Kirpianuscus and not surprising. because Helen Mirren has the science and art and force to be inn and out of her characters in a magnificent manner. because nothing could change the powerful impression about her performance. a performance who, in subtle way, transforms the character in a masterpiece. Elizabeth I is a good example. first because, after books and movies, theories and speculations, she is a profound different Queen. rigid and vulnerable, old and energetic, seductive and cruel. the solitude of the Queen becomes not only realistic but an ice show itself. because its roots and ways and maps are so clear. because the story has a special dose of realism. because she is Elizabeth and any comparison with other interpreter becomes strange.

lampic Perhaps the reason why 16th century queen attracts so many greatest actresses is the fact that Elizabeth I was actress herself - her whole life was a perpetual act where not only she had to balance all kinds of power games, but her life was a public stage with no privacy whatsoever and everybody from courtiers to assassins wanted something from her: what kind of curse this was to her I can't even imagine, but lady herself must have been aware that she can hardly trust anybody.If you can erase the memories of so many excellent actresses who preceded Helen Mirren, this is a very enjoyable two-part TV drama (advertised as mini-series, whatever) filmed in sensational locations built in Lithuania (Tudor court looks amazingly real - not glamorous but practical, decorated but still a labyrinth of crowded halls where people watch every step you make). To be honest, all the other memories fade away when I'm watching this - everything from the script, dialogs, costumes to acting in superb. First part has Elizabeth constantly fighting off marriage proposals and juggling one country for another, trusting only her chief advisers and her old favorite Earl of Leicester Jeremy Irons). "What is crown, when love's voice speaks to us?" she sighs when alone with Leicester, who is the only courtier brave enough to tell her things she don't want to hear.The second part has already aging queen falling for Leicester's stepson (Hugh Dancy) but she is no fool - the toy boy is only good as long as he plays her game, as soon as he steps out of line, the head goes off, she is true daughter of Henry VIII after all. This is hardly the only head chopped off here, there are many quite brutal scenes including historically accurate beheading of Mary Stewart. To all who criticize fictive meeting between Elizabeth and Mary Stewart, I would just say - this is too good scene to be missed. And the fact we have no surviving documents about it, don't mean it didn't happen. As always Mirren is magnetic - firm, stubborn, playful, coquettish, sentimental and cruel, she has it all. It is quite an achievement to make Elizabeth a believable, human person under all those elaborate costumes and wigs, but great actress she is, Mirren dominates the scene and she wears the clothes, not the other way around. Those closest to her are all excellent, including Jeremy Irons, Hugh Dancy, Toby Jones, Patrick Malahide and Ian McDiarmid - even Barbara Flynn as unlucky Mary Stewart completely fits to a description what she must have been like. Absorbing and absolutely recommended.

LauraLeeWasHere I think it is true to say that Helen Mirren is a versatile actor, but she seems to be making a sideline career of portraying Queen Elizabeths. I thought she did a fantastic job of portraying the current Queen but when she steps into the shoes (and large lace collars) of THIS Queen Elizabeth, she does it AGAIN. And perhaps even more so. My apologies to all the other actresses who portrayed Queen Elizabeth I, but Helen Mirren has no equal for this character since Elizabeth I was done by Bette Davis all those decades ago. And for all those who think that there is only "junk" on television, watch this two part mini-series and eat your words, while being educated and thoroughly entertained. A HUGE honourable mention goes to Toby Jones for his role in this. He and Mirren, their rapport and the way they bat the dialogue back and forth is some of the best give and take I've EVER seen in ANY film. Between the two of them, it's hard to remember any other actor in this film. And that says tons because there is a truck load of British talent in this story. (I'll give more apologies to all the actors in the rest of the world but can anybody act as well as the British?) Do yourself a favour. Rent or buy this miniseries, get a big bowl of popcorn and spend an evening (or weekend) watching this. But here's a hint: Don't invite a friend unless they are the kind that can be absolutely silent while a movie is playing, because you won't want to miss one syllable of what's being said.

tedg There's treasure in the story of Elizabeth. Its part of our deep structure, if for no other reason than she was there when the language and the US was born. She had Harriot, Bacon, Raleigh, Shakespeare. She preserved the world from Christian religious extremism. The banking laws were established during this time that allowed a tiny island to become a world power. This is when the great repression of Ireland began.There are few people so well suited for cinematic drama. If Shakespeare were writing today, she would be a first choice. I suppose that's why so many wannabees take her as the matter for their screenplays. So when you come to these, its a business of evaluating how badly they missed the target — how bad an imitation do Shakespeare we get.This one is pretty bad. Oh, its glorious. It has the common conflation of fate, love and politics that seems to be trendy these days.It has fantastic costumes, and colorful but a bit clumsy attempts at Elizabethan backgrounds. These aren't quite accurate and seem excessively stagy, as do the castle interiors. It has a colorful actress shifting emotions and giving us the message: love, passion infuses all.But it isn't true. She was just a selfish woman with the power to command and reward sexual favors. Love of the kind we celebrate in film had nothing to do with it. But that raises the question about why we like this portrayal, and the excellence with which is rolled out. I suppose each of us have to answer that for ourselves — and I suppose most of us will conclude that it is because passion, love, sex in "ordinary life" (which politics usually represents in these projects) is what we desire with a similar passion.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.