Cool News
Massawyrm Showers In The Glory Of ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE!!
Hola all. Massawyrm here.
It's one thing to make history seem cool, even to those that hate the concept of learning. It's another thing entirely to make it fucking awesome. But that's exactly what Shekhar Kapur does with his follow up to the 1998 period piece that made Cate Blanchett a star. The very idea of someone making a sequel to such an academy award nominated/winning film is enough to give some folks a case of spastic colon. But this was one of those rare cases in which it's not as weird as it sounds. I mean, I remember walking out of Elizabeth nine years ago, saying to myself: Man, I want see another one about her in the later years. Apparently so did the folks that made it. Including Blanchett.
So here we are 9 years later and the question is: does this hold a candle to the original? Not just yes, but HELL YES. In fact, what's funny about this is that it not only follows the first movie perfectly, but hits all the right notes for a perfect sequel…according to the very laws of sequels that so seem to dominate the summer. There's another great villain, all your old favorites are back, and most importantly, the action gets a serious ramp up. Much like the original, the first two acts of this play out as a pretty standard, if not superior, period piece that serves to endear us to Elizabeth while setting up the incendiary third act. And the third act here is killer. While there is still some focus on political intrigue, this one actually takes us to war.
But that isn't what put this one over the top for me. Sure, the war ramp up is great and the few scenes they were able to afford were pretty god damned good. But what made this such an incredible follow up was the introduction of one of history's greatest scoundrels and most interesting personages, Sir Walter Raleigh. Now let's ignore the fact that he holds the distinction of being one of histories greatest men, the man who not only introduced the western world to tobacco, but popularized it by making it the 'cool' thing to do. Yeah. The guys my fucking hero. But aside from that he was an adventurer, possible lover of the virgin queen of England and by many accounts, a real honest to god pirate. So he's a smoking pirate who might have bedded the unbedable. Who could possibly be cool enough to play a guy that badass and do it justice.
Clive. Fucking. Owen. Damn straight. And what Clive Owen brings to the table is his usual air of unshaven cool in a film that you thought would be completely impervious to such notions. Remember when Brian Helgeland added rock music to A Knights Tale in an attempt to give the people of today a link to what kids in the middle ages might have thought was cool and connect them in some way? Well this is how you do it and make it work. Sir Walter Raleigh is awesome. Hella awesome. I want a fucking Sir Walter Raleigh poster on my wall right now. They go so far as to even give us one of those old Errol Flynn shots where he's hanging off the bow of the ship as it sails bay with a good old-fashioned camera swoop. And it tickled my insides with a child-like glee and made me want for nothing more than a Clive Owen pirate movie…
…and yet it never feels out of place or over done. Sir Walter Raleigh is cool, plain and simple, and that's why the queen is so readily fascinated by him. I mean think about it, if you had a choice between hanging out with some uptight Spanish douchebags or Clive Owen the Pirate, who would you spend time with? And the effect is masterful. This movie goes in very different directions than the first, telling another great story about one of histories most notable rulers.
Of course Geoffrey Rush is back as Elizabeth's own bad ass espionage guy in the shadows. And while he doesn't have nearly as much to do this time around as last, he's still given a couple of glorious moments that remind us just how vital (and cool) he is to the preservation of the crown.
Oh yeah. And Cate Blanchett is in it and she's pretty good. You know, as good as one of the worlds greatest living actresses can be. Did I mention Clive Owen?
It's not that this is a better film than Elizabeth (in fact I'm not convinced it is), it's that it is something of a very different film. It goes down very different roads than its predecessor, which works in its favor. Rather than having to live up to the original's formula, it tells another story entirely, feeling overall more like a true continuation of the story instead of just a sequel. And it helps a lot that there is an air of adventure added to this one. The pacing, the shot structure, everything about this feels like it is being amped up to achieve a marrying of the ideals we all love here at AICN with Oscar caliber sensibilities.
It's a wonderful film that I think most will find a lot more accessible than the first. As much as I love the original, there is a certain historical epic stuffiness to it that this film seems to be trying to eschew. The result is something that comes HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Seriously, if you're a fan of the original, Cate Blanchett or Clive Owen there is zero reason for you not to see this. Zero.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.
Massawyrm
Got something for the Wyrm? Mail it here.
-
+ Expand All
-
Can't believe I just did that...
-
Didn't know what to expect from this but will definitely check it out now.
-
I think the only bad review of one of his movies was that one with Jennifer Aniston, and that was probably because the reviewer was jealous of her.
-
When I saw the trailer I felt a flash of irritation at Clive Owen for being so fucking handsome.
-
this was a pretty awful movie. It marked the continuing slide of Shekhar Kapur. Clive Owen played standard beefcake. The battles were yawn. As this review highlights, the pacing and characterisation was of a popcorn Hollywood movie - worse, a Hollywood sequel. A shame, as the original (made when Working Title was not owned by Universal) was so brilliant.
-
That could be a biopic sequel that would work.
-
F Paltrow
-
Does it show him inventing the Chopper bike?
-
Oct 12, 2007 8:31:35 AM CDT
The early reviews for this have been pretty bad....(RT=sub 30%)
by sambafreak13
...but this seems like a can't-miss...I wonder what everybody's gripe is.
-
But I hope they stop before they get to the ancient Elizabeth with the creepy white paint on her face....and how the soldiers had to pretend she was hot...but she was already decomposing or something.....Elizabeth the Deceased, Here comes Jimmy Stuart!!!!
-
Her court astrologer as well as also one of the most famous personages in history. Even more questionable is where the fuck is Edward Kelly? Dee's skryer and the one who predicted the invasion of the Spanish Armadda, not to mention the one that summoned Enochian demons to repel them?
Fuck u all and fuck ignorance in general.
Brett Ratner for Prez!!!! -
Thanks for the review, Massa. After Jeremy at CHUD so savagely ripped "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," giving it a 3 out of 10 and calling it a "gaudy mess," I'm glad to read an unabashedly positive opinion. I was worried.
-
Take that George Clooney!
Seriously, Owen just rocks. He's like Clark Gable and Steve McQueen combined. -
can't wait. I re-watched Elizabeth a few months ago, which I hadn't seen since about 2001 or 2002, and it really kicked ass. I heard the sequel is PG-13, so I'm skeptical, but what the hell.
-
Coolest guy on the planet...unless you're British. In which case he's just a twat.
-
Pee's out, dude.
-
dude's awesome. Imagine how much ass he must pull
-
with way too many pretty people and pretty things.
-
I dont get it. He aint cool. He may be an ok actor but he aint cool, I tellya. Even Streatham is much coller than Owen. Oh well, I do look forward to the film though... looks absolutely sumptious.
-
John Dee was probably hanging out with the Comte St. Germain. Whom I've met...
-
Oh Essex. pee on me, pee on me some more. And then, put on that poisoned dress.
-
Whoa there, that doesn't sound like the same movie that's been released today.
-
It's scenery chewing villains were Catholics. Does Massawyrm like the original because of this? Does he believe Catholics are scenery chewing villains? Are Catholics the villains of this movie as well, and is that why Massawyrm likes it?
-
Ha! Agreed. As a reference, it is rather arcane...
-
Right on, Cagliostro - I was hoping for some Dee action. In fact, there's a character in the trailer that looks like he could be Dee. Besides the whole magician/court astrologer thing, as a geographer and a strategist he was instrumental in not only Raleigh's voyages, but the Spanish Armada attack. Some day I hope for a good movie about the Dee/Kelly angelic operations - and the sequel can be about Aleister Crowley using Dee's Enochian system to call up Choronzon.
And Catholics WERE the villains from the Protestant perspective, and since our protagonist is Protestant, that's the perspective. But if you were paying attention to the movie, you see that the Protestants were just as much villains to the Catholics. Walsingham isn't exactly a 'good' guy. -
Visit Rotten Tomatoes to see how little the critics thought of this one (they loved the first). It's at 20 something % :-(
-
This thing is getting skewered on the Rotten Tomatoes gestalt - so much so that I was thinking about skipping it, and I liked the first movie a lot. Now I'm swayed back toward seeing it.
-
dumbass film. no english king or queen ever visited a battle, especially not elizabeth, who sat on her throne while the navy handled things.
This is particularly historically inaccurate given that, as a woman, she would never have been trained on how to lead the military. -
I figured this time that if we got Walter Raleigh, we'd get Dee - Seeing how instrumental Dee was in many of his expeditions. I also noticed the guy in the trailer that looks the part but I'm rather doubting it at this point. Kapur seems way more into his cheesy drama than historical fact. At least the costumes are nice to look at.
-
BORING!
-
Or as we say in Ancient Enochian, ANGEL CANDLE KNEEL ELEMENT
-
At least that's what Sanchez says.
-
just the type of movie I read this site to hear news about!
-
Sure, they're not historically accurate, but at least the films understand the political and cultural climate of the day (more than I can say about Gibson's "historical" films). They get the atmosphere right.
-
I believe you have.....who hasn't? That whore shows up at every party, society or otherwise. What we really need is an Illuminatus movie....Anthony Hopkins as Hagbard Celine anyone?
-
her performance wasn't as flashy as the first film, but let's be honest, the material she had to work with in the first film was far and away more appealing. young woman with greatness thrust upon her must navitgate the political arena of men and establish herself as a worthy adversary vs. middle-aged woman who already has respect of her people in the midst of a mid-life crisis and has to deal with the "burden" of being the virgin queen. I thought she played her part brilliantly here. the movie itself wasn't nearly as good as blanchett, and those are the main reasons she prolly won't get a lot of buzz. but she nailed the role (again). and I would argue it was a more difficult role.
-
You are like the only guy who liked the movie.
-
can we get a buddy film with clive owen and george clooney? or make them enemies and at the end, they kill each other off in many violent ways that doesn't involve a choke collar?
-
another review that proves how much my taste disagrees with massa, more than anyone else on this site. even harry! at least he's sometimes get it right
-
I don't know what the fuck Capone and Mori are thinking, but E:TGA was quite good indeed. I enjoyed the hell out of it. And we just watched the original film a couple nights ago so it was fresh in our minds. Historical accuracy? No, but a fun time at the movies, with beautiful scenery and a host of good performances.
Oh, and Dee is in it. His importance is stressed. -
What, Anchorite?
-
Referring to him being the Vatican priest who tries to forment rebellion in the first Elizabeth
Gaius,
he was probably having a threesome with Olivia and the comte, bit of sexmagik -
Because they were too stupid to hate the first Elizabeth movie, but time has given the idiots time to reflect on it, and they've decided to heap the criticism that they were too stupid to deliver to the first piece of shite onto this sequel. Which probably doesn't deserve it. It might even be a better film than the first, but it will still get the thrashing that the first film (in retrospect) deserved. Most Critics are sheep. They gave the first film praise because it had Cate Blanchett in it, and was "historical", and as negative reaction to their dumbass unthinking praise seeped in they've now gone the opposite direction. Hey, if you enjoyed the over-the-top anti-catholic bigotry of the first one (or was able to brush it off and not take it personally) you'll probably enjoy this one as much, or even more, so Massawyrm's review is probably an accurate guide for you. However, a review like Capone's, who loved the first one? Capone hasn't a clue. At least Massawyrm has some consistency and integrity. He likes, or dislikes, for his own reasons, and as much as I disagree with him, he seems to describe the films he reviews well, even though I violently disagree with his taste. He doesn't seem to be looking around him and trying to figure out how he's SUPPOSED to react.
-
LORD OF THE ENGLISH ISLES: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE PROTESTANTS
they have a board troll. :-/ -
Greenfingers. First, make sure you're watching it with your wife or girlfriend. Okay, now that 99 percent of you geeks are gone: to the remaining 1 percent yes it is chickflickish, but it's a good flick. It's also got Helen Mirren (no, she doesn't get naked) and that whoever that old British dude is from Waking Ned Divine, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I'm too lazy to search IMDB right now.
-
Oct 13, 2007 11:40:22 AM CDT
You know NoDiggity, you make me want to see the movie even...
by rbatty024
more. I hate Catholics. They're not as bad as evangelicals, but they have a more centralized structure and are an easier target. Anyway, you do realize that if Spain had in fact crushed England they would have brought with them the Spanish Inquisition, which was far worst than Bloody Mary's little bit of religious persecution. I may dislike Catholics and Evangelicals and most other forms of Christianity, but at least I believe in giving them the rights to practice their religion and not being killed for it, that's more than I can say about Catholicism for the majority of its history.
-
Oct 13, 2007 12:16:49 PM CDT
Does Elizabeth do the Electric Boogaloo or yell "KHAAAANNNNN!"?
by mrmysteryguest
Or is she "On The Move"? :)
-
Not to nitpick buddy, but there's a lot more to Catholic history than (holds breath) "crusades-inquisition-pedophilepriests". There's also the foundation for modern philosophy, the arts, the university system, as well a lot of way positive social structures. I'm just saying, it's okay to not like certain things but to lump everything together like its a monolith doesn't do anybody justice.
-
ok. now I'm curious: how, exactly, do you figure Catholicism established the "foundation of modern philosophy"?
I'd say the dominant philosophy of the 20th century was existentialism, which is pretty much in direct opposition to kant and kescartes, and beside that fact, wasn't enlightenment philosophy founded on platonic and aristotelean philosophy anyway? I mean...I really don't see "Catholocism" (or christianity in general) as the founding tenant of modern philosophy. in fact, philosophy is more or less the secularized pursuit of knowledge, even by those philosophers who were clearly devout christians/greeks/catholics/whateverers. -
Oct 14, 2007 1:31:35 AM CDT
mr dinky (here's the best answer I can give with a little room)
by damagedinc
I'm using the "foundation of modern philosophy" part a little loosely, because modern philosophy as such reacted against Enlightenment philosophy, which in turn reacted to aristotelian and platonic thought. The Enlightenment came off of renaissance humanism and the early stirrings of investigative science, which held Aristotelian thought in suspicion, mainly because it didn't hold up in regards to the sciences. The Middle Ages, however, were characterized by both neoplatonic and aristotelian philosophy, preserved particularly in Catholic theology. St. Thomas Aquinas was aristotelian, coming off the heals of the rediscovery of the lost works of Aristotle, which were preserved by both Jewish and Muslim philosophers. In the west, theology maintained philosophy and Western Catholic thought elevated the classical Greek texts up through the modern era. They at least kept people engaging in philosophy and maintained the standard that faith cannot be properly understood without rational inquiry. This might not seem like a big deal, but it stands against fundamentalism, which views pure reason as hostile to faith. There are two approaches which can help to characterize the role of philosophy and religion, "faith seeking understanding" (St. Anselm) or understanding seeking faith. At least in both views reason is totally essential...On one hand, "foundation" might not have been the right term, but "conduit" does apply because this approach to philosophy was the thesis that subsequent philosophy acted as the anti-thesis too, even though all philosophy (ideally) prizes rational inquiry. However, in the modern period I think you can argue that that the various modern philosophies (Hegel's philosophy of history, phenomenology, existentialism, nihilism, postmodern philosophy, utilitarianism/pragmatism) revolve around the theistic worldview (especially in metaphysics), whether it picks it apart or not. So much of modern philosophy does revolve around the usefulness and appropriateness of a metaphysical worldview. I also can't imagine how the modern rational landscape would have been formulated without the vocabulary provided by aristotelianism (language regarding substance and accidents, the metaphysical categories, etc).
-
Plus, the ideas of individualism, free will and choice (against a pure determinism), and a general optimism towards the ability of the human person to transcend their condition (especially in the Catholic humanist tradition, though you can find people who would emphasize a pessimism towards the human condition), are all ideas that are foundational for an existential perspective, but (I would think) expressed in a unique way in the Catholic tradition. They might not have birthed these ideas, but I think it's important to note that they found unique and useful expression in that earlier period.
-
yeah, they did transcribe texts. they also horribly misrepresented them (not that such practice was exclusive to catholic monasteries). iunno. I think you're really playing loose and free with the attribution of origin and responsibility if you're gonna claim we wouldn't have philosophy as a discipline today without catholicism.
don't get me wrong. I'm not pushing some anti-catholic theological agenda. but rome and alexander were a hell of a lot more responsible for the dissemination and influence of greek thought today than the institutionalized appropriation of said thought. just say the catholic church does a lot of work with emergency medical/health relief and charities today. a hell of a lot more accurate imo. -
Another videogame movie!
-
dude, i'm not making this stuff up. i don't get a gold star for say "Catholicism is rad!". the university system alone was birthed out the cathedral schools. they didn't birth classical philosophy, but it'd be lame to say that philosophy was put on pause until the rationalists and empiricists. they had a solid place. if you want to just look on the level of modern philosophy then you have the postmodern mess which is the bastard child of existentialism. but even the idea of humanism occured in a Christian framework, even if it was a reappropriation of Greek and Roman ideals. Think of what it would've been like if was all fundamentalism and anything not explicitly in the Bible or explicit Biblical culture was rejected and condemned. You'd get the freakin Holy Land Experience in Orlando, that's what you get.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts