Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Sadly Over-hyped

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

BRAVO, HBO, for producing a film of such class and emotional power. Seldom am I at a loss for words when describing the acting ability of anyone, but in Helen Mirren's case, I am rendered speechless. As an actor myself, it is habitual to be often over-critical of another's screen performance, no matter their reputation or experience. But in both parts of this two-film masterpiece, all I could see is perfection from stem to stern, a mind blowing tribute to the art and perfection of a single actor's brilliance. It is rare in this day of CGI, gratuitous sex and violence, and making movies for profit only, to witness such an amazing film creation, with values as wonderful to the soul as to the eye and ear. In addition to Mirren's flawless performance, is the inspired casting of another British icon, the great Jeremy Irons, in perhaps the performance of his life. I have often found Mr. Irons to be cold and unemotional in his acting choices, but in this role, he truly took the gloves off, delivering a stunning tour de force on a par with the emotional depth of Ms. Mirren. To miss this motion picture, so lovingly created by HBO, is to deprive yourself of a modern day classic, so rare for this day and age. Don't miss it.

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

It's 1579 London. After 20 years on the throne, Elizabeth I (Helen Mirren) still refuses to marry. The men of the court plot to get her married for political advantage. She and the Earl of Leicester (Jeremy Irons) have feelings for each other. They await the Spanish Armada with his stepson Earl of Essex (Hugh Dancy). After Leicester's death, Elizabeth takes Essex as her new lover. Essex has a rival in the Privy Council in Robert Cecil (Toby Jones).Helen Mirren is beyond masterful. The great thing is how human the queen is in this version. This is filled with great actors. It's a smaller scale TV miniseries. The first part is interesting that ends with the Spanish Armada. The second part is even better. It's darker and more fascinating. This is a much performed character but Mirren still brings it.

I'm a big fan of the film "Elizabeth", but this TV production is better, and I cannot rate it highly enough. Being for TV works to its advantage, as they could pick the best "actor" for each part instead of a "star". For example, Patrick Malahide is far far better than Geoffrey Rush as Walshingham (spelling?). The only slight let-down was the Duke of Anjou. The actor in the old Cointreau advert (that dates me) had far more Gallic charm to woo Elizabeth than the actor here. The gore of punishment was handled well, including the two strokes to kill Mary, Queen of Scots - but what about the three to kill Essex? Unfortunately Helen Mirren, who was a real tour de force, has already done the sequel (Elizabeth II), so we haven't got that to look forward to. However, what about the long-promised film about Mary, Queen of Scots?