User Reviews

If this is going to have a theatrical release in the US this is going to bomb big time. A very dissapointing film, with the occasional good momment, but the worst thing is the typical trates of ITV dramas that have crept in. The tendancy for everyone behind the scenes to try and stand out from the crowd by throwing in their own little bits. As a result what could have been a good film was pretty much destroyed.

The beginning and ending was just downright patronising and the scenes in Rome (which seemed there entirely to emphasise that Nero was as nutty as a fruit cake) were pretty redundant. There were however a few good battle scenes and some good acting. On the whole though it was just bad camera work, bad directing, poor script, feeble attempts to shock the audience and very little genuine authenticity.

I rated this at a 4/10 but had it not been for the unprofessional start and end it could have scrapped a 6/10 because there was enough reasonable content here to make this film enjoyable at least for a one off viewing.

If you see this film on TV and like ancient history and legends it's worth a watch, but whatever you do don't pay to see this in a movie theatre because this is a long way off being anything other then a TV movie.

Boudica is, by TV standards, a big-scale romp, with large battle scenes and predictable displays of Roman decadence sitting alongside an attempt, expected from writer Andrew Davies, to add some historical focus and modern relevance.

Alex Kingston is in commanding form as the flame-haired warrior queen. It's the type of role she is moulded for - feisty and forceful with just a hint of no-nonsense sex. She does seem to look more like Mel Gibson in Braveheart as the film progresses, but her big pep talk to the troops is at least as powerful as Mel's. In the generally fine supporting cast, Gary Lewis is stoutly impressive as a seemingly magically abled priest supporter of Boudica; Jack Shepherd makes the most of the stammering Claudius, and Andrew Lee Potts, despite coming across like a spoilt brat and a half-dressed drag act, has fun with the positively loathsome Nero.

Add in some fairly strong gore, amusing sex and tolerable use of modern language and Boudica falls somewhere between bodice-ripper and historical epic. Good fun all round. 7/10

An undemanding movie set in historic rural England. Many lovely scenes from the village life, good costumes and sympathetic characters.

There's an air of Icelandic saga simmering over the movie all the time with unnerving background music. Women have the central stage here and the movie will talk to many both girls and boys, although it is somewhat bloody at times.

A few lapses in cutting and continuation.

Outstanding performance as Claudius by Jack Shepherd who nearly steals the movie in his first scene from a time before statesmanship became a bad joke.

Steven Waddington plays his low-key role gallantly giving room for the ladies before chivalry became modern.

They missed one obvious line delivering two heads: 'I made an early start' where the line could have been: 'I made a head start'. Well, maybe they wouldn't make the killing into a comedy.

A fine movie for its budget and sure to entertain many a home audience while teaching a bit of history.

To the Producers of "Boudica"

All my life I have had a special interest in ancient Celtic culture and lifestyle and a particular fascination for 1st century Britain. Therefore i have done a great lot of research over the years and read and watch anything I can find on the subject.

"Boudica" was probably the worst historical film ever made and could easily enter the Guinness Book of Records for the most historical inaccuracies, both in number and variety, ever seen on a screen. Apart from the swords (where were the shields?), chariots and some of the women's hairstyles there was absolutely nothing right. i know it wasn't meant to be a comedy, but there are some utterly hilarious lines in this film.

Female leaders were very common in ancient Celtic society. Boudica was probably the ruling queen of her tribe anyway, but the Romans only accepted a man in that position and made Boudica's husband (who was much older than her and died of old age, not headaches!) the client king. There were a number of warrior women in 1st century Britain, though Boudica was the only one mentioned in history. Tacitus writes that to the Romans "the worst humiliation of losing the battle with Boudica, was being defeated by a woman!"

Tacitus, although on the other side, describes the British tribes and some of their customs and clothes in some detail. The producers of the film obviously haven't read any of that, or the actors and actresses would at least have worn costumes and hairstyles more appropriate for the period. Women always wore dresses, even in battle! The minor warriors wore very little, while the aristocracy dressed up to impress for the occasion with lots of (mainly gold) jewellery and colourful clothes. The women wore two piece dresses - a wide shirt of linen or wool held together in the middle by an elborate belt, and a full skirt. When horse riding, the skirt was pulled through between the legs, still covering the knees. Cloaks made of wool or fur were worn in the winter, and woollen leggings resembling leg warmers. The men wore similar shirts and cloaks, and breeches which were wide at the top. In the film they wore 20th century jogging bottoms and some sort of cavemen's furs reminding of the "Flintstones".

The men's 20th century hairstyles, I would think, would have looked out of place, even to anyone who never read anything about the 1st century. Almost all of them had their hair too short and where were their moustaches? Here, instead, some of the Romans have (very modern) beards, they would not have had in that period. Most Celtic men, especially those of any standing in society, had moustaches and a long mane of hair. Similar to some Native American tribes, 1st century Britons took pride in their long thick hair. Baldness was seen as a curse by the gods, so never in a million years would there have been a bald priest, and never would a druid or a priest of any sort have worn such rags! The Roman women are dressed up to the nines, although tacky and pantomine like. The Celtic women, and men, would have been dressed up elaborately.

Alright, we don't know the names of Boudica's daughters, though they wouldn't have come out of Arthurian legends or even Wagner. They could have read some ancient Welsh legends and picked some simple names from those.

A Celtic king who didn't want to go into battle would have been deposed, possibly murdered by his people for cowardice. There were no retired warriors anymore than bald priests in rags.

Claudius is hilarious. These scenes reminded me of a cross between "I Claudius" and the "Carry-on" films.

"Acts of Terrorism"? "Peace Process"? President Bush was here - did anyone recognise him?

Celtic funeral rites varied depending on the tribe. However, they never burned their dead. In fact, they went through a lot of trouble to rescue both the dead and the living from the flames, when any of their dwelling places was set on fire by an enemy. Any warrior of rank, especially a king, would have been buried with his sword, jewellery, food, sometimes other weapons or even a chariot. Their graves were usually in a wood and not marked on the outside. I won't go into too much detail here, not even sure you're still reading this. Death by fire was the ultimate punishment (only given to worst criminals), as there was a general belief that it would destroy the soul as well as the body and prevent the person from being reborn. I think there may have been a mix up with a Viking burial here, looking at the flames and water.

"Empire under new management!" another 20th/21st century phrase. "Read my lips!"

The Celtic aristocracy did not live in villages, but in hillside towns. They kept their homes and themselves clean, their hair, bodies and clothes washed regularly. There would not have been an army of the great unwashed, at least not before the battle. In fact, the Celts invented soap.

The Greeks visited Britain before the Romans, not to invade but just to trade, and there are some descriptions of their customs, looks and music. Music was distinctive and melodeous. Singing and playing instruments and dancing was a way of expressing high emotions. They had harps, though not those we know today, a variety of pipes, flutes and drums. We don't know their tunes, though some might have been similar to early medieval or middle eastern type music rather than new age pseudo Native American dirges used in the film.

The "Excalibur" type magic doesn't work here, only making the whole thing more ridiculous.

We are not sure what sort of music they had in the 1st century, but we know that music, poetry and storytelling was an important part of Celtic culture. Singing, dancing and playing instruments expressed their high emotions. They had harps, though not those we know today, a variety of pipes and flutes and drums. Middle Eastern or early medieval type tunes may have been similar, or at least would have fitted into a proper historical film, instead of some weird new age pseudo Native American wailings. I think I heard a didgeridoo once as well, but by then nothing could shock or surprise me anymore.

"What the hell is going on?" Nero said. What is a Classic battle? Then someone mentioned Anglesey! The island was called Ynis Mon, still known by that name in Wales today. The Romans always took a local name and latinised it, therefore called it Mona. The Angles occupied the island five centuries later and called it Anglesey! The producers wouldn't even need to read about this, but could have asked any Welsh person the right name.

The Romans drank from metal tankards and pottery cups, not glasses, as far as I know. Well, certainly not Art Deco glasses.

i don't think the Britons grew cabbages either, maybe mushrooms though I don't know. Their diet consisted mainly of meat, cheese, bread, cakes and apples and berries, maybe some leaves were used as vegetable garnish. Herbs were used in medicine rather than cooking.

Well, I just had to get this off my chest, even if no-one reads it.

Sincerely,

Kersty Evans

I've been looking at the comments on this site, and it looks like almost everyone who posted is very familiar with Boudica and very upset by what are apparently myriad inaccuracies. It makes me wonder if anyone saw this show who wasn't a history freak. So let me begin by saying I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the real story. But from the vantage point of someone who isn't horrified by incorrect costumes and hairstyles, I thought this was an excellent movie with many striking scenes. Also, as someone who doesn't watch ER I have not pigeonholed the excellent actress Alex Kingston into whatever character she plays in the show. I am only familiar with her from her first rate performance in Moll Flanders. It's very silly to object to a performance not based on the quality of the performance but on what you're used to seeing the actress in.

I liked this about as well as I liked Braveheart (which I thought was good but overrated).

The production values quite betray its nature as a TV movie, as do instances in which the title character gently breaks the fourth wall. Whatever else is true of this feature, it seems a tad simplified in its presentation, and the pacing of the course of events seems to reduce history to a handful of broad strokes to communicate the thrust of the project's intention. Some moments are presented with such curt directness that they almost inspire laughter. Still, though not without its faults or weaknesses, more than not 'Boudica,' also known as 'Warrior queen,' is an engrossing if grim and ugly portraiture of a small slice of the past.

It's not lost on me that the picture posits Britons as underdog rebels against the monstrous cruelty of Imperial Rome, as though the scenario hasn't been reversed for generations across the globe in the face of the British Empire - as though local tribes like the Iceni didn't also do battle with England in the same manner. So it goes, though. Thusly blithe though this may be, however, still it tells its story well, a saga worth remembering. Screenwriter Andrew Davies ably captures the dynamics of power, painting Rome in the bloodiest of villainous hues and Boudica and the Iceni in the most heroic. While Bill Anderson's direction feels a bit on the nose at any given point, broadly speaking this is well made despite the seeming limitations of the medium (and the proportionate budget). The production design and art direction are splendid, along with costume design, hair, and makeup; this is looks and sounds pretty swell, including any effects that are employed.

Some of the acting feels a little off to me, either a smidgen underwhelming, too precise and almost unfeeling for its own good, or possibly overzealous. I assume such instances are owing to Anderson's direction, but one way or another, mostly the cast performs well to bring the narrative to life. Michael Feast quite stands out in his supporting role as cynical, practically minded Suetonius; Emily Blunt, in her screen debut, demonstrates the nuanced skill for which she has since become so beloved. Alex Kingston commands the lead role well, tempering Boudica's viciousness with heart and intelligence; Gary Lewis (always a pleasure) and Jack Shepherd make the most of what time they have on-screen. Furthermore, battle sequences and smaller instances of violence are executed well, providing earnest excitement of varying flavors. I'm less keen on the aching exactness of the ending, inspiring more skepticism than Anderson's direction generally, and I could do without the slight fantastical element. Even at that though, this is reasonably enjoyable such as it is.

Nothing about 'Boudica' is so special as to demand viewership. It's not wholly captivating or absorbing as one tends to hope for in pictures, and while it's serviceable as a peek at history, it traces the topic to the spirit and not the letter; anyone earnestly interested in the subject had better just look for books instead. Yet all this feature wanted was to offer a glimpse at a part of the past and entertain in the process, and though it does so imperfectly, I think it meets that goal with modest success. Pick it apart if you like, for it's easy enough to do so; just kick back, relax, and enjoy the show, if you'd rather just pass a quiet evening. There's no wrong answer here. I can only say that I expected suitable enjoyment for ninety-odd minutes, and that's just what I got - and sometimes that's all a movie needs to be.

Nothing wrong with the choice of actors, but the history itself was underutilized. The rape of Boudica's daughters were overemphasized to the point of trauma to even the moderately sensitive viewer. Just knowing that the girls were raped was enough. The producers didn't have to actually show quasigraphic on public television. Basically it would be called disgusting.

Anyway, the fighting was well done, but teh ending was too abrupt and left the viewer wanting to know what happened after the battle. All in all, the show was about 90 minutes.

I was at best disappointed.

I'm aware there are historical inaccuracies (not at all clear the spelling of the titular name is one of them - Boudicca and Boadicea are both recognized alternatives), but when did that become unusual for non-documentary? My impression is the purpose was to engage and entertain, and as far as I'm concerned, it accomplished that. Alex did a superb job with her character and the other Celtic characters also worked for me.

It's hard to know what to think regarding the Roman characterizations, but my impression from history is they may be reasonable, especially Claudius, the proconsul, and General Suetonius. Claudius probably wouldn't even have invaded Britain if he hadn't needed a feather in his cap to offset the negative impression due to his infirmities (installed by the military because they thought he'd be their puppet). Nero was a very dangerous megalomaniac. So, just how far off were the portrayals? Hard to judge, but given the limited screen time available to establish character, I'm not sure how much more could have been done.

If some find the magical elements unacceptable, that's a shame, but then, I'm an Excalibur fan! I don't think the film was trying to present true reality (as demonstrated by the opening and closing), but rather tell-a-story that delivers the essence -- a story that's exciting and at times heart rending, an adventure. I'd say it was largely Alex that pulled the rabbit out-of-the-hat with this, but the actors portraying the daughters, the druid, Dervalloc, and the other main characters all made worthy contributions.

In sum, a very engaging film that I'm adding to my collection. Already watched it several times since first seeing it a few weeks ago. Yes, I like and enjoy it -- led me to look more closely into the history and that's not a bad thing.

Note: Had trouble deciding between a score of 7 or 8, but went with 8 partially due to the excessive criticism I see in some of the reviews, partially in salute to the truly excellent job Alex did in bringing herself fully to her character, and partially because I find the film so unusually engaging -- again a nod to Alex. A definite keeper!

Just few things know over the Iceni tribe and Queen Boudica (Boadicea), it was lost in the mist of the pass, however by roman Tacitus who wrote the Celtic's uprising on 61 A.D. and he was there, actually this record just was found on mid ages, however l agree with the Mr. Kerstie Evans who are on top reviewer, according inaccuracies which he wisely describe in small details concerning over ancient Celtic culture, mainly by the Druids who were the high Priest, advisers and had powerful skills to connect with the invisible world, although I don't agree it was the worst movie ever done as he said, there are valuable even shallow information over such Queen, the subject already is pacified, back on the movie itself, it was made for TV, is too easy to see it was a low budge, thus explains all inconsistencies on clothes, garments and also the narrative, it was barely for dramatization purposes only, the picture is really a bad and cheap production, somehow by me is more important is about this remarkable Celtic warrior, that's the point! to discuss!!

Resume:

First watch: 2010 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

I hate fact twisted into some overdone fantasy/historical fiction called epics. This is one of the worst. I am obsessed with Celtic culture and I look it up endlessly. I have no problem in creating epics with a touch of unrealism. It's fiction. I like adding spin to it. But I absolutely hate it when people take history and completely ignore facts to add their own "idea" of realism.

Boudicca is one of my heroes. But she was usual for her time. The actress played her well, but the whole idea of Boudicca should have been left to true, hard-core lovers of Celtic culture.

One day,maybe, someone will get it right. The actors were fine: the writing was WAY overdone. Stilted and unimaginative.

It's got some great sets and costumes, a fantastic, frankly groundbreaking soundtrack of calling vocals, and spectacular deeply theatric moments, basically any time the characters aren't actually speaking is OK. The dialogue is fundamentally awful, Romans are one-dimensionally bad, absurdly condescending and arrogant, and barbarians good. Obviously the writer wanted to make this a commentary about current politics, referring to Icenians as "terrorists", a concept which did not exist at the time. In fact, many lines such as "For God's sake!" would not exist for this setting.

I don't suppose anyone could tell me the reason why all the Roman soldiers have cockney accents either.

To watch this film, you've got to have a sense of humor for the dialogue which is utterly painful. The Romans are written so badly on such a deep level one can take amusement in it. But it can't be described, laughed at, and appreciated as a bad B-movie, there are quality stirring dramatic moments there and any humor you see in it is killed by the prolonged gang rape scene, which is not a gratuitous addition but a serious, fundamental part of the historical accounts of the real Boudicca.

This film is without compare in its strengths and weaknesses and I'm wholly at a loss to classify it or say exactly how one should appreciate it. You will have to decide for yourself and tell me.

The TV film was Ok,obviously what happened in the tv film may not be at all accurate. Alex Kingston does a fine job all credit to her. If she came screaming at me with sword like Boudica I'd run a mile. My only concerns is that they did not really follow the accounts properly, not trying to give too much away but the fight scene and ending are very debatable,(did that really happen?) The villian all points to Nero, but it was Claudius who went in and started the invasion in the first place. As to action I would not recommend children to see this, as there are scenes which i believe can be very disturbing, the film does enough to make you think what it was like?

Overall enjoyable and interesting worth a watch, but do not take it as read this actually happened. Historians will tell you different.

Alex Kingston A+ performance as always.

... and I see it for the first time. So great to see Alex Kingston outside her comfort sone (?). I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but you have to see it tung i cheek. See it for what it is - a B film that may or may not have taken itself seriously.

True, its a lot of killing, blood and gore, and it may not be historically correct. What do I know, I am Norwegian and know more about vikings than Boudica. But I dont really care. I had a great time watching this flik. If you like oldies of a dubious character, you should give it a peak.

A young Emily is there as well in her youthfulness. How can you resist all of this ?

What a wonderful concept for a movie - Boudica, Warrior queen of the Iceni tribe.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is horrible, and does no justice to such a major event in British history.

The script is the first target. Whoever wrote it must have been watching too much 'Zena - Warrior Princess' and 'Highlander'. Numerous overly dramatic taglines and speeches with a very odd take on historical fact.

Next is the acting - too much of it! All of the characters seem to be portrayed as some kind of poor man's Shakespearian overly intense hyper maniacs.

Alex Kingston is the wrong choice for the character of Boudica. Although she may be a decent actress, this role/script/production is not for her.

So, overall this is not a film I would ever want to watch again.

The acting was good, the picturing of that time was OK.

But! Sick movie producers alert!

After 30 minutes there is this horrible scene where young Nero has a sexual relation with his mother, and they show everything. I don't care if they want to show Neros sick mind, I don't need pedophile flirting in movies. You can tell such things in a movie without tongue kissing and breast sucking thrown into the face of the watcher.

I turned the movie off and I suspect I'm not the first doing so.

Don't see this movie.

Watch something else.

Alex Kingston stars in the gritty dram about the formidable Iceni queen Boudica.

No longer being able to bear the pain of seeing the woman he loves with another man Dervalloc sets off across the waters away from his passionate Queen, convinced she is content with her King and two children But Boudica has a lot to be unhappy about. As wife to King Prasutagus of the Iceni tribe, she sees her fierce husband shamed before Rome's greedy onslaught. Prasutagus accepts a treaty that preserves his tribe's independence but at the cost of high taxes. When he dies mysteriously, Boudica becomes the Iceni leader but allegiance to her is not all one sided. Depraved Roman captain Catus shows the spirited queen a copy of her husbands will which leave half of his kingdom to the roman empire.

Convinced the will is a forgery Boudica battles to bring her people away from the slavery that is Rome and attempts to conquer the very powerful roman empire with tragic consequences.

I don't want to spoil this for any future viewer but this show will probably never be shown again. There are few facts known about Boudica, except that she burned London and Colchester and that she was whipped, her daughters raped and she took her revenge. In this feeble production, London and Colchester are a set of tent encampments- which the cast ludicrously describe as a 'big city.' The actors either shout a lot or sleepwalk through their parts. Nero is made up for a silent movie and, given the script, its a pity that it wasn't. They threw in the salacious bits - Nero fumbling with his mother's dress- poisoning and threatening, but in the language of a wide boy. At every point where you would expect some dramatic and memorable words, the script degenerates into soap opera. The battle scenes were large and animated but unengaging. The story was corrupted into another 'look how beastly they're being to the Celts' whinge with the usual dreary 'Celtic' solo singer and predictable 'magical' swords and a fey Scots magician on hand to give senseless advice. In fact, no clichee was left untouched. The high and important issues about power and oppression were treated like captions in a picture story in a teen mag.

So who was it for? Historians? hardly; Adults? only for porn value; Kids, only those who have never seen 'The Mummy' or 'Lord of the Rings'- This was like Lord of the Rings done on home video with a cast off the street. There were some talented actors involved, but this was no showcase for their abilities!

This movie was inspiring to me, as it was about a woman who would not give up. She is one of my favorite actresses, appearing on ER in the U.S. It was also about an empire which ran over indigenous people, a practice which continues into the present time. There are many lines in the movie which might just remind you of current day statements. And listen closely to Nero, does he remind you of anyone? The actors are all great in my opinion, they do not falter or miss a beat. Yes, it is a bit violent, and if that is a concern, you should not allow small children (under 8 or 10) to view this. Since we rarely see things about the Celts, I was happy to have an idea of how they dressed and some of their customs. Women definitely had equality, and that is rare to see even in these modern times.

I have no problems with film makers using their imagination when there is a lack of information. I fail to see the sense of deliberately distorting the facts though. Believe me, they could make a splendid film just sticking to the facts. A Book about Suetonius called 'Imperial Governor' would make the basis of a fine film. Others have pointed out the stupid mistakes in this film and the children running rings round trained ruthless soldiers was just plain silly. The final battle started of quite well and good use was made of technology. However, the Romans won battles like this using tight shield formations, NOT hand to hand fighting. I have no problems with the acting at all, just the story lines.