Should this film really be called Elizabeth II? Cate Blanchett reprises her portrayal (very expertly) of the virgin queen with Geoffrey Rush a suitably sinister Walsingham. Clive Owen provides the love interest as Walter Rayleigh. I do still have a hankering for Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth the Great but Cate often gave me an echo of that definitive performance (there was a touch at times of Bette Davis who memorably donned the role in Elizabeth and Essex). I mention the latter for a reason. The thing that must be remembered when viewing populist history is that jarring anarchronism should generally be ignored (hence the strange hilly aspect of the area around Tilbury, and the royal palace appearing to bear a distinct similarity to Ely Cathedral are to be put aside without consideration). Instead you must embrace the broad sweep of history - and accept romance in all its' forms. This film is rollicking good fun - the English are universally Good and Elizabeth's enemies are universally Bad (whether they be Spanish, Scottish, Catholic or those bad people wanting her to marry. Naturally foreigners are often stupid or laughable if they are not being Bad. What is wrong with this old-fashioned view of history - not alot to my mind, rule on Queen Cate (and keep watching Bette Davis). As this film only dealt with a couple of years around the time of the Armada I think Cate will be able to look forward with pleasure to portraying Elizabeth again in her later years. Rating: 7/10
