Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

bryangary65 Wonderful reminder of the skullduggery and stabbing each other's back that went on in those times to sit on the English throne.Well acted, with Barnard and Hale especially good

Solnichka McPherson As an educator with graduate degrees in both literature and history, I find productions like this amusing: Stay within the framework of dates but make up a lot of stuff outside the lines. I have taught classes for almost 20 years on Hollywood and the way it presents history, and I watched this entire series. It's both brilliant in production and terrible in presentation, and we must remember even Shakespeare took tremendous liberties in his "history" plays of the same time period (Henry VI trilogy and Richard III). But this is not Shakespeare, not even close. The soap-opera dynamic may appeal to some viewers, and that's understandable, but it's certainly not for everyone. Furthermore, some of the key actors are just terrible: Amanda Hale makes you laugh every time she is on screen, and maybe that's the way her character was written, but when contrasted with Faye Marsay and Rebecca Ferguson, it's clear Hale does not belong in this trio at all. Marsay and Ferguson are brilliant, in truth, and Marsay's romantic subplot with Aneurin Barnard is perhaps the most touching of all the "love" story lines in the series. It's a shame it was so underdeveloped until it was too late. The cinematography is excellent, and the production design is beautiful. It helps a viewer tolerate the problems in acting and writing. Just an example: Somehow Hale's character is able to "spy" on people at court, yet her character has open conversations of a treasonous nature in the same open court in a normal tone of voice. The plausibility of scenes like that is laughable, yet it happens repeatedly. Shakespeare knew when to let his actors break the fourth wall, and it's a shame these TV writers produced material of a lesser quality despite a 400-year advantage in creativity, expression and storytelling technology.

mxking2020 As someone who loves shows like The Tudors, The Borgias and DaVincis Demons, it's a safe bet to assume I'm a fan of period pieces and I am, The White Queen didn't disappoint. While yes, it's not a perfect historical representation(none of these shows are) it hits the main points and even uses a few theories about unknown events. After watching the pilot, which is easily the weakest episode, I was hooked and ended up binge watching the whole series in one day.... I know, need a life right? I was very disappointed when I heard there wasn't a second season, but ultimately the main story was over so a second season would have been more about after their reign. Finding out about a miniseries sequel called The White Princess perked me right back up though, already in production(started in June '16). Don't want to reveal any spoilers, so I'll just leave it at this, if you are a fan of similar shows as I am, you should love this one, don't pass it up and don't shy away because it's only 1 season, it's wrapped up perfectly.

rob_sawyer Such hate for an enjoyable series. Last time I checked, Philippa Gregory has never claimed she was Doris Kearns Goodwin. She writes historical fiction. Did anyone really tune in to The White Queen expecting a historical documentary describing the latter years of the War of the Roses? Admittedly, I am not an expert on English history but I have watched the documentary series "History of Britain" and did check the biographies of many of the main characters in TWQ in Wikipedia. I watched the first 8 e4pisodes as they were broadcast in August and September and the last two on DVD this week. While I may have forgotten some points, as near as I can see, TWQ does more or less follow the general course of historical events of the period. Gregory didn't invent any key characters that had a significant impact on events and she didn't make major changes in history such as having someone win a major battle that they actually lost in real life.There was an Edward IV, he did marry Elizabeth Woodville, a widow with children, and have a bunch of kids with her, one of whom, Elizabeth, does go on to marry Henry VII as well as two sons who were imprisoned in the Tower during the reign of Richard III and who, after a while, were never seen again. Given that there is no conclusive evidence of who was responsible for their disappearance is it really such a crime to write the story with Richard III being innocent? And is having Edward meet Elizabeth under an oak tree rather than in a room that big a deal? And Edward did die in his bed, probably of pneumonia, and there was a Richard who was Edward's brother and who succeeded him and who lost his crown and died at the Battle of Bosworth. And there really was a Lord Warwick who was referred to as the kingmaker and who originally supported Edward and ultimately turned on him whose daughter Anne did marry Richard.And there really was a Henry Tudor, son of Margaret Beaufort, whose first attempt to return from France was prevented by a storm and who defeated Richard to become Henry VII and who did marry Elizabeth, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville. And the real Lord Stanley did sit on the sidelines until it became clear Henry was going to win.Now, one can quibble about the prominent place witchcraft has in the story, but the reality was that "witches" were commonly blamed for anything bad that happened and an accusation of witchcraft was often used to discredit an enemy, particularly a woman. And Jacquetta Woodville and Elizabeth were, in fact, accused of witchcraft.And you can quibble about Princess Elizabeth canoodling with Richard before his last battle. Not because it couldn't have happened, but because it would have been very stupid of her. Recall the conversation with Margaret in the last episode, roughly, "This is the last time you will sit in my presence. Whatever happens I will be Queen of England." She is already engaged (in the series and in real life) to Henry and with Anne dead (also in the series and in real life) if she believes Richard will marry her, she wins no matter the outcome of the battle. So why risk the Henry part of the deal by sleeping with Richard before the battle. Assuming it was consummated and given the extreme importance of virginity, she probably would fail the "blood on the sheets" test which would then quite possibly lead to an annulment.So enjoy TWQ to get a sense of the story, albeit with handsome actors with perfect teeth. If you want a documentary, get the DVD series "History of Britain."