How sad is this?

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I didn't hate this movie but there were a lot of times where I grimaced at the usual things that annoy me about historical films. I would love it if for once someone decided to explore the possibility of making a historical movie that actually tries to recreate a picture of what really might have happened! Is this so difficult? Will it screw up the story so badly to just make it feel real? I want the Romans to talk Latin and the Celts (if possible) to talk in their language. (subtitled with English) That's how real it should be. Virtually no one should have white teeth either. And they should spend a bit more time researching the tactics! Romans didn't just stand there waiting to be attacked (the final battle) they would have thrown their pila (javelins) and then drawn swords and hacked into the enemy. Standing defensively works for spear armed infantry not for assault infantry like the soldiers pictured in the film. No one has to know all these details but it's not like one is asking the director to move a mountain just to show the (cooler) actual tactics that we would have seen had we been watching the battle... Sure not many people will care about the added accuracy but...what have they got to lose by it? A few extra nights on google searching for ancient accounts of roman warfare??? As for Nero I thought the film showed him to be too concerned about the incident, like it was consuming his life. I don't think it occupied his thoughts as much as they make out - he is even totally preoccupied with the Celts before the rebellion! (which actually occurred years after Claudius's death).

I have found "Boudica" aka "Warrior Queen" to be quite entertaining and very much worth watching. Although I had glimpsed Alex Kingston on ER, she had never really come up on my radar in a significant way. However, now that she's Boudica the Warrior Queen, I'm quite impressed with her (and maybe a little in love). In general, all of the casting was very good and the actors all made the most of their roles. If the budget had been on par with "Alexander" or "Troy" I think this could have been almost as good as those films (although they are far from perfect!). Having glanced at a few of the other user comments, I saw some criticism of the historical accuracy of the film. Those kinds of critiques are unfounded because they are based on naive and unanalytical readings of the source material. In other words, the critic believes everything he or she reads in old books, and criticizes films if they don't match the books point for point. Good historians know that a film like "Boudica" is a valid alternative interpretation of the sources and, at the very least, an excellent heuristic tool.

Since it was on television, I didn't expect it to be "Lord of the Rings," as apparently some others did. They wouldn't have the budget. After seeing such horrosities as "The Druids" based on a Norman Spinrad novel and the American series "Roar" based on goodness knows what (The Romans in Ireland!), this was not bad, but not great. Celtic-Roman history seems to be beyond film/television writers ken. Maybe they need to read a little.I actually liked the main player, Alex Kingston. I didn't watch ER, so I have no preconceptions about her. I liked most of the actors. I think the problem does not lie with the actors, but the script and this appalling need to make things relevant. It can be done, but it doesn't have to be done, and it was done badly here.It would have been far more interesting to have a scene where Boudicca uses divination with a rabbit as described in Dio or show the statue of Victory fall rather than the statue of the Roman emperor. Both the Britons and the Romans were very prone to omens and portents. I suppose they thought the audience would not get it. Hello, that's what good writing does! Explains things we don't know.I didn't mind the accents. We all know the Roman generals and emperors spoke with upper class British accents! We saw Lawrence Olivier in "Spartacus." We watched "I, Claudius.";)I liked that they had the Britons lime their hair and paint up with woad, but costuming needed to be brighter and jewelry needed to be richer. However, this seems to be a general trend among costumers in film/television; they think that ancient peoples dressed dully. In fact, most ancient peoples dressed in brilliant colors. Positively garish by our standards. They did have Boudicca & her husband dress a little better when they meet Emperor Claudius. In fact, they look like a color drawing straight out of a costume book I have. However, a king and queen of a people would be far better dressed in this.As for caricature of Nero, the Roman writers don't seem all that fond of him, either. I knew before I watched this how Boudicca died, so I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that they simply didn't show it. However Tacitus says she took poisoned and died. Dio says she got sick and died. The fate of her daughters is not mentioned by either. And they have no names either.I wasn't expecting exact history here. Or a documentary. I was expecting a really good historical adventure and romp. It is better than other attempts at ancient Celtic-Roman stories. But it would have been far better if the writers had stuck closer to Roman accounts and stopped trying to brain us with relevancy.

I agree with the previous comments concerning this production, and I would like to add that it demonstrates a complete innocence of knowledge of Roman history as well. It's amazing that, being such puling, punkish little perverts, as they are depicted almost without exception, the Romans managed to more or less hold an empire together for another four centuries (despite the sententious pronouncement that "here the Roman Empire stands or crumbles"). The only Romans that appear to have more than a few decades on them are Claudius and Seutonius. Nero looks like he's suffering from a combination of tuberculosis and malaria; and he seems to have been conflated with Caligula, showing a penchant for strutting around in armor more appropriate in the son of a famous general who grew up in army camps in Gaul than in the haughty, patrician artist the historic Nero appears to have fancied himself to be. I guess all those emperors look the same from a distance of a couple of millennia. Also, there appears to have been a distinct lack of sunlight (not to mention personal hygiene) in the first century AD. All in all, I suppose it's slightly more authentic than an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess.