I am rating this whilst I'm watching it as I just have to tell someone... crikey this is bloody awful!! The only authentic thing about it is Tom Hardy's 16th century teeth. They've managed to take what was one of history's great stories add a pretty impressive cast and then through a masterful mix of dumbing down, historical inaccuracies, cringe worthy attempts to make it "current" and what can only be described as generally 'hammy' execution throughout made this an absolute pig of a show to watch.It's like a history of Elizabeth I for the Simon Cowell generation. Yes, it's THAT bad.Now, where's that remote...

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.

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.