GamerTab That was an excellent one.

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

kayaker36 This is well plowed ground. For years the role of England's Elizabeth I was owned by Glenda Jackson. Australian Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren and now Anne-Marie Duff have essayed in the last ten years to portray Gloriana on the screen.This version is more watchable, more accessible, more **alive** than any before. Glenda Jackson was too sour and too butch--attended by a fawning and effeminate Dudley. Jeremy Irons looked like he had risen from the grave playing Robert Dudley to Helen Mirren's Elizabeth in that BBC production focusing on her middle years. Horrid is the only word to describe Ms. Mirren's appearance. The Cate Blanchett movie version tries to portray Elizabeth as a kind of early feminist--a concept that would not exist for many centuries. Dudley is squeezed into a tiny corner and hardly is a presence at all.This production adopts as its center the long relationship between Elizabeth and Dudley. As "Robbie" Dudley, handsome, boyish Tom Hardy has swagger and sex appeal. He is not the least bit intimidated by his childhood playmate "Bess" now being the Queen. In one of this production's many telling moments, he is seen stroking the royal neck discreetly but not furtively even as Elizabeth receives the ambassador of the King of Spain. Agreed, Dudley seems to age little compared to Elizabeth, who gets older in appearance if not in demeanor. The relationship is accordingly more credible in the early parts of the series when both are in their twenties.A few nitpicking pedants have pointed up some historical inaccuracies of a very minor nature. They in no way detract from the impact of this splendid version of history with its colorful sets, fine costumes, excellent acting and unforgettable musical score.

tedg The charter of masterpiece theater is simple: provide the viewer with a richer experience than usual. Intelligent cinema isn't part of this precis, nor is compelling drama (whatever that means), and in cases like this, even effective history.That's still okay with me in theory, because a key thing I look for is getting lost in the shape of the thing. The problem with Masterpiece is that lushness to them means good enough in all categories except sets and costumes. Nothing else is supposed to exceed the norm, apparently in a deliberate strategy to not overwhelm the visuals. This isn't Zeffireli's notion that you create a lush place and then occupy it with the camera, moving and discovering.No, this is simply a buffet table of color and texture and we are suppose to help ourselves. The "story" isn't integrated in, its just an excuse: royalty, richness, assumed importance. So I have to warn most of my readers off of this; its offensive in a way, mere artifice, not a real film.As history, it fails down a bit too. Too bad, because this is the period when English was born and became the worlds largest (in terms of words) and most flexible language. It was in large part a deliberate plan by Elizabeth (and apparently Burleigh). And it was the era where the Catholic Church, surely an evil institution then, had its back broken by the notion of enlightenment — the very idea of knowledge.And it was when the decision was made (mixed with wealthseeking) to colonize the New World with the new notion of discovering the "magic" therein, which happened to be a cosmos not centered on the Jesus of church dogma. So there's lots in this period to be mined. John Dee appears in only one scene, Harriot not at all. You have to make the story simple it seems, so we have essentially a love story, two actually, the second being someone credibly suspected as her son.Seeing things like this help you understand just why you come to films. If all you need is color, this might satisfy. Otherwise, you'll find it alarmingly protestant.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

jennaroadman Retelling a story in history in the framework of film can be tricky business and Masterpiece Theatre's The Virgin Queen doesn't attempt to adhere to accuracy in the slightest. But, if you're like me, you would love to experience the story of Queen Elizabeth a thousands times over in a thousand ways, and this film richly succeeds in it's own right.I have never seen such accurate costuming, beautiful sets or clever a soundtrack in any Elizabethan film (Oh my God, the soundtrack). Royal stoicism is put aside in lieu of emotive imagery. More than many films of this historical powerhouse, I appreciate the attention paid to the human side of Queen Eliazabeth--her vanity, weakness for the opposite sex (considering her royal responsibilities), and infamous indecisiveness.I could have done without the laughably overblown Casa Nova characterization of Lord Robert Dudley (Tom Hardy, ). He came off as a retired Backstreet Boy, looked far too young for the part, and portrayed none of the cultivated finesse that those familiar with the real man know, in-turn, leaving the audience wondering what about this man is worth the scandal.If you have any interest in a new take of Elizabeth's life since the 1998 film Elizabeth, I truly recommend this mini-series. For a more historically accurate glance of the time period in England, check out BBC's Elizabeth (1971) starring Glenda Jackson.

kurt_messick This is a very interesting programme, produced in Britain and originally shown on the PBS series, Masterpiece Theatre.This miniseries was directed by Coky Giedroyc, a veteran of television productions in Britain, including another royal-themed miniseries, 'William and Mary', in 2003. Giedroyc brings an interesting modern twist to the series - rather than filming things in majestic, sweeping camera pans with classical music as a background, and rather than having the dialogue (and acting) be in a stilted, falsely formal style, Giedroyc incorporates modern music with medieval and Celtic flavouring to it (both of which have experienced a renaissance of sorts in the past decade), and the situations are decidedly modern without being out of place in their own times.This presents the life of Elizabeth from her young adulthood under Queen Mary, as a supposed participant in intrigues against the Catholic Queen, through to her death after serving decades on the throne of England as the Virgin Queen, the queen who never married. In fact, the miniseries plays a tantalising game with Elizabeth's virginity, showing her desires (as well as those around her) without ever giving up the game of 'was she or wasn't she?' Anne-Marie Duff plays the part of Elizabeth, and does a remarkably able job for such a complex figure. Duff won the Irish Television award and was nominated for the BAFTA award for best actress in a television drama in another series, 'Shameless', last year.Duff is joined by Tom Hardy, who plays the role of Robert Dudley, the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. Dudley is also an extraordinarily complex role, as he played several sides in the political struggles during Elizabeth's early reign, and was part of a family well experienced in regal intrigue - Robert Dudley's family had tried to manage the reign of Elizabeth's brother Edward, engineer the accession of Lady Jane Grey (placing Guildford Dudley on the throne with her), and is sometimes referred to as 'the uncrowned kings of England'. In fact, perhaps the most stunning single scene in this miniseries is after Elizabeth has elevated Robert Dudley to the earldom of Leicester, and during her illness, he sits upon the throne as the protector of the realm. Hardy is well suited to this role, and plays it with skill.The sets are appropriate to their time period, neither too ornate nor too medieval; the costumes also have a touch of modernity to them, but are still primarily of the period. The situations presented give good insight into the overall pattern of Elizabeth's reign and some of the principal concerns during that time period, although to compress such a long reign into such a short time frame as a four-hour miniseries by necessity means that the history has had to be selectively chosen. Elizabeth faced problems from without and within, many of which were far more complex and pressing than her marriage issue. In the end, Elizabeth made the right decision for the time, if not for the future.This is a great production for television, and holds up well against other major productions featuring the Virgin Queen Elizabeth of a few years ago.