This rates as high as it does for me because of the cinematography. It is dazzling and Blanchett can't be denied, but "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is like a chick-flick with explosions plus costumes, super hair, and loud, intrusive music. The result is faux epic.<br /><br />My wife summed it up well as we left the theater: "I feel like I've just flipped through a coffee table picture book for two hours and somebody turned up the stereo." History wrote this plot but Nicholson and Hirst thought they could do better. They couldn't, or certainly didn't. Freshmen composition classes come up with better stuff. Trite, forced, predictable. Did they even run this by an expert in English history? You gotta wonder. The script is oozing with 21st century mores and clichés. It made me think (during the movie, mind you) of the way Dutch painters depicted Homer and Aristotle in the garb of 17th century Holland. Are we that dumb? Sir Walter Raleigh is a caricature and Sir Francis Drake, never properly introduced, was a throwaway. Geoffrey Rush is wasted as Walsingham. Come to think of it, nearly everybody is wasted. Every single character is underdeveloped, with the possible exception of the title characterpossible exception.<br /><br />"Golden Age" set the target high and then turned and fired in the opposite direction. Realizing the script had missed, Director tried to make up for it with window dressing. Substance would have served this queen better. With the colon in the title, I almost expected to see Bruce Willis saving the day.<br /><br />You can see why "Golden Age" came out in October because it's not going to compete for Oscars in categories that anybody cares about. With all the budget they had for this movie, you'd Universal could have found better writers.