Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Massawyrm Showers In The Glory Of ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE!!

Queen Liz the FIRST! by BenBraddock	Oct 12th, 2007 07:43:17 AM
Can't believe I just did that...
Sounds good by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 12th, 2007 07:43:41 AM
Didn't know what to expect from this but will definitely check it out now.
Does everyone around here have a man-crush on Clive Owen? by tonagan	Oct 12th, 2007 07:51:05 AM
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.
The trailer looked good by Fitzcarraldo2	Oct 12th, 2007 07:51:18 AM
When I saw the trailer I felt a flash of irritation at Clive Owen for being so fucking handsome.
mass.... by jezza	Oct 12th, 2007 07:52:07 AM
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.
They could also make 'Aviator 2: The Madness' by Spandau Belly	Oct 12th, 2007 07:53:15 AM
That could be a biopic sequel that would work.
i'm in . . . by reckni	Oct 12th, 2007 08:11:12 AM
F Paltrow
So... by Pandas-R-Us	Oct 12th, 2007 08:11:29 AM
Does it show him inventing the Chopper bike?
The early reviews for this have been pretty bad....(RT=sub 30%) by sambafreak13	Oct 12th, 2007 08:31:35 AM
...but this seems like a can't-miss...I wonder what everybody's gripe is.
"p.s. the Fashion is FABULOUS ! ! ! " by Pound Sand	Oct 12th, 2007 08:41:15 AM

I love these movies.... by LORDRANDO	Oct 12th, 2007 08:47:52 AM
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!!!!
Where the fuck is John Dee? by Cagliostro	Oct 12th, 2007 09:35:33 AM
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!!!!
Liz by Cobbio	Oct 12th, 2007 09:51:40 AM
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.
Clive Owen: Coolest guy in movies today! by Klaus Herzog	Oct 12th, 2007 09:59:18 AM
Take that George Clooney! Seriously, Owen just rocks. He's like Clark Gable and Steve McQueen combined.
I'll be at the cinema in a few hours for this by sith_rising	Oct 12th, 2007 10:09:23 AM
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.
Clive Owen is a twat. by Fortunesfool	Oct 12th, 2007 10:58:04 AM
Coolest guy on the planet...unless you're British. In which case he's just a twat.
Oh, Massawyrm, urine a lotta trouble for your awful puns by AnimeJune	Oct 12th, 2007 11:03:41 AM
Pee's out, dude.
i have a mancrush on owen. by BMacSmith	Oct 12th, 2007 11:07:37 AM
dude's awesome. Imagine how much ass he must pull
Hope this isn't like Showtime's Tudors... by Regina V. Dudley	Oct 12th, 2007 11:47:21 AM
with way too many pretty people and pretty things.
Why Is Clive Owen so hot to everyone but me? by theycallmemrglass	Oct 12th, 2007 11:51:02 AM
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.
Cagliostro by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 12th, 2007 11:51:14 AM
John Dee was probably hanging out with the Comte St. Germain. Whom I've met...
Elizabeth: The Golden Shower. by Smerdyakov	Oct 12th, 2007 11:56:23 AM
Oh Essex. pee on me, pee on me some more. And then, put on that poisoned dress.
Glory of? by AlwaysThere	Oct 12th, 2007 12:09:35 PM
Whoa there, that doesn't sound like the same movie that's been released today.
The original "Elizabeth" was a bigoted piece of Shit. by NoDiggity	Oct 12th, 2007 12:53:57 PM
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?
Xiphos by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 12th, 2007 01:37:16 PM
Ha! Agreed. As a reference, it is rather arcane...
Catholics and John Dee by oisin5199	Oct 12th, 2007 02:03:24 PM
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.
For a more balanced review(s)... by Fish Tank	Oct 12th, 2007 02:12:20 PM
Visit Rotten Tomatoes to see how little the critics thought of this one (they loved the first). It's at 20 something % :-(
Wow. Rather effusive. by DarthCorleone	Oct 12th, 2007 02:35:10 PM
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.
bullshit by ryman7	Oct 12th, 2007 03:28:26 PM
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.
Oisin knows his shit.... by Cagliostro	Oct 12th, 2007 03:28:28 PM
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.
What, no Cantona? by CeefaxTheCat	Oct 12th, 2007 03:38:16 PM
BORING!
Ha ha, JOHN DEE, REPRESENT!!! by Daddylonghead	Oct 12th, 2007 04:59:32 PM
Or as we say in Ancient Enochian, ANGEL CANDLE KNEEL ELEMENT
Apparently shit is the new piss by BillyPilgrim	Oct 12th, 2007 05:03:09 PM
At least that's what Sanchez says.
Elizabeth... by Al Delvechio	Oct 12th, 2007 05:37:25 PM
just the type of movie I read this site to hear news about!
Fuck Rottentomatoes, I'm seeing this film anyway. by rbatty024	Oct 12th, 2007 06:50:22 PM
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.
Mr. Nice Gaius by Cagliostro	Oct 12th, 2007 08:09:52 PM
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?
Blanchett's performance by mrdinky	Oct 12th, 2007 08:17:58 PM
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.
Really? Seriously? by Proman1984	Oct 12th, 2007 09:13:46 PM
You are like the only guy who liked the movie.
best idea ever by darwinwins	Oct 12th, 2007 09:47:57 PM
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?
I don't believe you by chutneylix	Oct 12th, 2007 10:46:41 PM
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
Damn right. by 433	Oct 12th, 2007 11:17:24 PM
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.
Daniel Craig? by TheRealMoriarty	Oct 13th, 2007 03:05:08 AM
What, Anchorite?
Daniel Craig by godwillforgivethem	Oct 13th, 2007 05:14:11 AM
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
Why the "Critics" Hate This Second Elizabeth Movie by NoDiggity	Oct 13th, 2007 08:13:18 AM
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.
the catholics are coming! the catholics are coming! by mrdinky	Oct 13th, 2007 08:20:57 AM
LORD OF THE ENGLISH ISLES: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE PROTESTANTS they have a board troll. :-/
Wanna see a good Clive Owen film,rent by Grammaton Cleric Binks	Oct 13th, 2007 08:59:00 AM
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.
You know NoDiggity, you make me want to see the movie even... by rbatty024	Oct 13th, 2007 11:40:22 AM
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.
Does Elizabeth do the Electric Boogaloo or yell "KHAAAANNNNN!"? by MrMysteryGuest	Oct 13th, 2007 12:16:49 PM
Or is she "On The Move"? :)
rbatty04 by damagedinc	Oct 13th, 2007 04:16:15 PM
Not to nitpick buddy, but there's a lot more to Catholic history than (holds breath) "crusades-inquisition-pedophil epriests". 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.
what the...? by mrdinky	Oct 13th, 2007 08:40:38 PM
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/wh ateverers.
mr dinky (here's the best answer I can give with a little room) by damagedinc	Oct 14th, 2007 01:31:35 AM
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).
Also... by damagedinc	Oct 14th, 2007 01:40:20 AM
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.
conduit me arse by mrdinky	Oct 14th, 2007 03:12:57 PM
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.
Golden Axe! by CuervoJones	Oct 14th, 2007 03:35:09 PM
Another videogame movie!
mr dinky by damagedinc	Oct 15th, 2007 07:11:14 PM
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.

Talkbacks

Massawyrm Showers In The Glory Of ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks