only Blanchett and the costumes would get Oscar
nominations. But I never expected it to end up on this board!

This is sad because I love Blanchett, and also wanted the underrated
Samantha Morton to be Oscar nominated for her performance as Mary, Queen of Scots.

 



-------------


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 6:54am
I saw the first Elizabeth, I thought Geoffrey Rush did a good job in it.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 7:19am
I haven't seen Elizabeth, but I have seen Shakespeare in Love, mostly because a friend of mine hated the film, and I wanted to see why.  I wound up loving the film.  However, I do feel Saving Private Ryan should have won the Oscar for best picture, and that being one of my friend's favorite pictures, may explain why she hated SIL so much.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 11 2007 at 7:44am

That's the same reason I hate SIL. Also, I despise Gwyeneth Paltrow (don't  know if I spelled that right?). 

Originally posted by cvcjr13

I haven't seen Elizabeth, but I have seen Shakespeare in Love, mostly because a friend of mine hated the film, and I wanted to see why.  I wound up loving the film.  However, I do feel Saving Private Ryan should have won the Oscar for best picture, and that being one of my friend's favorite pictures, may explain why she hated SIL so much.
                                                 



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 6:35am

The thinking from this corner is that the people who made this film got confused: Since a movie about a different British despot named Elizabeth took home some Academy gold last year, maybe they figured that the movie going public actually gives a rat's a$$ about British queens.

Personally, I'd rather endure the punishment of sitting through a film about the most useless human being on the planet: Prince Phillip.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 8:00am

My history teacher from last year felt the same way...

 



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: October 12 2007 at 3:16pm
I saw it today with "Why Did I Get Married?". Here's how I'd rate each (out of 4 stars):

Elizabeth: The Golden Age = **1/2
Why Did I Get Married? = ***


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 3:10pm
Why Did I Get Married - I want to watch it now!!!!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 4:03pm

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.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 10:31am
First they make one Elizabeth movie, and a Shakespeare movie both released in the same year, and now 9 years later, they bring this, a sequel to the first one, which was a really weak film.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 15 2007 at 5:05am

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 Mollŕ 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 Mollŕ'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 Mollŕ, Worst Couple for Cate Blanchett and Clive Owen, Worst Screenplay for William Nicholson and Michael Hurst, and Worst Director for Shekhar Kapur.



Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 2:00am
^^^^^^
Blanchett did not win the Oscar.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 19 2007 at 6:14am

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.



-------------


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: December 11 2007 at 3:18pm

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.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 11 2007 at 3:46pm

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.

 

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: December 13 2007 at 5:05am

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).

 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 13 2007 at 10:56am

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).

 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 2:24pm

Now SAG has nominated Cate Blanchett --  I have to wonder if they actually watched this movie, or were just going on memories of the original Elizabeth



-------------


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: December 23 2007 at 1:50pm

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). 

 



-------------


Posted By: whennow
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 5:39am
Looks like some people were still resentful of Blanchett losing and got her an Oscar nomination. Plus there was a nomination for the costumes.


Posted By: Nadir007
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 7:53am
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.


-------------
"So this is like a cross between a movie and a piece of lint?" Mystery Science Theatre 3000


Posted By: Nadir007
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 8:43am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

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.



That's not offensive to the Scottish nation.. at all...

...or the British royal family and people that respect them (the reason escapes me, personally - I'm not about to confuse personal beliefs with ethical conduct however)

So... maybe completely off-topic posts that are obviously going to be offensive to some people at a very personal level and do harm to the reputation of the web site/organisation/meme/project (let's face it, we all want to be a meme)... maybe they can be deleted?

And the people involved given a message to the effect that they should try tact or complete silence as an alternative to obviously offensive off-topic posts?

Just a thought.


-------------
"So this is like a cross between a movie and a piece of lint?" Mystery Science Theatre 3000


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 2:27pm
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.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 3:42pm
Yeah, she was nominated for an Oscar for the first one. And I don't think she should receive one for this one.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 23 2008 at 10:41am
....does the Academy like her THIS much?


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: January 23 2008 at 12:43pm
Yes, the Academy really loves their mainstays.

I think her nomination is pretty damaging to their credibility; it further fuels the notion that the award show isn't as concerned with honoring good film as it is with how it presents itself. This is not a good film, and it is not a good performance.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 24 2008 at 1:31am
One friend referred to the Oscars as being nothing but "politics".  With nominations like this and the one for Norbit, I feel she's right.  It doesn't matter how well someone performed or how great a make-up job was if it's in a movie that's bad.  You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 25 2008 at 8:58am
No, I like the way the Oscars nominated Norbit, last year's Poseidon (or 2 years), and Surf's Up. I'm happy Happy Feet won instead of the stupid Cars...


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: February 24 2008 at 4:04pm
Well, Old Betsy 2 won an oscar for best costume design.  I have to admit I was impressed with the costumes in this picture.  However, it was just one of many things done well in a movie that went so wrong. . . .



Print Page | Close Window