Critics are rightly hounding the makers of Elizabeth: The Golden Age for being a bit casual about its history. Set in 1585, the film compresses several eras in Elizabeth's reign, and also toys with relative time. Though Elizabeth was in her 50s then, Cate Blanchett necessarily plays her as a late thirty-something. The Raleigh relationship is distorted--he and Elizabeth are too close in age, and his liaison with Elizabeth Throckmorton happens years too early. And that's mapped onto the Armada bits in problematic ways.
But films will do that with history, and it's just not nice to descend into mockery in the manner of critics who, for example, have compared Blanchett's Elizabeth to David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust.
What gets lost in all the historical quibbling--which is surprisingly mean-spirited for an era as historically unplugged as ours--is that this film is a remarkable testimonial for freedom. Set aside the question of how realistic it is, and for a moment simply consider the fact that Elizabeth is a strikingly charismatic and cinematically exceptional voice for freedom. When Philip of Spain--backed by the Catholic Church--moves against Elizabeth and guns for the enthronement of the Catholic Mary Stuart, Elizabeth resists her advisors' advice to round up and jail the Catholics in England, declaring that she has no intention of punishing her subjects for their beliefs. Later, when she leads England into war with Spain, she explicitly connects the defense of comparatively modern, tolerant Protestant England to the defense of liberty and freedom of conscience.
When it comes to liberty, one could reasonably say that Elizabeth rules.