TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

TheLittleSongbird There are many films and dramatisations of the life of Queen Elizabeth I, which is understandable as she was/is one of the most interesting monarchs. After outstanding offerings such as the 1998 'Elizabeth', 'Elizabeth I' with Helen Mirren', 'Mary Queen of Scots' and especially 'Elizabeth R', 'The Virgin Queen' was somewhat of a disappointment.Certainly not bad, as there are a lot of impressive things. For starters, 'The Virgin Queen' looks wonderful. The whole series is exquisitely shot and mounted with evocative and very eye-catching settings and costumes, the ageing effects also excellent. While some consider the music score intrusive and over-bearing, others have praised it highly. For me, it is the latter camp, not only is it so beautifully and cleverly utilised, sweeping and cinematic but also angelic and heartfelt, and arranged but it is just terrific music on its own. If there isn't an album for the soundtrack that is a shame, because if there is a music score of a TV series that deserves one it's that for 'The Virgin Queen'.Some great scenes here too, especially the stirring Tilbury speech and the blistering confrontation between Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots. The series was always going to face the problem of how to tackle Amy Robsart/Dudley's death, due to its mysterious circumstances, but it was handled well here. The casting was mixed, but there are those that come off well. Anne Marie Duff is a miracle in the titular role and succeeds in making Elizabeth a complex, which she was, and easy-to-root-for character. Joanne Whalley, despite the one-dimensional way Mary Queen of Scots was written (writing her as somewhat of a pantomime villain was rather extreme on the writers' parts), is similarly outstanding.Hans Mattheson brings passion, charm and loyalty as Essex, and Michael Feast and Robert Pugh despite being present only for a short amount of time register highly too as does authoritative Ben Daniels as Walsingham. Not all the casting comes off as well as it could have done. Tom Hardy is too young, overwrought and too much of the prissy and wimpy Casanova sort of character, while Dudley was underwritten in 'Elizabeth I' there was much more complexity and finesse in Jeremy Irons' interpretation than Hardy's. Ian Hart is a sympathetic Cecil, but also suffers from being too young, while Dexter Fletcher just doesn't fit the role of Sussex or the period. Sienna Guillory is a bit bland too.Pacing is a real issue here in 'The Virgin Queen'. The final episode is badly rushed, but even more problematic are the scenes with the heavily featured romance which slow everything down considerably due to the pacing slowing down to a screeching halt, consequently there are scenes that are too long, too draggy and too melodramatic. The script is stilted often and has very little depth, with a lot of the characters written one-dimensionally and sketchily. It is also distractingly anachronistic, trying too hard to attract to younger and modern audiences by taking simplicity to extremes and it all sounds too modern and more like how we'd speak now rather than back then.Am really not trying to use historical inaccuracy as a criticism here and felt reluctant too, but some of the liberties really do scratch the head and suggest poor research rather than accommodating dramatic license, sadly while with some great scenes the storytelling is not consistently compelling enough, likewise with a lot of the characterisation, to overlook this.On the whole, 'The Virgin Queen' has many areas where it excels, but others are wanting and quite badly. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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?

biffo2 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'.