Elizabeth I (2005) User Reviews

Bravo! Brava!

[cchase · 9/10 · 27 May 2006]

The story of Elizabeth I's reign is one that has been told so often, you'd think it would be extremely difficult to bring any kind of freshness to it, but damn it all if the producers of this beautifully mounted version from Channel 4 haven't managed to find a way! I'm not familiar with the work of screenwriter Nigel Williams or director Tom Hooper, but I will most definitely be watching for their names in the future. Both have done quality work here; the kind you'd expect from a Merchant/Ivory film or a lavish Hollywood production.

But I daresay that Hollywood should turn green with envy at the production values shown here; everything from the sets to the most minute details of the costuming is top-notch. But where ELIZABETH I really excels is in its casting.

Helen Mirren, in my not so humble opinion, has been sorely deprived of the full measure of accolades she has been due for decades. When someone like Meryl Streep can't sing your praises enough, you have got to be beyond good and Helen most definitely is. Granted, actresses of such renown as Bette Davis, Glenda Jackson and Dame Judi Dench have all brought their unique interpretations to this role, and until now the best of the crop was Cate Blanchett, who showed us a younger and more winsome version of the woman who became known as the Virgin Queen.

But here, Williams' script brings out both the softness and the steel of the woman behind the throne, and Mirren throws herself into the role as if it were her last. Every color of mood is on display here, and I will be completely baffled if she doesn't win so many awards for this role that she'll need help to carry them all.

And matching wit for wit and word for word is another underestimated actor, Jeremy Irons as the Earl of Leichester. Irons has excelled always at anything he plays, be it vile villains or charming rakes, and in the Earl he has found a way to play the best of both worlds - a robust rapscallion not beneath dalliances with other women of the court, but whose heart truly does belong to the one woman who would always be his better, other half...but never his lover or his wife. The intricate dance of endearment and desire between him and Mirren is so wonderful and intense, it's hard to believe that this is their first time working together, and hopefully not the last.

And not enough can be said about the supporting cast, which includes Patrick Malahide as Sir Frances Walsingham (played by Geoffrey Rush in the Cate Blanchett version), Toby Jones as Robert Cecil, the plain-looking but cunningly resourceful son of Lord Burghley and his logical successor, and Ian McDiarmid as William Cecil, a.k.a. Lord Burghley, showing us that there is truly life after the Emperor Palpatine. These trusted advisers were both unerringly defending and covertly condescending of their queen, making damn sure that they did their jobs to the best of their ability, but always subtly reminding her with the arch of an eyebrow or the inflection of a phrase that no matter how regal, "Bess" is still a woman living in a man's world.

And for eye candy, the beautiful Hugh Dancy as the impetuous and headstrong Robert Devereaux, the Earl of Essex. One look at him and it's not difficult to understand why Elizabeth would become involved in an affair with a man half her age. And I say bravo for her good taste! It's to Dancy's credit that the Earl becomes much more than just another pretty face, but a man struggling to establish himself as such while in the grip of Bess's grasp of iron and velvet...a bond he both desires and rebels against, letting his exuberance, ambition, vanity and hot-headed pride ultimately become his undoing. He proves the point that everyone realizes even more so these days as the cult of celebrity holds sway over all: the beautiful people are always the most favored, but with the spoils comes a heavy price.

A word of caution, though: be advised that when it comes to depictions of violence that took place in this period, most other productions 'tastefully' avoided showing too much graphic detail. This version has no such pretensions. The realism of the depictions of the characters extends to the situations which very often warranted the bloody torture and deaths of others, and you will see it all depicted here in full strength, including the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots, which may leave you open-mouthed with its stunning savagery. (The drawing and quartering of Elizabeth's would-be assassins will stick with you as well).

If you are a fan of historical dramas or just really great acting, this is a definite must-see. With programs like CARNIVALE, ROME and DEADWOOD, HBO has long prided itself on presenting outstanding period pieces. It's good to know that the tradition continues, especially when network television continues to deliver such cheesefests as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS remake and call them "good."

Fantastic - plays like a medieval version of the Sopranos!

[Pedro_H · 9/10 · 7 October 2005]

The colourful later life of England's famous "Virgin Queen." Helen Mirren takes on the role of her lifetime (she has cleared a shelf for the awards already I bet!) as Elizabeth I the last of the Tudors. Queen of England during war, peace and everything that goes in-between.

Notable support comes from Jeremy Irons, Hugh Dancy (as her later life "love interest" - the Earl of Essex), Ian McDiarmid and Patrick Malahide.

Part of the official blurb reads: "Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII, reunited a nation divided by religious strife, faced down the Spanish Armada and, after an unprecedented forty-five year reign, died one of England's best-loved monarchs. During her time as Queen, poets and playwrights wrote about her, artists painted her, composers dedicated their work to her, all contributing to the legend of GIoriana, the Virgin Queen.

But Elizabeth I looks beyond the myth, at the woman behind the crown. The woman subjected to a humiliating gynaecological examination when contemplating marrying a French prince, to ensure she was still able to have children. The woman who ran a country and yet who wasn't allowed to marry the man she loved. The woman who, in her mid-fifties, conducted a passionate affair with a man half her age, a man whose arrogance eventually led him to mount a desperate challenge for Elizabeth's throne. " Couldn't have put it better myself.

What a fantastic piece of work this is. There may be 240 minutes (the UK TV version was shown in 2*120 minutes) of it, but I wasn't bored by a single minute. Indeed I wish there had been more.

Helen Mirren might no longer be up to prancing around nude in semi-exploitation movies - so she has to turn to her acting talent. And boy what a role to get her teeth in to: One minute chamber flirt and the next a kind of Tony Soprano signing the death warrant of anyone who displeases - even if they once held special place in her heart.

I bet I am not the only one to notice the lead role is a bit like Margaret Thatcher!

A word of warning this is very bloody indeed. When someone has their head cut off the camera doesn't actually pan away. American HBO viewers look out for it in the listings or you will miss out on a treat.

Impressive despite the liberties.

[inamourada_flux · 8/10 · 6 October 2005]

One must remember when watching historical costume dramas, that historical costume dramas are not history. However, if you take too many liberties with history, the drama is unlikely to be successful.

As an aspiring historian specialising in the Tudor and Elizabethan periods, I was interested to hear that a production starring Helen Mirren, Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy had been announced for Channel 4. Before it aired, I read that the historian Dr David Starkey had been on set and was much impressed. So I had high expectations when the first episode came on.

Surely it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing film 'Elizabeth' (1998 starring Cate Blanchett). For me, Glenda Jackson will always be Elizabeth - her performance in 'Elizabeth R' makes you want to believe in reincarnation.

Helen Mirren in this drama is also excellent. Her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in her later years lets you see the woman behind the monarch. Jeremy Irons was good as the Earl of Leicester, her lover. The relationship between the Queen and Leicester was explored lightly in this production - not nearly as much as it focuses on Elizabeth and Essex (Dancy). Dancy made an superb Earl of Essex - he seems to have grasped the character with ease (the attitude, the stamina, the ambition) and probably deserves more credit than anyone for his performance. Many other members of the Queen's council were depicted accurately and exceptionally well (William Cecil's son in particular is notable here).

However...

Some of the historical inaccuracies were pretty annoying. I know all about dramatic effect etc, but a few of these liberties seemed pretty pointless. For example: (SPOILERS ALERT)

• The meeting between Elizabeth and her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. (This never happened, their correspondence was in letters). I feel this scene lacked any real depth, and could've been so much more.

• Elizabeth being at Leicester's side when he died. Again, didn't happen. However, this scene was rather strong and you are made to feel sympathy for the Queen - who is losing the man whom she (perhaps) really trusts in a world full of treason and conspiracy.

I also feel that they 'sexed up' the relationship between Elizabeth and Essex a bit in the second episode - just a bit, mind. The chemistry between these two was still portrayed very well, and I was very impressed (especially with Elizabeth's sudden change from being adoring to ruthless).

Talking of ruthlessness, the Tudor court is represented with a harsh realism of a sort. The executions (which aren't for people of a weak constitution, I might add), the arrests (noteably of the Queen's doctor), etc are very well put across and really make you think about how it was during the Elizabethan era.

What I really admire about this drama is the costumes! They are stunning, and very accurate for the time (unlike ITV's awful 'Henry VIII'). Simply lovely to look at.

I am very impressed with Channel 4's researchers on this series - they were obviously knowledgeable and any errors made were not too terrible, and simply for dramatic effect.

I thought that all the good costume dramas came from the BBC, but they better watch out, C4 is hard upon their heels... ;)

The Humanity Of The Icon

[ccrivelli2005 · 10/10 · 3 May 2006]

I'm so brainwashed about Elizabeth I, Bette Davis, Judi Dench, Glenda Jackson, Flora Robson that it was startling at first to get to know the woman behind the icon. Helen Mirren is beyond superb, she is a miracle worker. Meryl Streep called her "an acting God" and she wasn't kidding. I'm not going to go into the story, we all know it, more or less, but I can assure you we've never seen it quite like this. Her imposing presence doesn't cancel her humanity, her rages, her pain, her longing her capacity for love and compassion with the fierce awareness that she is the queen and not just any old queen but Elizabeth I Queen of England. A total absorbing delight from beginning to end. Long Live Helen Mirren!

Fabulous without a doubt

[chezeywezey · 10/10 · 7 October 2005]

This is one of the best period dramas I have ever seen...the costumes were amazing, the plot flawless and script clever. It has something for everyone - action, executions, love, scandal and humour. There was not one flawless actor anywhere near the set, and it's not a typical Elizabeth I drama, it shows her emotions as well as her violent executions, whilst still accurately depicting the last part of her life. Hugh Dancy does a great job as the seductive Earl Of Essex and what can you say about Helen Mirren? She portrays Elizabeth wonderfully and I have yet to see someone act it better than her. This one will stay in my good books for a long time - it is not one to be missed!

Gloriana!

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 22 August 2006]

Though many a fine actress has essayed the role of Elizabeth I and done so quite successfully, each finding her own vision of the most important queen that ever lived and translating that to film (Cate Blanchette, Bette Davis, Judi Dench, and Glenda Jackson to name but a few), it should come as no surprise that the enormously gifted actress Helen Mirren could show us yet another aspect of Elizabeth.

This Elizabeth is set in her middle fifties, a woman still able to maintain her reputation as the Virgin Queen while settling into various assignations. Here Elizabeth is in love with Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (Hugh Dancy) while being prepped for a 'proper union' with France's royalty in the form of the Duke of Anjou (Jérémie Covillault). But her 'love life' is only a small yet refreshingly nuanced portion of the long story. Mirren is fortunate to be supported by such fine actors as Jeremy Irons, Patrick Malahide, Toby Jones, Barbara Flynn, Ian McDiarmid, Simon Woods, Diana Kent, and Toby Salaman among the many standout characters.

The visual aspects of the production are some of the more luxurious ever placed on celluloid, with attention to detail in costuming (Mike O'Neill) and sets (Galius Klicius and Leon McCarthy) that are stunning to see. The fine musical score is by Robert Lane and incorporates period music with works written for the piece that stand solidly as classical music compositions. Cinematographers Dmitrij Gribanov and Larry Smith find the right balance between court grandeur and boudoir intimacy. And of course kudos to Director Tom Hooper and writer Nigel Williams! But standing above them all is the brilliance of Helen Mirren's involvement as Elizabeth. She provides us with even more information about the enigmatic queen, allowing us to see both the lusty woman and the brilliant monarch simultaneously. The film is a joy! Highly Recommended.

It had to be -

[kaaber-2 · 10/10 · 20 December 2005]

... the greatest actress of our time portraying the legendary Queen Bess. And, needless to say, Mirren surpasses herself, and in all likelihood Elizabeth I, too. What a treat this series is! The historical aspects were slightly inaccurate, as they must be when 19 years are covered, but only occasionally inaccurate – and the film benevolently grants Elizabeth the faithful suitors she may never have had; Alencon seems genuinely interested in the old girl, as does Leicester, and the Essex rebellion was reduced to a spur of the moment undertaking, completely unpremeditated, so as to render the hero, the Earl of Essex, a bit purer than was the actual case.

Almost every quote we know from Elizabeth's reign (even the authentic ones) is in this admirable production. However, the film coquettishly cuts the most famous Elizabeth quote short: when Robert Cecil tells the dying queen that she must go to bed, Mirren only says: "Must?", and does not proceed to say: "Little man, 'must' is not a word to be used to princes". But the 'golden speech' is there, Elizabeth's most famous speech, marvelously punctuated by the Queen looking shrewdly at Cecil while the enthusiastic Parliament applauds, as if to say: "They bought it!"

When I browsed the cast (on IMDb, the moment I saw that the film was on), I was dismayed to find that Shakespeare was not in it, but the Bard is profusely quoted throughout the script (for instance "love is not love which alters when it alteration finds") and his beloved, long-haired patron, the Earl of Essex was truthfully revealed in his shameful betrayal of Essex when push came to shove at the trial. Even Catullus made a brief guest appearance in Latin ("Odi et amo")to set off Elizabeth's doomed love for Essex. But this will be quite enough of me exhibiting my classical education. Let it suffice that this series is an absolute must. I'll buy it as soon as it comes out for sale.

It was brilliant...

[trybrow-5 · 1 October 2005]

I was initially surprised channel 4 produced this story so soon after the other recent production. But soon after watching some of this.. i realised why they did. The script is simply a masterpiece and whilst much of the dialog is straight forward and narrative at times this piece ascends into a work comparable to Shakespeare. Some of the wordplay is exemplary and i think any fans of the genre would seriously enjoy this.

The acting made you feel like you were watching a Hollywood movie making its premier on television, and by that i mean just as great as you would expect with both lead actors giving performances that made me feel like i was getting favours under my desk at work.

The Many Faces of Liz **1/2

[edwagreen · 6/10 · 25 April 2006]

Helen Mirren gives a strong, majestic performance in "Elizabeth 1." The problem with this flick is that wars, and other events are over before the next scene really begins.

Ms. Mirren adequately captures the mood of Henry V111's daughter, who never married and therefore has no heir to rule after her. She can show lust one moment and a vile temper the next.

She seemed to love younger men, both of whom predeceased her. In the second case, she had the Earl of Essex put to death for his treachery. There is plenty of the latter in this HBO film.

Mirren bears a strong physical resemblance to the current Queen Elizabeth, and this is a definite asset to her engaging performance. Too bad that Jeremy Irons in senselessly wasted as the ill-fated duke. On his death bed, he encourages his stepson to take good care of the monarch. He sure does as the two engage in a passionate love affair before treachery intervenes.

The chopping off of the heads of Mary Queen of Scots and the Earl are both disgusting as best. This should have been done at a distance. To see the heads fall off is not for the squeamish.

For a woman who starved herself for 3 weeks, Mirren is able to walk around and does that to her deathbed.

You have never seen the Spanish Armada defeated so quickly as depicted in this film. Say a prayer for Dr. Lopez, Mirren's loyal physician, who is accused of treason and goes to the gallows for it. By the next scene, he is vindicated.

When she is not giving to hopping along, Mirren, as Elizabeth, is a woman driven by power and subject to intense rages. All the men in her life are in affairs with children produced. Nonetheless, she will not let spinsterhood consume her. She shows her adeptness at ruling and dealing with the Council.

A great cast for a tremendous story!

[jojobear124 · 10/10 · 26 April 2006]

Helen Mirren truly shines as Queen Elizabeth I. All of the cast members are excellent, especially Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy.

I do not know how accurate this miniseries is with respect to all of the events that were happening at this time (circa 1589), but the characters were all portrayed in a totally believable and brilliant manner. The costumes were wonderful! Helen Mirren, I believe, gave the performance of a lifetime as the incredibly complex Queen, a daughter of Henry the VIII.

I think this is one of the most intense, brilliant, and wonderful miniseries produced. Sit back and prepared to be swept away to the 16th century. A most memorable miniseries! I rarely give a 10 out of 10 possible points but this miniseries truly is deserving!

Political intrigue , turmoil , lovers and war during Elizabeth I kingdom

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 17 September 2008]

The aging Queen Virgin-Helen Mirren is magnificent in the title role of this television drama . She's constantly besieged by court intrigue and political machinations . Elizabeth had learnt her political lessons in the years of intrigue before she became Queen , she was a brilliant stateswoman, managing a succession of parliaments so that she was loved as well as obeyed . She managed to restore England to power and glory amidst public and private confusion . This excellent historic drama recreates the wars ,loves , turmoil and struggle for power by Robert Dudley , Earl of Leicester and Robert Deveraux , Earl of Essex, whom the Queen Elizabeth I both loved and feared , and whose downfall she ultimately invoked . Elizabeth indeed proved to be her father's daughter as she must keep her head , her mother was Anne Boleyn , executed for alleged adultery . Meanwhile , she's dealing with Protestant religion , war with Spain ruled by Philip II and the vexing question of a political marriage to French prince . Elizabeth chose her advisers with consummate care , and she was well served by them . The first and best was William Cecil , 1st Baron Burghley , he stayed in office for forty years . The movie depicts the battle between the British ships led by Howard of Effingham and the Spanish Armada commanded by Duke of Medina Sidonia , it lasted ten days , during July 1588 . The film also talks about Mary Queen of Scots , well played by Barbara Flynn . She was imprisoned by Elizabeth , who rightly feared Catholic plots to place Mary on the throne . Mary was guilty of plots complicity and Elizabeth prepared her death warrant . However the Mary's affection for her lover , Lord Darnley , revived enough for them to produce a heir to the throne , the future James VI of Scotland and James I of England .

Helen Mirren is awesome as Elizabeth I ; furthermore , Jeremy Irons is notable as Earl of Leicester and Hugh Dancy is equally outstanding as arrogant and ambitious count of Essex . Special mention for actors form the reign council members , as Patrick Malahide , Toby Jones and Ian McDiarmid . Wonderful colorful cinematography adds to the atmosphere but it does help to know some history in order to keep the interesting plot . Director Tom Hooper (John Adams) takes a brilliant look at the turbulent life of famous Queen of England from her troublesome days and machinations surrounding her reign .

Other renditions about this known Queen are the followings : ¨Elizabeth¨ (1998) with Cate Blanchet , Joseph Fiennes , directed by Shekar Kapur ; ¨Elizabeth R¨ directed by Herbert Wise (72 ,TV) with Bette Davis; ¨Elizabeth the Queen¨ (68,TV) with Judith Anderson and Charlton Heston ; and classic version, ¨The Queen Virgin¨ by George Sidney with Jean Simmons and Stewart Granger and ¨The private lives of Elizabeth and Essex¨ by Michael Curtiz with Bette Davis and Errol Flynn , among others.

Absolutely Brilliant, A Masterpiece!

[angryninja-1 · 10/10 · 6 October 2005]

I have to say, that this 'TV Film' was 110% better than some major Hollywood blockbusters I have seen.

The atmosphere and intensity of the life of Elizabeth I is portrayed in a gripping and beautiful manner in this TV film, mainly due to the perfect performance by Helen Mirren, I cannot think of a better person to play Elizabeth I, she really got into the queens skin and has gotten into my 'list' of the best actresses, she was fantastic!

Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy also gave a great performance, I think all the actors/actresses did!

Although it was a tad gory at times, that did not matter at all as it added to the whole atmosphere.

Anyone who says this wasn't good should be hung, drawn and quartered! A masterpiece, 10/10

Overly melodramatic and corny

[asgrrr · 6/10 · 17 January 2009]

Fairly good overall, but inferior to other recent dramas of the Tudor era such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth (1998), Gunpowder Treason and Plot in that there is recourse to melodrama - a hint of a cult of personality that is absent from e.g. the 1998 production. Unfortunately this tinge of melodrama brings an overall feel of shallowness to the production which might otherwise not be there. At the same time one cannot fail to note that characters other than Elizabeth's are underdeveloped compared to the 1998 film, especially Walshingham's, which appears in both works. Well worth a watch but a little disappointing. Blanchett's Elizabeth is the recommended choice over Mirren's.

Someone, please, do some research.

[argentphoenix · 2/10 · 17 November 2006]

I love the Elizabethan Era. It's a passion of mine. I thought this would be a really good series. And it should have been, with the cast they had.

But here's the problem. Whoever wrote this didn't do more than cursory historical research. To whit: According to everything I've ever read, and everything my fellow 16th century history buffs have read, Elizabeth NEVER met with either Mary of Scotland OR James Stuart. Sorry to bring this up. Of course there is a neat escape clause in the script "No one must ever hear of this." OK, fine, whatever. I guess if you use those words you could claim almost anything could happen clandestinely, but I digress. The costumes are, for the most part, some designer's idea of what Elizabethan costume SHOULD be, rather than what it really was. Couldn't they spring for a copy of Patterns of Fashion or Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd? Barring that, would it have been too much trouble to look up some portraits on the internet? I have seen much more accurate representations of Elizabeth's clothing at my local Renaissance Faire! Add to this, Elizabeth is never seen to age, she goes into and out of the gaudy white makeup on a whim, and the fashions never change over the course of the whole film. I find that bothersome. Along with the excessive gore of the execution scenes (where you see a Mary Stuart's beheading and the ax stops halfway in her neck, and they start again! Yes her execution was botched. OK, they got that right.) The deaths of the conspirators who wanted to assassinate Elizabeth was also pretty accurate, but I thought the sight of guts being slowly reeled out of a victim was in very poor taste. It would appear that the writers were more interested in sensationalism than telling a good story.

The real problem is the writing. Most of the cast members are extremely accomplished. However, there is only so much you can do with acting skill. The writing was poor, in my opinion, and Elizabeth comes off more as a prudish mattress monkey flaunting her affairs everywhere than the shrewd politician and educated woman she was. Even her words "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king!" was practically spoon-fed to her by the Earl of Leicester.

About all I can say in favor of this film is that it might get someone interested in 16th century history. Then, once you find out the real story (which is a lot more intriguing and less saccharine), toss it in the trash and go on to bigger and better miniseries, such as the venerable BBC production of "Elizabeth R."

one heck of a movie

[hkpence · 10/10 · 28 May 2006]

I thought the movie was wonderful! I cant get enough. I will purchase the movie when it goes on sale. Everyone was excellent in this movie!I think this is the best piece of work Helen mirren has ever done. Jeremy Irons is perfect for his role. Hugh Dancy Did great as the Earl of essex. As I was getting ready to watch the movie I was bouncing off the walls ,as I am a huge admirer of Good Queen Bess. As many movies as I have seen, I still learned from this one. I think it was nice to see, that hough she was powerful she still craved the love that we all crave .Sadly it was really never obtained. I hope everyone will watch this movie .

A real joy to watch

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 21 October 2016]

There are many films and dramatisations of the life of Queen Elizabeth I, and of the ones seen all of them range from good to outstanding. While not quite as great as 1998's 'Elizabeth' and 'Elizabeth R' with Glenda Jackson, though almost in the same class, 'Elizabeth I' is one of the outstanding ones.

'Elizabeth I' has a couple of things that don't quite come off as well. Leicester's role is rather underwritten, and it does give Jeremy Irons (who is still very good in the role and makes a real effort to give him complexity) little to do. For such a big time span covered, dates and years are not always clear even to people familiar with the Tudor/Elizabethan period and a couple of events are depicted in a slightly confused manner.

However, these are outweighed by the things that 'Elizabeth I' does incredibly well, these are a great many and done brilliantly. It's gorgeously made, with scenery, settings and costumes that will take the breath away and photography that makes one forget that it was made for TV. 'Elizabeth I' is strongly directed as well, the style is never cheapened and pacing and clarity of storytelling are rarely compromised. The music, with a mix of classical and medieval period which gives it authenticity, is dramatic yet sympathetic, giving scenes stirring power and nuanced pathos, always a good fit for every scene's atmosphere.

With the script, it has a humorous edge, touching yet never mawkish romance and a lot of emotion beautifully balanced, while always provoking thought. The storytelling throughout is incredibly compelling, the romantic elements feature prominently but not at the expense of everything else, political commentary and dilemmas of the time are not neglected and the very graphic executions and torture wrench the gut (some may feel that the series overdoes it with the brutality, with the execution of Mary Queen of Scots being especially shocking, to me as decapitations, drawing and quartering and torture were gory and brutal it wasn't inappropriate). There are liberties taken with history to accommodate the story, but there are far worse and more insulting cases of films and series playing fast and loose with the facts.

Great acting helps, and the performances are more than great across the board with all the characters well realised (with only underwritten Leicester being a reservation). A wonderful job is done with making Elizabeth a complex character and as a woman of many passions. Hugh Dancy is dashing, charming, loyal and passionate as Essex, while Irons, Toby Jones, Barbara Flynn (as a touching and dignified Mary Queen of Scots), Ian McDiarmid, Patrick Malahide et al are without fault. Reigning over them all is the always great Helen Mirren, whose Elizabeth is nothing short of a miracle.

All in all, not devoid of flaws but a real joy to watch. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Helen Mirren scores once again in Elizabeth 1

[wisewebwoman · 9/10 · 28 April 2007]

This actor never ceases to amaze me. Having seen her riveting performance in "The Queen" for which she was justly and rightly awarded The Oscar, I could hardly wait to get my eyes on this and I was not disappointed.

The story has been retold over and over, the reign of the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I. Good Queen Bess. This production brings a freshness and humanity to this long(4 hour) tale, but every minute counts and I, for one, sighed when it was over, I wanted more.

The costumes are incredible, the historical detail superb and Helen brings a humanity to the part that at times is heartbreaking. One understands the turmoil inside, she has not managed to secure a suitable husband or bear a child to inherit the throne.

The script brings this humanity to the surface but also the strength of the monarch beneath. A monarch who won every battle, every contest. I could only envision Helen doing the script justice.

Jeremy Irons as the Earl of Leichester plays well against her superb talent, bringing the devotion of years of service and love of her to the surface. A love that can never be legalized as he is considered unsuitable for her hand in marriage.

The sensuous nature of this love is palpable as he and Mirren interact and weave their intimacies (and none of her relationships were ever consummated) into an intensity that is enthralling.

The supporting cast are brilliant, hard to single any one out but it includes Patrick Malahide as Sir Frances Walsingham, Toby Jones (one of my personal favourites - he nails his roles) as Robert Cecil, who works his way to the forefront of the Queen's life even though she refers to him scathingly as "Pygmy", and Ian McDiarmid as William Cecil, a.k.a. Lord Burghley, father of Robert.

The delicious Hugh Dancy plays Robert Devereaux, the Earl of Essex. Two sided, self-serving and ingratiating. But lovely. Elizabeth falls hard and sometimes publicly.

She is no fool though, with any one of her courtiers. "Off with their heads" is a frequent occurrence and the result is quite graphic and not for young eyes, or older ones, I had to avert my head several times and wondered how on earth the graphic disemboweling, beheading and quartering was done.

The beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots, is particularly gruesome from what I saw through my fingers.

Not to be missed for fans of historical, epic costume dramas. 9 out of 10. Bravo to all.

At least!!

[arsenick · 10/10 · 12 December 2006]

I was mostly frustrated with the recent movie with Cate Blanchett starring the virgin queen, the most popular of all British monarchs. Before that, I saw many actresses playing it, but many times like the icon it used to be. The Helen Mirren's acting is personal, balanced and believable. Far better than "Chief of command" , the recent US TV series with a president woman . One of the great movies depicting that historical time, pointed out the other queen, Mary of the Scots, played by the fabulous Vanessa Redgrave. But of Elisabeth I, no great movie...until this TV show. As I am French (nobody's perfect), I found hard not to be able to watch this movie, and ordered it from the web. I truly hope that my fellow citizens will be able to watch it widely one day. But may be they are not as fond of British history as I am.The French movie depicting Queen Margot's life, during the same historical time, was a huge success too. Whatever the story, everybody loves great, smooth, so personal historical movies. God save good movies.

too much interest in Bess, not enough in Queen

[dalgiers · 24 September 2006]

I have to admit that despite my being in general a fan of Mirren, my arm had to be twisted into watching yet another Bess biopic. Iconic, captivating, etc. but MERCY. Still, this one is pretty good. The Cate Blanchett inaccuracy-fest was actually more daring, if totally heavy-handed, in vision - the transformation of young woman to icon. But neither that Elizabeth nor this one escapes the tiresome prurient interest of biopics in their subjects. But Mirren invariably exudes so much sharp wit that she makes it believable that this was a person with tremendous political acumen (but for god's sake, barely any mention of SPAIN??) apart from personal love turmoil.

That said, this Elizabeth pic is distinctive in having one of the better-motivated portraits of Essex, so much so that Essex seems to eclipse Leicester in Elizabeth's life (historically questionable, but put to dramatic good use here). Apart from script and Mirren, probably the credit for that goes to the really commendable performance by Dancy especially as the young Essex (though he sort of loses me toward his pre-decap days). Toby Jones also gives a great performance as the younger Cecil, though the portrait is far more sympathetic (milking the modern sensibility/sensitivity to handicap) than the historical Robert Cecil deserves. And needless to say, MIRREN's Elizabeth - spunk with irony and threats. The only weak performance to my mind, surprisingly, was Irons' - completely fulsome, not well-suited to play Dudley the suitor, should have been more the Dudley the ambitious.

Oddly Unappealing

[kayaker36 · 6/10 · 11 October 2007]

Perhps it is my male chauvinism, but the charm of Helen Mirren always has been lost on me. People say she is a great actress. Certainly she had a great role to play in this HBO miniseries filmed in Lithuania (?). I found her spinsterish and plain ugly. The scenes of her, wrinkled and painted like a doll, kissing Jeremy Irons and Hugh Dancy were nauseating, as remarked by another reviewer.

Jeremy Irons, an actor whose work I have always appreciated, lacked appeal here. This was partially the fault of some lame scriptwriting as to the role of Sir Robert Dudley. Dudley died of cancer in 1588 just after the defeat of the Armada. Trouble is, from the very start of the film Jeremy Irons looked exhausted and emaciated. He and Helen Mirren played their scenes like a couple of elderly gay men who have been together for years and years--no sense that this was a man and woman who responded physically to one another at any time.

To see how this role should be played, with swagger and style, check out Tom Hardy as the Earl of Leicester in the Grenada TV production of "The Virgin Queen". In fact, see that movie over this for a slew of reasons.

One bright spot was Robert Devereaux as played by young Hugh Dancy. He brought the physical presence, the youthful fire, that the historical Earl of Essex was said to have shown during his short life.

Elizabeth I (2005)

[Tanismoon · 10/10 · 27 November 2006]

This movie is stunning both visually and mentally! It cleared up the rather obscured confusion between Elizabeth's two loves, and clears not only the names but the air as well. Helen Mirren could pass for the Lady and does indeed go on to play our Modern Elizabeth. She does a beautiful job and I feel she would convince the staunchest critic.

This movie grips you from the start and does not let go for the entire film. I am a die-hard fan of Jeremy Irons and find him intriguing as Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Hugh Dancy was surprising clever as Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex.

The entire cast was well chosen and Tom Hooper did a marvelous job directing Nigel William's screenplay. Excellent film and I recommend it highly.

i think i'll go back to history books for my entertainments

[mindfire-3 · 6/10 · 10 September 2006]

this is a certainly passable dramatization, but it was never raised in my awareness as anything but a mere dramatization. there were too many times where a romantic thread was followed that did not ring true. i felt like i got more meaningful information from five minutes research on Wikipedia than i got from this drama. the drama, for me, never transcended mere adequateness, if that. i did like the acting of Toby Jones as Robert Cecil and look forward to seeing him as Truman Capote in Infamous. and Walsingham seemed nearly as interesting a character in this as he was portrayed so well by Geoffrey Rush in Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett. too bad that one guy was in those Star Wars movies, whenever he spoke all i could hear was Palpatine and cringe. i retreat to my untidy corner and plan to look at good history books when i want history and better dramas when i want drama. a subtitle for this film might be "the passionate loves of a virgin" or "the men of Elizabeth".

Dropped head of Mary Queen of Scots was no GOOF-it happened!

[CraigFoucht · 10/10 · 31 October 2006]

I wanted to comment on the posting that claimed that the Mary Queen of Scots beheading scene was a GOOF!!! I just spent an hour reading accounts of the life of Mary Queen of Scots and that really happened to the poor doomed Mary! She was wearing an auburn wig and when the executioner picked up the severed head and shouted "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!" her head fell the the ground.

I was completely blown away by this film. Helen Mirren is a REVELATION in it. You completely feel as though she is a woman torn by duty to her country vs. a life full of love and normalcy. The script is historically accurate and worthy of Shakespeare.

It should have been released in the theatres so that Ms. Mirred could collect the Oscar that she deserves!!!

Disappointing & oddly dull

[eyesour · 6/10 · 5 May 2012]

Once again the strange star rating system recorded by IMDb fools yours truly. How come this gets 8 stars, when Blanchett and Kapur get only 7.5 for their first offering? I was persuaded to buy this DVD because of the 8 stars, and now feel deceived. Helen Mirren is a very good, and sometimes a great actress. She can be absolutely riveting, and Irons isn't exactly bad. So it's not their faults. It must be the writing and directing that made me yawn. It's the direct lack of direction, in point of fact. The narrative ambles amiably along, pointlessly, now and then intercut with some gratuitous torture, bungled executions, disembowellings etc, which seem to be inserted merely in order to jolt the audience out of their danger of dozing off. There's no overall vision, no palpable theme to interest, engage and stimulate the viewer. Instead his mind wanders: he wonders why the whole presentation looks so cheap, almost amateurish. Lack of genuine ideas, general tiredness.

Disappointed

[Franklin846 · 4/10 · 6 April 2007]

I am a big fan of Helen Mirren and I thought her acting was stupendous however I have a difficult time with how this movie portrayed the Queen. Someone of her stature, experience and upbringing would not have acted like a high school teenager in love. She was very composed and dignified as history has well documented. I think the director was going for a "hollywood" type film with all the drama and carrying on. She was not a hysterical type woman. She may have been when she was alone but nothing is documented as to her hysterical behavior in the film. The version with Glenda Jackson was a much better portrayal of how Elizabeth I conducted herself in front of her people. Let's remember Elizabeth I was England's most powerful and best ruler. I believe this was the influence of the director and not the actor.