The Virgin Queen (2005)

So much average

just watch it!

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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.

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.

What would film and TV companies do for historical dramas if Elizabeth I had never reigned? If they run out of ideas (or Dickens novels) it seems that somebody comes out with a brand new concept. "Hey! what about giving old Lizzie another run for her money? Nobody's done it for at least 6 months!" This 2005 mini-series although having authentic costumes, delivers nothing that hasn't been told (more accurately and better) a hundred times before in novels, biographies, operas, dramas, documentaries and even historical pageants.In this latest effort it seems that a lot of pieces from the jigsaw that was Elizabeth's life have been lost, and the bits that remain have been haphazardly bunched together to create some sort of patchy biography. Consequently there's very little flow to the production as a whole, with just a scant look into the inner character of the "virgin queen" in particular. As for Ann-Marie Duff's speech prior to the Armada battle, I'm afraid she didn't inspire me one iota, (even though she looked a very young 55 yrs as Elizabeth was at the time), and neither did the rest of her somewhat insipid performance. The real Elizabeth needed to be, and was, made of sterner stuff.Overall the sketchy script is equally uninspired, and is only adequately performed, however if one can watch it without being too critical of historical mistakes, it is in parts enjoyable...that is if you're an ardent Gloriana fan. This production falls far short of the wonderful Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R", albeit even that series now looks a little stagy and dated.I really do think it's time to give "Good Queen Bess" a miss...at least for another six months, maybe even a year. The poor old dear must be completely worn out watching down from high, at all these seemingly endless reproductions of her life. Then in the meantime someone could just come up with a bright new idea. Another Dickens perhaps?

It has been said that when making a courtly, historical drama, once of the most important things you need is austerity. The audience have to be able to glimpse the past and be enraptured by the drama without necessarily being aware that it's being filmed. Coky Giedroyc's direction mainly consists of a fidgety, over-active camera that makes almost every scene dizzying to watch. No doubt the idea for this eccentric direction is to put some excitement into the drama, however, after such repeated use it quickly loses its effect and becomes very intrusive. I found the direction of 'The Virgin Queen' to be unsubtle, totally lacking in any poignancy and solely aimed at creating an over-the-top, unsophisticated sense of melodrama wherever and whenever.As for the acting - with a part like Elizabeth I, comparisons between this and other performances of the Queen are inevitable, yet Anne-Marie Duff, who by her own admission had a rather shaky knowledge of the subject beforehand, somehow decided it would be best not to view other performances, wanting to 'portray the part for myself', which unfortunately (for the rest of us) wasn't that good. Although I don't think Duff was the right choice for Elizabeth anyway, her performance would have been greatly improved if she'd looked at what other actresses had done. As it was, her Elizabeth lacked substance, she had no 'presence' or ability to rouse, she talked in a southern, middle-class accent and never seemed to age or mature. When I was little I watched bits of 'Elizabeth R' and was totally enchanted by Glenda Jackson. In contrast, when watching this, I felt disappointed by Duff's weak, lacklustre performance.Thinking about the drama as a whole, it's fair to say that the effort went into it. The production values are there, although when looking at it, the words 'lavish' and 'big-budget' cry out louder than 'real' - the characters in their flimsy, satin costumes stand incongruously next to each other. The writing, I didn't find to be as bad as other areas - the main problem being that it compromised historical accuracy. I actually thought there were some really cool lines, although most of these were wasted on Duff who, having not done enough research, delivered them badly (eg, when Elizabeth plays with language in front of the Spanish ambassador).'The Virgin Queen' is a BBC production and I watched it with high expectations. What I found was that it was neither stimulating as a historical biopic, nor particularly engaging in its overblown love story. It is often said that audiences are more sophisticated today, yet the BBC seems to respond to that by pouring millions more into producing dramas, whilst drastically lowering the standards of acting, direction and especially writing. 'The Virgin Queen' has nothing to show for itself; it is cheap entertainment and trash - a worthy successor to the equally dreadful 'Henry VIII'.