The Virgin Queen (2005–2006) User Reviews

A different look at Queen Elizabeth's life

[jennaroadman · 8/10 · 10 June 2006]

Retelling a story in history in the framework of film can be tricky business and Masterpiece Theatre's The Virgin Queen doesn't attempt to adhere to accuracy in the slightest. But, if you're like me, you would love to experience the story of Queen Elizabeth a thousands times over in a thousand ways, and this film richly succeeds in it's own right.

I have never seen such accurate costuming, beautiful sets or clever a soundtrack in any Elizabethan film (Oh my God, the soundtrack). Royal stoicism is put aside in lieu of emotive imagery. More than many films of this historical powerhouse, I appreciate the attention paid to the human side of Queen Eliazabeth--her vanity, weakness for the opposite sex (considering her royal responsibilities), and infamous indecisiveness.

I could have done without the laughably overblown Casa Nova characterization of Lord Robert Dudley (Tom Hardy, ). He came off as a retired Backstreet Boy, looked far too young for the part, and portrayed none of the cultivated finesse that those familiar with the real man know, in-turn, leaving the audience wondering what about this man is worth the scandal.

If you have any interest in a new take of Elizabeth's life since the 1998 film Elizabeth, I truly recommend this mini-series. For a more historically accurate glance of the time period in England, check out BBC's Elizabeth (1971) starring Glenda Jackson.

One of the most accurate portryals so far....

[KateCTU · 8/10 · 1 March 2006]

Having read the previous comments I would concur with what has been said, but here in the UK this was shown as 4 90 minute episodes, not 60 minutes as inferred in the previous post.

I loved everything about this production even down to the usage of the group the 'Medieval Baebes' (who perform mainly medieval AND Tudor/Renaissance popular music) which gave one goosebumps when you think that this music was probably well loved and performed by the real Queen and her courtiers.

If you check out the BBC Drama website it gives the background as to how the costumes were made to look in period and yet so modern and also the locations used. It was quite refreshing to see a British produced history series actually filmed in the UK and not in one of the old Eastern bloc countries as with the Channel 4 'Elizabeth I' and that other history series with Ann Marie Duff playing a character 'Charles II: The Power and the Passion'

Well done BBC...it will not surprise me if another BAFTA is not forthcoming for this production. Keep up the good work!

My care is like my shadow....

[VikiLauda · 7/10 · 6 July 2021]

This has to be one of the better productions which centers on the life of Elizabeth 1st. The costumes, sets & character development are all superb & Anne Marie Duff puts in an outstanding performance as the eponymous "Virgin Queen" Tom Hardy also gives us a great performance as Robert Dudley. Several hand held camera shots work wonderfully & put you in the very center of the action in particular the scene with Elizabeth & Kat Ashley arguing from episode two. Kat Ashley in reality was a de facto mother to Elizabeth & looked out for Elizabeth's interests like a hawk, & that scene literally sent shivvers down my back!

The series music while outstanding & original, I feel, was let down by the absolutely nerve grating main theme "My care is like my shadow laid bare benith the sun" (this comes from a famous poem written by Elizabeth in real life) which to me, comes across as a mocking school yard bully chant. Sorry I was not a fan! I even turn the sound down on the DVD. However this is perhaps my only gripe with the whole production as the direction is solid & the photography is beautifully shot. Anne Marie Duff's performance is brilliant & I can not fault it, but as her character ages the makeup could have been better making the elder Elizabeth a little more believable, which is a shame, but I love the scene where the older Elzabeth is looking whistfully around her court & sees a young couple in love, holding hands & she remembers her life long love Robert Dudley. I also enjoyed the script as it replicates Elizabethen grammar very well without making it difficult to understand.

Overall this is a terrific little series which is written so well even those without knowledge of history would still enjoy this & this may even fire an interest in Elizabthen study for the next generation. I have studied Tudor history all my life & its rich, culture is utterly fascinating, often nerve racking & occasionally horrific, but never boring. There is always something new to learn & The Virgin Queen could be an excellent start for younger people who may also wish to step into Tudor times. This will certainly interest today's feminists who will adore Elizabeths story of how one woman spent her youth terrified of the axe as both her mother & her step mother had been beheaded. She was so terrified she vowed never to marry! Yet she was vastly intelligent, was sublime in state craft, politics & economics, who went on to become one of Englands finest monarchs who really did say... "There shall be one mistress here & no master!"

Duff shines as Elizabeth

[parsifalssister · 5 November 2010]

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.

Elizabethan drama, literally

[kurt_messick · 9/10 · 5 December 2005]

This is a very interesting programme, produced in Britain and originally shown on the PBS series, Masterpiece Theatre.

This miniseries was directed by Coky Giedroyc, a veteran of television productions in Britain, including another royal-themed miniseries, 'William and Mary', in 2003. Giedroyc brings an interesting modern twist to the series - rather than filming things in majestic, sweeping camera pans with classical music as a background, and rather than having the dialogue (and acting) be in a stilted, falsely formal style, Giedroyc incorporates modern music with medieval and Celtic flavouring to it (both of which have experienced a renaissance of sorts in the past decade), and the situations are decidedly modern without being out of place in their own times.

This presents the life of Elizabeth from her young adulthood under Queen Mary, as a supposed participant in intrigues against the Catholic Queen, through to her death after serving decades on the throne of England as the Virgin Queen, the queen who never married. In fact, the miniseries plays a tantalising game with Elizabeth's virginity, showing her desires (as well as those around her) without ever giving up the game of 'was she or wasn't she?' Anne-Marie Duff plays the part of Elizabeth, and does a remarkably able job for such a complex figure. Duff won the Irish Television award and was nominated for the BAFTA award for best actress in a television drama in another series, 'Shameless', last year.

Duff is joined by Tom Hardy, who plays the role of Robert Dudley, the favourite of Queen Elizabeth. Dudley is also an extraordinarily complex role, as he played several sides in the political struggles during Elizabeth's early reign, and was part of a family well experienced in regal intrigue - Robert Dudley's family had tried to manage the reign of Elizabeth's brother Edward, engineer the accession of Lady Jane Grey (placing Guildford Dudley on the throne with her), and is sometimes referred to as 'the uncrowned kings of England'. In fact, perhaps the most stunning single scene in this miniseries is after Elizabeth has elevated Robert Dudley to the earldom of Leicester, and during her illness, he sits upon the throne as the protector of the realm. Hardy is well suited to this role, and plays it with skill.

The sets are appropriate to their time period, neither too ornate nor too medieval; the costumes also have a touch of modernity to them, but are still primarily of the period. The situations presented give good insight into the overall pattern of Elizabeth's reign and some of the principal concerns during that time period, although to compress such a long reign into such a short time frame as a four-hour miniseries by necessity means that the history has had to be selectively chosen. Elizabeth faced problems from without and within, many of which were far more complex and pressing than her marriage issue. In the end, Elizabeth made the right decision for the time, if not for the future.

This is a great production for television, and holds up well against other major productions featuring the Virgin Queen Elizabeth of a few years ago.

Makes the Elizabeth of History Gloriously Human--Early Half is Best.

[kayaker36 · 9/10 · 16 January 2008]

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.

Looking at something else...

[katstap · 7/10 · 21 December 2013]

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.

Best so far

[patlightfoot · 10/10 · 16 July 2008]

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.

Not the best of Bess

[pdwebbsite · 6/10 · 9 February 2010]

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?

Top Notch

[mandagrammy · 9/10 · 2 December 2020]

I've watched countless versions of the history of Queen Elizabeth l and her reign, and I find this one to be among the very best of the lot. The attention to known facts is excellent, as well as settings and costuming. Most remarkable of all is the quality of makeup, as we watch the Queen age from her teens to old age. Special kudos go to Anne-Marie Duff as the Queen. Her mercurial portrayal of a woman who suffered so much in her youth, and yet managed to rule an entire nation with an iron hand, which must have been shaped by that youth, is remarkable. I highly recommend this version of her story, which is no doubt far more accurate than so many others. Two thumbs very high up for this one.

,,,another one?...

[joolsthegreat · 7/10 · 10 May 2006]

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!

The Best Elizabeth Drama

[annlevtex · 9/10 · 1 November 2022]

I wasn't going to compare this miniseries to the Cate Blanchett, Glenda Jackson or Helen Mirren versions of Elizabeth I, but since so many others did, here goes.

Blanchett is a brilliant actress and was luminous as Elizabeth. Mirren is also great. I remember the Glenda Jackson version from my childhood, and it was, as others have said, a staid and starchy period drama typical of its era. No disrespect to Jackson's abilities as an actress, but I prefer dramas and characters that feel alive. I prefer to see these people, grand and historically significant as they were, as human.

That's where "The Virgin Queen" outshines the others. Anne Marie Duff's vibrant performance, the use of modern takes on traditional music (the score is brilliant), and the skillful juxtaposition of composed conversational scenes and close-in action shots make the whole production sing almost from start to finish.

Duff is perfect as Elizabeth, taking her from the scared but stubborn young prisoner to the woman torn between love and duty (or is it vanity?) to the aged Queen at the twilight of her reign with a deft blend of heart, intelligence, passion and skill. She is convincing at Elizabeth's most vulnerable and admirable moments and at her most calculating and vengeful ones. She not only looks the part, she embodies it.

It is true that Tom Hardy looks too young as Dudley for much of the series, but it's not a major distraction. He's still very good (and handsome) in the role. I thoroughly believed Elizabeth's strong and complex feelings for him. A moment later in the series, when an aged Elizabeth sees a pair of young lovers at court and remembers herself as a young woman not-so-secretly brushing hands with her childhood sweetheart, is almost heartbreakingly poignant.

The production drops the ball somewhat on the challenge of aging the characters over decades, with Elizabeth looking much the same until almost forty years into her reign, when she suddenly has aged greatly. But the aging makeup is more than adequate, when used. The costumes and settings are also excellent. The supporting cast is strong across the board.

I loved it.

Very impressive in areas, wanting in others

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 23 October 2016]

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

...and along comes another...

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 5/10 · 13 February 2006]

I'm afraid invidious comparisons are inevitable when two of the four major television channels choose to bring out 'mini-series' on the life of the same monarch within the same year. This is the BBC's offering, better-funded, better-researched (or so it was claimed) and filmed in the UK instead of Eastern European locations. Sadly -- and I speak as a devotee of Aunty Beeb -- it simply isn't a match for Channel 4's earlier production "Elizabeth I". Not only is it not *as* good, by the end of the series it wasn't even *good*. (Too much attention paid to the technicalities of the ageing make-up on the principals and too little to the characterisation, perhaps?)

I think it simply tries to bite off more than it can chew. Channel 4 succeeded because they cast a middle-aged actress of great experience to portray Elizabeth in her later years. Anne-Marie Duff is a convincing wispy Princess, but her character doesn't seem to acquire the necessary gravitas as she supposedly ages. And the final two episodes felt badly rushed, in particular the decision to gloss over the entirety of Elizabeth's reign post-Essex in the course of a single voice-over, and her death-scene in a few sentences. There is too much prurient focus on Elizabeth's virginity and very little on the Virgin Queen's real-life record as mistress of statesmanship and manipulator extraordinaire -- she knew how to project herself as larger than life, but the BBC doesn't seem to know how to do the same, leaving the great speeches to fall limply. Channel 4's rendition of the great Tilbury speech ("I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king -- and a King of England too") brought the hairs up to thrill at the back of my neck. This one was something of an anti-climax.

Historical accuracy, for all that much-vaunted research, seemed dubious, from Essex's haircut to Queen Mary's death. This is light-weight stuff, without the insight into character that would justify such liberties in the name of dramatic licence. I'll believe in Channel 4's adult version of the relationship between the greying Elizabeth and Leicester before I'll believe the aged-up immaturity shown here, between a couple who never seem to progress beyond teenage crushes and jealousies. We see little of the Queen, and a lot of the virgin -- more soap-opera than history.

Ambitious, but ultimately thin and unsatisfactory. All surface and no depth.

Excellent but Overshadowed by the Competition

[[e-mail] · 9/10 · 17 September 2007]

If you've seen Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth in the Oscar-winning movie and the great Helen Mirren as Elizabeth in the recent HBO film, it is easy enough to dismiss Anne-Marie Duff and all of "The Virgin Queen" as a distant third in the competition. Nonetheless, I thought Duff acquitted herself quite well, especially as the younger Elizabeth, and this BBC production may actually do a better job of recreating the period than the other two. In my opinion, the HBO production is the best of the three, mainly because of Mirren, but also because it is given more time to explore the history of the period than was afforded the Blanchett film. The Blanchett movie finishes second because Cate is an excellent actress and because she is surrounded by a wonderful cast. But to say that "The Virgin Queen" comes third in the race is by no means to degrade it. I enjoyed all three productions for somewhat different reasons and, contrary to those who say "enough already," we will remain immersed in this period of history (a)because it immediately follows the era recreated by Shakespeare in his history plays and (b) because it is a hinge in history, solidifying England's rejection of Catholicism and the defeat of Spain.

I love the virgin queen!

[tallulahkyle · 10/10 · 11 February 2008]

I absolutely loved the virgin queen! I was totally gripped from episode 1 to 4! Anne Marie duff easily makes the best Elizabeth and looks the most similar to the paintings! She was totally incredible. Tom hardy is so gorgeous! Loved every minute he was on and was way better then the other ones. He was not only charismatic, handsome and intensely lovable but excellently dressed! Sienna Gulliory played a very good Lettice. Hated her so much! Tara Fitzgerald was also great! Vey sweet! And the music...well lets just say I have never heard anything so beautiful in my life. Have bought the CD and the DVD so I can remember this totally gorgeous series. However I did find Essex intensely annoying. But thought he did the job. Costumes GORGEOUS! Setting AMAZING! And was in tears when Robert Dudley died and at the end! Anyone who disagrees is mad! I LOVE THE VIRGIN QUEEN!

Not Very Elizabethan

[tedg · 15 May 2007]

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.

Good adaptation

[ihg-1 · 10/10 · 5 December 2011]

To me this is a pretty good version of the story. Especially Duff makes a very good and at times a very realistic Elizabeth. A bit funny though is that one of the very main characters seems to be missing on the crew list. I cannot find Hans Matheson doing Robert Devereux - Earl of Essex. Tried to make an update but it seemed so complicated that I gave up after 20 minutes... ;-) Well, with or without a complete list this one is a very good complement to the other ones before it. That said since this one seems to focus more on the very personal and private life of the queen and gives us less about politic and social scenarios of the time.

Entrancing -- 10 out of 10.

[albertinemerriman · 10/10 · 21 April 2024]

I am not a groupie of monarchy, past or present. As a principle for organizing society (with apologies to Margaret Thatcher, who famously said "society" does not exist) it has been too often a vehicle for oppression, theft, and cruelty. King after king after king... the story is always the same, and always seems to involve grubbing for glory. Which is why I enjoyed "The Virgin Queen" so much, as its focus leans more into statecraft, human frailty and conscience.

(Of course, Elizabeth did her share of grubbing, counting pennies like a housewife, and making economies.) Let's face it, Elizabeth was a freak, not because she was female, but because she never married. In this series, we get to see and feel her freakish solitude, her quality of being set apart even surrounded by courtiers, advisors and ambassadors, and her passion for her one true friend, Robert Dudley. Ann Marie Duff is entrancing as Queen Elizabeth (certainly one of the most difficult roles for any actress!) Thanks to excellent makeup, she plays Elizabeth throughout, from a teenager to a woman of 63. She does a wonderful job of conveying Elizabeth's maddening indecisiveness, loneliness, and fiery temperament.

I won't get into analyzing the other actors' performances, which range from competent to excellent.

The entire production benefits from gorgeous costuming and scenery, and right here let me give a shout-out to the horses and their wranglers. The scene where Elizabeth rides out in splendour to her soldiers on her majestic white horse is breathtaking. Robes flowing in the wind, she sits high and erect, every inch the queen we imagine when we read history.

Unlike others, I didn't mind the casting of Dudley, although his gigantic pout could be distracting. The one thing that did bug me was the soundtrack, which featured a medieval choir. The choir was fabulous, chilling at times, but the endless repetition of the same tune was wearying.

Still, a satisfying and enjoyable production that does a creditable job of showing how great queen really thought, felt, and behaved.

Nothing Else LIke It

[d-papadakis · 10/10 · 11 June 2022]

If you believe in the empowerment of women, there is no other champion of that concept like Elizabeth I. The writer of this production put the wonderful and appropriate words for her to speak. You just love her, meaning to admire, not desire.

The music in this production can make you cry after 2 measures. Consider the scores to Ben-Her, Lawarence of Arabia, this rival or surpasses those. The only scores I can think of of this caliber are Alfred Newman's score for the Egyptian, or Thomas Newmans scores for Green Mile and 1917. I tried to by the CD for Elizebeth I Virgin Queen and people wanted $100 for it, and it would almost be worth it.

And on top of all that you get Tom Hardy as a young man. My wife heart skipped a beat when she saw him. From heart throb to best male actor in the world.

You cheat yourself if you don't take the time to view this production, particularly if you love movie scores.

Not recommended for historical accuracy

[mama-sylvia · 5/10 · 20 November 2005]

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.

Virginia queen, she ain't no human being

[babyjudy-07520 · 10/10 · 22 August 2022]

Whether you're Liz 1 or Liz 2, your government is completely screwed. As long as you insist that blood means a damn.

I know you have the body of a weak and feeble woman, among other issues....

Ann-Marie-Duff as Elizabeth the 1st

[slpm-93247 · 8/10 · 30 March 2022]

This is my favorite pretty much by far. Helen Mirren was very good but not believable as she was simply too old. Cate Blanchet was also good and deserved the Oscar. But Ann -Marie Duff was superb. Tom Hardy was, of course, irresistible. The scenes with his wife were so poingnant. And the music!!!!

What a sad story

[Pure-Form · 10/10 · 18 March 2019]

I was thrilled after watching the series and it's thanks to magnificent actors and their beautiful performances and also endearing music, dances and costumes. Because I write from Poland, I will mention that I noticed that Coky Giedroyc name is known to me because "her father is Michal Giedroyc, a historian of Polish-Lithuanian descent from the princely Giedroyc family (...) According to the 16th century Lithuanian Chronicle, they are descendants of Prince Giedrius, a brother of Grand Duke of Lithuania (...) One of notable members of the family is Jerzy Giedroyc, famous writer and political activist" (from wikipedia) I hope It can add even more romanticism and exoticism. The sad part is the involvement of the heroes and of the Virgin Queen in the mechanisms of power.

What a disappointment.

[barnet55-1 · 3/10 · 30 January 2006]

I was really looking forward to this as Elizabeth is my favourite historical personage. However it's turned out to be a festival of historical inaccuracies, anachronisms and above all, poor casting.

The death of Mary Tudor didn't take place as was depicted, and in episode one Chancellor Gardiner was shown announcing Mary's death to Elizabeth in 1558, but Gardiner died three years before that in 1555. In the second episode Elizabeth used the quote "To err is human, to forgive, divine", which was written by Alexander Pope over 100 years after Elizabeth's death! Anne-Marie Duff, fine actress though she is, hasn't the fire and authority to play Elizabeth as she should be played. Sam Hardy is too wimpish for Dudley, which needs an actor with a commanding presence to play him. Jeremy Irons was just right for the part in the Channel 4 production "Elizabeth I" last year. Ian Hart is too young for Cecil, and Dexter Fletcher, who normally plays "cheeky Cockney" type roles, isn't right in the part of the Duke of Sussex either.

The scenes after Elizabeth's coronation were conducted in a room which was Jacobean, and the Victorian standing candelabra at the side of the throne were an anachronism. The stakes which the Protestant bishops Latimer and Ridley were tied to were nicely finished instead of being just a plain tree trunk as they would have been in reality - surely Mary's government would have thought that a bit of a waste when all they're going to do is get burnt? And to cap it all, they were burned in their best frilly nightshirts!

Lazy research by the writer, anachronistic quotes which seem to have escaped the script editor and lines no self respecting actor should have allowed to pass their lips have all combined to make The Virgin Queen a very poor example of a historical drama, which the BBC usually do so well (Charles II was excellent). Call me picky, call me pedantic, but if you're going to make a drama on one of the most famous women who ever lived, for god's sake get it RIGHT!