BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

katstap You can read the other reviews to see all the debates over the historical accuracy, the choice of Duff as Elizabeth I, and the fact that all we see are movies about Elizabeth and not other interesting choices. So I've decided to give a review on something a little different...The costumes were pretty accurate for the time period, with some obvious differences in colour choices and the lack of abundance of embroidery (embroidery was a way for people to immediately tell how much money you had and what class you were in - sometimes the wearer would also have their family crest or symbols embroidered as well). The colours situation is just that back then, the dyes were not as stable as they are now and tended to fade quickly and were not as rich and bright as they were portrayed in here.I have to admit, what kept me going in the second half of the series is the use of make up and effects on the actors. The aging effects were MAGNIFICENT!! While the women seemed overly done and looked like something out of Star Wars or Star Trek, the white make up they used to cover the aging had the adverse effect of aging them further. The vanity of the day is nothing short of today (minus the ability for Botox or anti-aging creams), and they believed their makeup would make them look younger, while today looking at them, it could send children running from the room in terror.If you're looking for something to pass the time, or you happen to be a lover of period pieces, take a looksie at The Virgin Queen. Every film or television show has it's merits and downfalls, but the visual brilliance should never be overshadowed.

pdwebbsite Priming up to teach Renaissance history I've looked into just about every Elizabeth I movie around--from Bette Davis to Helen Mirren. I endured the dry Glenda Jackson series for its historical perspective, enjoyed the brief comedic overacting of Dame Dench in Shakespeare in Love, totally skipped Cate Blanchett's version due to the reviews openly praising this Hollywood take on known history.As to this newer version, I couldn't bear to finish it, and I usually don't quit movies. The editing seemed to delight in snatches, rendering this as apatched together series of Elizabeth commercials. The lighting was dark, which didn't help. Robert Dudley was portrayed as being way too young. He should have been reserved for the Earl of Essex part. There were other aspects I didn't care for, but the Robert Dudley part needed to be more nailed down seeing how important he was to Elizabeth's reign.Helen Mirren's version to me presents the most personable, the one that really brings out the personage of the queen. The politics in that version were more defined as well. I don't understand why the BBC thought to try and trot out another version of Elizabeth I when so many exist already. Aren't there any other monarchs worth looking into?

patlightfoot Well given the historical format and context, it was almost spot on, not like others and I thought acting was excellent. I preferred it to Elizabeth, and Elizabeth the Golden Age, as they were exploiting a very interesting part of English history, particularly the Tudor Period. And got it all wrong.My only comment is that sometimes true history doesn't actually make a good fiction film unless enhanced with fiction. Dudley Elizabeth's love of her life was NOT actually portrayed during/after Tilbury properly, he went on to govern her forces in the Netherlands for some years. And he did die with her knowledge he was dieing, as she sent him medicine. The Earl of Essex, well Errol Flynn was a better actor in looks admittedly, but again, he was portrayed or characterized less romantically than in other films, that I feel was justified.But I as a student of this period feel it was OK, dragged a bit sometimes but I would recommend it to a history student, that I wouldn't with others who have tried to make a saga out of Elizabeth 1. Hated Golden Age although cinematography was very nice. But this TV mini series and Elizabeth as portrayed by the actress given this part was very good. Possibly Glenda Jackson did as good a job too.

KateCTU Having read the previous comments I would concur with what has been said, but here in the UK this was shown as 4 90 minute episodes, not 60 minutes as inferred in the previous post.I loved everything about this production even down to the usage of the group the 'Medieval Baebes' (who perform mainly medieval AND Tudor/Renaissance popular music) which gave one goosebumps when you think that this music was probably well loved and performed by the real Queen and her courtiers.If you check out the BBC Drama website it gives the background as to how the costumes were made to look in period and yet so modern and also the locations used. It was quite refreshing to see a British produced history series actually filmed in the UK and not in one of the old Eastern bloc countries as with the Channel 4 'Elizabeth I' and that other history series with Ann Marie Duff playing a character 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion' Well done BBC...it will not surprise me if another BAFTA is not forthcoming for this production. Keep up the good work!