Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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

parsifalssister 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.

patlightfoot 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.

mama-sylvia 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.