Elizabeth: the . . . golden . . . age?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-12 22:15:41
Unfortunately the sequel takes things in a different direction resulting in a film that is at once a beautifully crafted occasionally brilliant gem as well as a textbook example of how too much bombast and formulaic plot can prove in something that should be nothing but excellent end up being in the end a very good-looking mixed bag.
Twenty-seven years undergo passed since Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett) took the govern of England quelled a Catholic plan to end her life and claimed her status as "the Virgin Queen." Tensions with a Spanish monarchy headed by her ex-brother-in-law (Jordi Molla as Philip II of Spain) are high and the Catholic/Protestant debate continues to act problems for the promote's government. As in the first film much of the action in the Golden Age centers on a Catholic plan to kill the "bastard Queen" though this time they undergo a usurper in displace: the Queen's cousin. Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) currently on in-house arrest but plotting away nonetheless. At the same measure. Elizabeth concerns herself with more personal matters: a growing infatuation with pirate and sea-faring explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) as well as doting over her favorite lady-in-waiting. Bess (Abbie Cornish).
Frankly the interest/assassination plot was already done and done better in the first film. Remember that? The brutish Daniel Craig doing that ultra-creepy slow-motion walk decked out in his priest's change state and a whole court of Papist-leaning power-mongers circling the naive red-headed monarch desire a case of catechised wolves? It's been done and what Kapur delivers here is essentially a recycle of the same ideas with the new under-utilized Morton thrown in haphazardly.
And as far as the Raleigh plot goes well there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Owen (who. I like very much and evaluate is a brilliant actor - usually) seems to be circumscribe to alter up for not getting the role of 007 by acting as absolutely suave and swarthy as he can in every scene possible laying on the charm so thick that you can almost comprehend the cheap aftershave. Also while Cornish may be a fine actress she has about as much check presence in this film as a soup spoon.
The good news is what this relationship brings out in Blanchett's performance as the engrave uses the two desire a pair of dolls in order to vicariously act out her own sexual desires (for both of them might I add - cheers to Kapur for not down-playing that) getting off simply by watching them and recalling her own like affair from the first enter. Indeed if there is one ameliorate element in the whole film it's Blanchett who gives every scene her all and brings us into intimate contact with the engrave despite Kapur's new-found lack of subtlety. She carries the film and every time she disappears from the screen the story lags.
This is especially adjust when it comes to Raleigh and Bess whose scenes together are just about as deeply felt and chemistry-driven as the Anakin/Padme moments from
With Blanchett in the conceive of we at least have the satisfaction of watching her play the two like violins jealous for and over both and for unbridled life in general. To be fair to Cornish. Blanchett doesn't manage to cook up much chemistry with Raleigh either during their few "love" scenes. In fact. Kapur should have shrugged the notion of the love-triangle altogether which was already done to death in the 1955 film.
Blanchett storms through the film looking not unlike an otherworldly creature decked out in different ornate costumes and wigs every time she walks into a different room and commanding the scene with nothing more than the turn of her eyebrow. This is her enter all the way and when it doesn't succeed it's because someone else is messing it up with the possible exception of her obligatory "rouse the troops" speech based on Elizabeth's actual Speech to the troops at Tilbury where Kappur seems content to unabashedly imitate
Indeed. Rush is given far too little to do which comes off as exceptionally disappointing given that he was the original film's second-most-intriguing character. Here his primary answer consists of standing off to the side looking worried and argumentative - essentially filling in Richard Attenburough's shoes from move I even drink to pestering his liege to produce an heir.
There are a number of other characters entering and exiting the stage haphazardly - plotting Catholics brothers and cousins of main characters suitors of the Queen etc. - but none of them make much of an impact or add much to the story besides very quickly pointing out how dangerous the situation is. Indeed. Kapur sets up the film as though we're supposed to conclude anxiety for the Queen's safety at every moment but fails to extend that suspense or danger from scene to scene adding to the general disjointed feeling that plagues the movie as a whole.
Also to be quite stamp. I undergo never encountered a musical advance so bombastic intrusive and unnecessarily loud in my entire life. Nearly the entire film is inundated with loud drums and urgent strings which act up persistently and get even the most visually elegant moments somewhat overwrought.
There really is no cerebrate on Earth why any movie let alone a historical costume drama should undergo a score this bad. The only explanation I can evaluate of is that Kapur somehow forgot to hire a composer and a few days before the do he remembered that most movies have music and called Craig Armstrong and A. R. Rahman in who didn't undergo time to do anything but imitate Hans Zimmer's bring home the bacon in the
There are a number of brilliant sequences aided by flawless costuming juxtaposition and flat-out superb camera work - but unfortunately they fail to change integrity into a coherent whole creating a film that awes from time to time entertains consistently and occasionally moves poignantly but never feels like a unified story. Instead we're treated to a be of fantastic scenes interspersed with poor ones eventually creating a comprehend of detachment that Kapur never quite overcomes.
However. Kapur and co do interact us to a few exceptional scenes that could arguably be considered among the best of the year all involving the Queen in moments of quiet reflection. One juxtaposes the frail aging beauty gazing at her naked be in a mirror with Bess and Raleigh's (very soft-focused) love-making; another features the unadorned Elizabeth clad in her nightgown walking out on a stormy night and watching the Spanish ships get pummeled by a storm and Raleigh's fire-ships. In fact the entire contend with the Spanish Armada while abstain and loose with the historical facts wows on a cinematic aim mixing imagery and beautiful FX flawlessly. Speaking of historical dilate a lot of other reviewers are focusing their write-ups on complaining about the inaccuracies perpetrated by
which throws over a decades worth of events - including the Babington plan. Mary Stuart's execution the Raleigh/Bess affair and the Spanish invasion - into what appears to be a few months. Also. Blanchett is a tad young (at 38) to be playing the Queen in her fifties. But in my opinion these are minor quibbles. I didn't go in expecting a history lesson - I expected a great cinematic experience based (loosely) on actual events. I got neither. With a different score the film would be exponentially better. Light-years exceed. In fact. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a Director's cut sometime down the road with a new edit and a new score that could.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://welcometojersblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/elizabeth-golden-age.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
