Rating: 
Summary: This movie gets an Irish blessing
Review: Admittedly I know very little ancient Irish history but all the same found the movie The Warrior Queen to be an inspiration to look further and deeper into the subject. Many of the other reviewers listed here seem to have exceptionally high standards for their televised historical docu-dramas. In my own case, I hadn't planned on watching the movie at all and found it one night when channel surfing with my husband. It took us a minute or two to get a sense of what was going on, but then we got completely swept up in this epic. It is a romp of a movie that has it all: several different varieties of love, compelling political intrigue, attempts to represent possible war technologies from the past, and even mysteries in the form of Celtic magic. I didn't feel the Romans were presented as "all bad," nor the Celts as "noble savages". The day after watching this movie, I went on-line and read all I could find on Boudicca -what a fascinating figure she is! And I didn't think less of the movie for any inaccuracies since it sounds as if many aspects of this woman's life remain open questions. So, this movie gets an Irish blessing from me, as follows: If you're not a PhD in Boudiccology, and you're curious about an anti-Roman revolt lead by a woman -which was very nearly successful, than may this movie be your spring board into an intensely interesting moment in Irish history! Sit back, watch, be amazed and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Boudicca revolts -- and you will, too!
Review: As a fan of public television, an anglophile and an armchair historian (particularly Roman history) -- not to mention a long-time Alex Kingston fan -- I held high hopes for this WGBH produced tale of the brave and brutal Boudicca.Those hopes were dashed in the first few minutes of the program and were never revived. My interest (and worse: the spirit of Boudicca) was brutalized by an incredibly poor script, that was brought to life by trite performances -- the result, I'm sure, of a wandering directorial view. In trying to be a combination of historical drama, historical romance, morality tale, war film, and mystical allegory, WARRIOR QUEEN ends up failing on all counts. It's not good history. It's not entertaining history. And it's simply just not worth watching.
Rating: 
Summary: Historically Innacurate
Review: I am a big fan of Celtic History, so when a sibling recommended this movie, I looked forward to watching it. Well, I had to admit I was rather disappointed. This film was little better than "Viking Queen" (cheesy 1967 film loosely based on the life of Boudicca), and in part I thought it was worse, because it was produced by PBS, and purported to be 'historically accurate'. History: Its difficult to discuss the historical accuracy of Warrior Queen, without giving away major plot points. Let me just say, that a little research will prove that there were great liberties taken in the screenplay and the ending.... Distressingly inaccurate and silly. Plot: the story was one sided. Celts = Good. Romans = Bad. While the depredations and depravity of the Romans were well covered in this film, Boudicca and the other Celtic tribes were equally brutal to Roman settlers and their families, often committing atrocities worse than those of the Romans. This was, of course omitted to make the Celts appear to be 'pure' and the Romans 'villainous and unscrupulous.' (However one may feel about Roman expansionism, they weren't all evil and corrupt). The Setting: I thought this was the most accurate. The Roman camps, and the Celtic roundhouses were well done. The Costuming: contrary to what was portrayed in the film, the Celts, especially the Celtic elite (of which Boudicca and her daughters were a part), understood proper hygiene, combed their hair, and did not run about the country side covered with dirt. Boudicca would need to inspire her troops with her wealth and power, not frighten them with her knotted dread-locked hair and Conan-garb. Customs: The Celts may not have a traditional written language, but they are strong orators. The skill of their bards, druids and poets were well known. Druids were educated for years in specialized schools. However, when faced with events where oration is required Boudicca and her drippy husband say nothing. The druid says nothing. They appear ignorant and savage rather than strong, boastful and hospitality conscious. Finally: Celtic Combat. The Celts did not have such a highly developed cavalry. They relied on foot soldiers and charioteers to deliver devastation upon their enemies. I know of no incidents where Children were used to 'burrow' underneath roman forts to create spider-holes and can't imagine a Roman legion falling for such a blatant ploy. Silly. I could go on and on, but I won't. Warrior Queen was an ok piece of entertainment...But as a docu-drama it didn't work for me.
Rating: 
Summary: History versus the entertainment industry
Review: I haven't seen that many movies on the Warrior Queen of First Century Britain. It's nice that an actress like Alex Kingston can go through the entire movie dressed in unflattering animal skins and without glamourous makeup. She certainally looks the part. Imagine if Cecil B. Demille had done this with Heddy Lamar as his star! Can you say Max Factor? Made on a small budget, it couldn't assemble a cast of thousands. It had to do with a cast of a few hundred for the battle scenes, which were actually very graphic considering that this movie was made for TV; British TV, but TV all the same. This also accounts for the one banquet scene with quite a few nearly nude extras. My main problem, however, is with the dialog. The average Britons of the time were not literatte. In fact, one scene shows that the Queen can't even read. At the same time, she carries on a complicated conversation with the Romans as if she'd graduated from some Roman college with a degree in linquistics. The same is true when the Briton chiefs of other tribes talk among themselves. This is history conjured up by the entertainment industry and it feels wrong. It just seems un-historical. These people lived nearly two thousand years ago, and yet they talk as if they had just walked off a modern London street. Also, the Roman soldiers all sound like Cockneys, even using common venacular that belongs in a British World War II movie rather than in depecting soldiers from another time and culture. This was also true in I CLAUDIUS, another British TV drama set in ancient Rome. This script seems like something conjured up by Joan Collins, who would defend her screenplay as follows: "Yes, darling, I knoe it's set in ancient Britian, but do they really have to sound like ancient people? Who cares, anyway? I wrote it so that people today can enjoy it without all that history cluttering everything up. After all, it's the sex and blood and gore that sells. I just added a little modern sizzle to the story."
Rating:
Summary: History versus the entertainment industry
Review: I haven't seen that many movies on the Warrior Queen of First Century Britain. It's nice that an actress like Alex Kingston can go through the entire movie dressed in unflattering animal skins and without glamourous makeup. She certainally looks the part. Imagine if Cecil B. Demille had done this with Heddy Lamar as his star! Can you say Max Factor? Made on a small budget, it couldn't assemble a cast of thousands. It had to do with a cast of a few hundred for the battle scenes, which were actually very graphic considering that this movie was made for TV; British TV, but TV all the same. This also accounts for the one banquet scene with quite a few nearly nude extras. My main problem, however, is with the dialog. The average Britons of the time were not literatte. In fact, one scene shows that the Queen can't even read. At the same time, she carries on a complicated conversation with the Romans as if she'd graduated from some Roman college with a degree in linquistics. The same is true when the Briton chiefs of other tribes talk among themselves. This is history conjured up by the entertainment industry and it feels wrong. It just seems un-historical. These people lived nearly two thousand years ago, and yet they talk as if they had just walked off a modern London street. Also, the Roman soldiers all sound like Cockneys, even using common venacular that belongs in a British World War II movie rather than in depecting soldiers from another time and culture. This was also true in I CLAUDIUS, another British TV drama set in ancient Rome. This script seems like something conjured up by Joan Collins, who would defend her screenplay as follows: "Yes, darling, I knoe it's set in ancient Britian, but do they really have to sound like ancient people? Who cares, anyway? I wrote it so that people today can enjoy it without all that history cluttering everything up. After all, it's the sex and blood and gore that sells. I just added a little modern sizzle to the story."
Rating:
Summary: Believable barbarian
Review: I loved Alex Kingston (of ER and numerous British period pieces) as the fierce, yet human Queen Boudica (also spelled Boadicea)! She was believably tough, yet believably naive in her struggles with the overwhelming forces of Rome. The whole plot boils down to a clash of two cultures: one ancient and decentralized and one a "modern" empire which butchers with ruthless efficiency. An inspiring tribute to the human spirit!
Rating:
Summary: Not worth buying it!
Review: It's a movie about a warrior princes who stood against the Roman Emperor. Nice story but cheep production and medium acting. Don't waste your money on that.
Rating:
Summary: Wretched beyond belief
Review: Let me quickly state that I am not reviewing this DVD release per se; I am basing my critique on viewing the TV broadcast last year. My memory has thankfully gone dim on many details, but I came away from the tube thinking, "Whoa -- that may have been the worst historical epic I've ever seen." How did the producers manage to take a very straightforward event, easily translated onto the screen, and mangle it so thoroughly? Beats me. Boudicca's tale should make a fine motion picture -- think "Braveheart" with gender-reversal -- but this ain't even close. Everything about it struck me at the time as sloppy, dopey, inaccurate, unengaging, and flat out awful. History is blatantly rewritten whenever convenient, fantasy substitutes for reality (literally -- the Celts use actual working MAGIC against Rome, how unfair of them, even though it doesn't turn the tide) , and production values are fifth rate at best. Nothing works -- not the ridiculous script, not the hamasaurus acting, not the woeful direction or leaden pacing, not the terrible costume design (the ancient Britons look like cavemen, the Roman army seems to be wearing tin foil and plastic), nothing. What a senseless waste of someone's money. Shame on them all. The real Boudicca would burn this lot to the ground faster than she did Londinium. Consider yourself warned.
Rating:
Summary: Wretched beyond belief
Review: Let me quickly state that I am not reviewing this DVD release per se; I am basing my critique on viewing the TV broadcast last year. My memory has thankfully gone dim on many details, but I came away from the tube thinking, "Whoa -- that may have been the worst historical epic I've ever seen." How did the producers manage to take a very straightforward event, easily translated onto the screen, and mangle it so thoroughly? Beats me. Boudicca's tale should make a fine motion picture -- think "Braveheart" with gender-reversal -- but this ain't even close. Everything about it struck me at the time as sloppy, dopey, inaccurate, unengaging, and flat out awful. History is blatantly rewritten whenever convenient, fantasy substitutes for reality (literally -- the Celts use actual working MAGIC against Rome, how unfair of them, even though it doesn't turn the tide) , and production values are fifth rate at best. Nothing works -- not the ridiculous script, not the hamasaurus acting, not the woeful direction or leaden pacing, not the terrible costume design (the ancient Britons look like cavemen, the Roman army seems to be wearing tin foil and plastic), nothing. What a senseless waste of someone's money. Shame on them all. The real Boudicca would burn this lot to the ground faster than she did Londinium. Consider yourself warned.
Rating:
Summary: Believable barbarian
Review: This is a movie about a Warrior Queen, Boudica, who really did exist and led a massive uprising against a Roamna army in Britian in about AD 60. It is and excellent movie. Lots of action and at the same time good character development. Really gave the feeling of being in the Medieval times. Costumes and sets were great. Alex Kingston (From ER) plays the Warrior Queen did a great job.
| 
