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

kayaker36 This is well plowed ground. For years the role of England's Elizabeth I was owned by Glenda Jackson. Australian Cate Blanchett, Helen Mirren and now Anne-Marie Duff have essayed in the last ten years to portray Gloriana on the screen.This version is more watchable, more accessible, more **alive** than any before. Glenda Jackson was too sour and too butch--attended by a fawning and effeminate Dudley. Jeremy Irons looked like he had risen from the grave playing Robert Dudley to Helen Mirren's Elizabeth in that BBC production focusing on her middle years. Horrid is the only word to describe Ms. Mirren's appearance. The Cate Blanchett movie version tries to portray Elizabeth as a kind of early feminist--a concept that would not exist for many centuries. Dudley is squeezed into a tiny corner and hardly is a presence at all.This production adopts as its center the long relationship between Elizabeth and Dudley. As "Robbie" Dudley, handsome, boyish Tom Hardy has swagger and sex appeal. He is not the least bit intimidated by his childhood playmate "Bess" now being the Queen. In one of this production's many telling moments, he is seen stroking the royal neck discreetly but not furtively even as Elizabeth receives the ambassador of the King of Spain. Agreed, Dudley seems to age little compared to Elizabeth, who gets older in appearance if not in demeanor. The relationship is accordingly more credible in the early parts of the series when both are in their twenties.A few nitpicking pedants have pointed up some historical inaccuracies of a very minor nature. They in no way detract from the impact of this splendid version of history with its colorful sets, fine costumes, excellent acting and unforgettable musical score.

tedg The charter of masterpiece theater is simple: provide the viewer with a richer experience than usual. Intelligent cinema isn't part of this precis, nor is compelling drama (whatever that means), and in cases like this, even effective history.That's still okay with me in theory, because a key thing I look for is getting lost in the shape of the thing. The problem with Masterpiece is that lushness to them means good enough in all categories except sets and costumes. Nothing else is supposed to exceed the norm, apparently in a deliberate strategy to not overwhelm the visuals. This isn't Zeffireli's notion that you create a lush place and then occupy it with the camera, moving and discovering.No, this is simply a buffet table of color and texture and we are suppose to help ourselves. The "story" isn't integrated in, its just an excuse: royalty, richness, assumed importance. So I have to warn most of my readers off of this; its offensive in a way, mere artifice, not a real film.As history, it fails down a bit too. Too bad, because this is the period when English was born and became the worlds largest (in terms of words) and most flexible language. It was in large part a deliberate plan by Elizabeth (and apparently Burleigh). And it was the era where the Catholic Church, surely an evil institution then, had its back broken by the notion of enlightenment — the very idea of knowledge.And it was when the decision was made (mixed with wealthseeking) to colonize the New World with the new notion of discovering the "magic" therein, which happened to be a cosmos not centered on the Jesus of church dogma. So there's lots in this period to be mined. John Dee appears in only one scene, Harriot not at all. You have to make the story simple it seems, so we have essentially a love story, two actually, the second being someone credibly suspected as her son.Seeing things like this help you understand just why you come to films. If all you need is color, this might satisfy. Otherwise, you'll find it alarmingly protestant.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Jules Don't get me wrong; the series itself I felt was well done and the script was decent. Some of the actors I felt weren't as strong as I would have preferred.I think some people have already mentioned this but I will put my two cents in; Enough of Queen Bess! I have seen at least 4 different versions of Elizabeth I in the last 10 years. What is going on? There are other lesser known monarchs that need to have their stories told. Eleanor of Aquitaine? Edward II (openy gay English King who got a hot poker up his butt at the end of his life)? Richard III? War of the Roses? Come on Hollywood! If they want to stick to Tudor, how about they find something on Mary I or Edward VI (Bess' half siblings). I don't want to see another Henry VIII movie either. He did more than just have 6 wives, darn it!The series itself was fine. Some of the historical things got screwed up but I try to ignore that. I'm a huge Tudor buff, so yes some of the sketchy things bugged me, but not enough to make me rant about it.Summary: Put the Tudors to rest Please!