VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

pepe4u22 Watched this movie and I found the subject matter interesting but I thought the production too stagey too much like a play. The acting outside of Vivien Leigh's spirited performance was over the top and very hammy. In many ways the acting took away from which could have been a very interesting action. The lead actress who was so bad in role I will not even try to remember her name was played with a leaden performance that the Kevin Costner character in the Big Chill gave a better performance and he was a corpse. As for Olivier his performance was just terrible he overacts at every moment and his movements on the screen are over the top this shows why he is a wonderful stage actor where on film it looks so silly. Though if you contrast it with his wife Vivien Leigh her talent embraces the camera and she has charisma youth, looks and the acting acumen that the camera loves her and we as the audience are entranced by her. It was said that Sir Laurence compromised his talents with her but I think it is the other way for she had a great range and knew the strength of her talent while in my opinion outside Shakespeare Olivier tended to be stiff and unnatural in most film performances and only in the latter part of career did he even understand to be less stagey and showy. For Vivien her performance was a 8 and the rest a -5.

sdave7596 I admit I don't know much about the historical aspects of the British, so I defer to others comments about this film. I watched this film more out of curiosity recently when it was on TCM. "Fire Over England" released in 1937, is noteworthy to a true movie fan because of the early pairing of Viven Leigh and Laurence Olivier, who would eventually become Mr. and Mrs. Olivier. They had actually made a few films earlier in England, but they are not well known. In fact, both were not known much in America at all at this point, but of course that would change in two years with Viven Leigh playing Scarlett O'Hara and Laurence Olivier playing Heathcliff. This film is what some call a costume drama, focusing on the 1500's turbulence of England about to go to war with Spain. Flora Robson plays Queen Elizabeth, and she is riveting in the part, and -- in my opinion -- steals every scene she is in. With all due respect to Bette Davis playing the great queen two years later in "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" Robson's Queen is superior. She carries her not just with the required bitchiness, but with a regal air about her. Davis seemed rather actress and self-conscious in the part. Anyway, this film, while not great, is still worthwhile, although largely forgotten today. It enjoyed something of a revival after Vivien Leigh won the Oscar for "Gone With the Wind," becoming a bona fide star, and Laurence Olivier finally getting the recognition he deserved in "Wuthering Heights."

Igenlode Wordsmith I'm afraid I was disappointed by "Fire over England", having pinned too many hopes on this film of all those in the Olivier season: based on a novel I'd loved as a child, starring Flora Robson as Queen Elizabeth with names such as Raymond Massey, James Mason and Robert Newton among the supporting cast, and featuring Vivien Leigh as the real-life love interest of a Laurence Olivier described as channelling Douglas Fairbanks and John Barrymore as he does all his own stunts, what could hold more promise? Like "The Sea Hawk", it was a picture I'd heard of and had long since been waiting to see.But great anticipation places an insuperable weight on a film. "The Sea Hawk" disappointed, and Olivier is no Flynn. The character is petulant and callow, admittedly -- but I couldn't identify with Michael emotionally (not aided by the fact that he appears to be trifling completely untroubled with the affections of two ladies at once, which deprived the love scenes of their conviction: it didn't come across as a conflict of loyalties, but as having your cake and eating it), and I found the action sequences uninspiring. The stunt dives look like belly-flops (presumably with an eye to the angle of the safety nets), the 'storm-tossed' ships wobble along with their sails obviously providing no propulsion whatsoever (would it have cost too much to have someone blow on them?), and the palace guards at the Escurial display a degree of stupidity in their pursuit that even in the context of cliché is less thrilling than ridiculous. The only moments of the Spanish adventure that worked for me at all were the double-edged dialogue at the dining table, and the 'spy' scenes with Raymond Massey.For the true honours of this production lie not with the adolescent hero but with the ageing generation. Massey invests the workaholic, melancholic Philip of Spain with a lethally plodding efficiency that makes him truly to be feared. The quietly-weighted exchange between the older Ingolby and his friend-turned-captor holds far more emotional impact than young Michael's histrionics when he finally cottons on (about a reel later than everybody else, audience included). The Queen's relationship with her boyhood's Robin is far deeper and better-portrayed than Michael's with Cynthia, and the memorable struggle is not Laurence Olivier with a sword in his hand but Elizabeth facing the loss of her youth.It is the grown-up drama that is worth watching here. But unfortunately this is not the main focus of the motion picture.

Jem Odewahn I wasn't expecting too much from this one- I had read some rather unfavorable reviews that basically said it was dated, melodramatic fuzz. Yes, it is dated and melodramatic, but it is also very good value.The great Flora Robson is first-billed as Queen Elizabeth I of England. Set in the late 1500's, this historical drama revolves around the strained relations between Spain and England. I'm not too good on the history, but like most historical re-tellings it has it's inaccuracies and flaws. Bear with them, as this is an entertaining and worthy film. Flora Robson is magnificent and dominates the whole production.Stage actor Olivier is Michael Ingolby, and a young Vivien Leigh is lady-in-waiting Cynthia. In the handful of scenes that they share together (Olivier actually has more opportunities for romance with Tamara Desni), you can feel that these two are really in love, on and off-screen. Olivier was courting Leigh at the time of the making of 'Fire Over England', so watching them falling in love as Michael and Cynthia is a rather voyeuristic experience. Leigh handles her small role very well, yet it is hard to tell that this young lady would be fiery Scarlett O'Hara in just a few years. Of course, Vivien looks great in the costumes, as always. Olivier is good, if a little stage-bound. Still relatively unexperienced with the film medium, Larry is over-the-top in quite a few scenes. He's very handsome here, and we even get to hear him sing and play the lute! His swashbuckling manner reminds me of Douglas Fairbanks, who Larry was an admirer of. Olivier does all his own stunts here (as he would do in later roles such as Henry V), perhaps inspired by Fairbanks.It's a good attempt at historical drama, and the production values are high-class for an English 1930's film.Worth your time.7/10.