Charming and brutal

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Another version of a Tudor, Elizabeth I, the Gloriana, done up quite splendidly by the BBC. The strongest aspect, as I viewed it, was neither the story, the costumes or the scenes, but the bold performance of Anne Marie Duff. She glows as a young Elizabeth, and displays strength and vanity as her aging self. Yes, the make-up could have been better, or as one suggested an alternate older actress, but the pace of Duff's performance was incrementally finer, than finer still, as she reached deeper into her character. And if one seeks out a miniature of the Queen, one sees a remarkable resemblance between the Queen and the actress. Dudley, portrayed by Hardy, was a good foil; his perhaps son, but certainly step son, Essex portrayed by Hans Matheson, were interestingly cast, not so much by the actors but rather for the dramatic interpretation brought to each character. It is only bested by the old Bette Davis version of Elizabeth and Essex in spotlighting how the Virgin Queen sought male affection, but rebuffed any control but her own.What burden the Queen, a bastard, a princess, and then a monarch must have endured in her private life, a life often dismissed for her political reign, or exaggerated for her fancy of her childhood friend, Robbie.A most worthy addition to the pantheon of Tudor drama.

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.

It has been said that when making a courtly, historical drama, once of the most important things you need is austerity. The audience have to be able to glimpse the past and be enraptured by the drama without necessarily being aware that it's being filmed. Coky Giedroyc's direction mainly consists of a fidgety, over-active camera that makes almost every scene dizzying to watch. No doubt the idea for this eccentric direction is to put some excitement into the drama, however, after such repeated use it quickly loses its effect and becomes very intrusive. I found the direction of 'The Virgin Queen' to be unsubtle, totally lacking in any poignancy and solely aimed at creating an over-the-top, unsophisticated sense of melodrama wherever and whenever.As for the acting - with a part like Elizabeth I, comparisons between this and other performances of the Queen are inevitable, yet Anne-Marie Duff, who by her own admission had a rather shaky knowledge of the subject beforehand, somehow decided it would be best not to view other performances, wanting to 'portray the part for myself', which unfortunately (for the rest of us) wasn't that good. Although I don't think Duff was the right choice for Elizabeth anyway, her performance would have been greatly improved if she'd looked at what other actresses had done. As it was, her Elizabeth lacked substance, she had no 'presence' or ability to rouse, she talked in a southern, middle-class accent and never seemed to age or mature. When I was little I watched bits of 'Elizabeth R' and was totally enchanted by Glenda Jackson. In contrast, when watching this, I felt disappointed by Duff's weak, lacklustre performance.Thinking about the drama as a whole, it's fair to say that the effort went into it. The production values are there, although when looking at it, the words 'lavish' and 'big-budget' cry out louder than 'real' - the characters in their flimsy, satin costumes stand incongruously next to each other. The writing, I didn't find to be as bad as other areas - the main problem being that it compromised historical accuracy. I actually thought there were some really cool lines, although most of these were wasted on Duff who, having not done enough research, delivered them badly (eg, when Elizabeth plays with language in front of the Spanish ambassador).'The Virgin Queen' is a BBC production and I watched it with high expectations. What I found was that it was neither stimulating as a historical biopic, nor particularly engaging in its overblown love story. It is often said that audiences are more sophisticated today, yet the BBC seems to respond to that by pouring millions more into producing dramas, whilst drastically lowering the standards of acting, direction and especially writing. 'The Virgin Queen' has nothing to show for itself; it is cheap entertainment and trash - a worthy successor to the equally dreadful 'Henry VIII'.

The authors disagree with most conventional histories of Elizabeth in small but significant elements. The most important was their portrayal of Amy Dudley's death as a suicide, since the cloud her death left over Robert Dudley affected his relationship with Elizabeth for the rest of his life. They portray Lettice Devereaux as a scheming vixen, Mary of Scotland as being framed for conspiracy against Elizabeth, the Earl of Essex as a manic-depressive, and portray Elizabeth as seriously intending marriage when most evidence shows she was shrewdly playing suitors against each other to benefit England. On the other hand, many of the intriguing and baffling elements of her reign are accurately presented, including her intelligence, her scheming to survive her sister Bloody Mary's reign, her vanity, her tendency to blind partiality towards her favorites, and the astonishingly poor military ability of those favorites. Rather engaging story and will hold the interest of those not familiar with Tudor England, but seriously disappointing to those of us who think the story supported by historical documentation is enthralling enough.