User Reviews

This was an excellent reconstruction of the story, Iliked the combination of Latin and English, but totally misses the original point.

Under Celtic law, Boudica would inherit the estate of Prasutagus but the invading Romans brought completely different laws with them. Under Roman law the entire estate goes to the nearest male heir, in this case the Emperor Nero. Prasutagus seems to have been aware of this and drew up his dubious will leaving half to Nero.

As soon as the Procurator saw the will he knew immediately that it was worthless and went to Norfolk probably to inform Boudica of the realities of the situation. Boudica cannot have been unaware of what was likely to happen and argued back to the Procurator. He lost patience and ordered the Roman Army to deal with the situation.

A rebellion starts but it is noticeable that none of the other British leaders such as Cartimandua of the neighbouring Brigantes joined the rebellion. With two other undefeated legions still in Britain, as things turned outit was a wise move.

There were also several other inaccuracies. Following the usual Roman custom, an earlier Emperor had renamed the city of Londinium as Portus Augusta and there is no official record that it has ever been changed back but it was certainly Portus Augusta during the rebellion.

The refusal of the the other legion to join Suetonius is not puzzling at all. As the commanding officer, Poenius Postumus clearly explained in his letter to Suetonius, an attack was expected in that area. Any officer has the right to disobey instructions if he considers that the local situation makes this necessary.

Also that Boudica "died by her own hand" not necessarily poison. Alive, her fate would have been to have been dragged, in silver chains behind Suetonius's chariot as part of his triumph, before probably being publicly strangled.

Suetonius was not relieved of his command, he was promoted by Nero and sent off to a rougher area now part of Croatia

This production of the well-known British legend of a heroic queen leading a rebellion in the name of liberty against the brutal occupying Romans in 60 AD tugs at all the heartstrings, unfortunately by glossing over some facts. It tries for verisimilitude by having the Romans speak in Latin (the actors did a credible job, too), though it insists the fight is about freedom from a tyrannical occupier. It wasn't. Boudicca's husband was a client king, which Romans permitted in the interests of a peaceful transition to outright Roman rule. The king's possessions, his nation, however, were supposed to pass to the Emperor on his death, and the region would be ruled by a Procurator (most likely). The husband ignored this in his will, and tried to pull a fast one by giving only half of his kingdom to Nero, after living the high life from Roman bribes for a nearly 20 years. Naturally, the Romans put the new queen in her place, brutally, it seems, which sparked a revolt that quickly grew to a rebellion, although a lot of tribes stayed loyal to Rome or at least neutral, probably waiting to see the outcome. As in Gaul over 100 years earlier, massive mobilisation by usually divided tribal people was only effective in ambush, in wiping out defenceless towns and in seizing booty. When the Romans got their act together several months later and met Boudicca in open warfare, the result was a massive massacre. The history here seems real enough, but the continual references to liberty give the wrong impression, though quick cuts to various scholars admitting that the vengeful Iceni – Celts were just as savage in cutting down Roman civilians provides some balance. Charlotte Comer, who plays Boudicca with gusto, can't do too much with a script that turns her into a passionara. Not since Mel Gibson's Braveheart has so much ham been fed up in the guise of history, but it's not her fault. The supporting actors are mostly caricatures, but again, they are mouthing historical set pieces, though Mark Noble as Suetonius who defeats Boudicca is fine. All in all, there's enough documentary style cut-aways to give balance, despite the rhetoric. Finally, it's true that Celts did not have the Latin patriarchal tradition, but Romans did not disdain women, as it is implied here, nor is it entirely accurate that Celts had as many queens as kings, which is implied here by an explanation of the Celtic laws of succession. Most evidence suggests that they were guided by kings and priests (druids), despite reports of warrior women and a high degree of sexual freedom (compared to Rome). Still, it's all very entertaining. If you get a chance to watch this, do so. The rhetoric is a bit stilted but many historical fine details are accurate, especially the description of Roman tactics, which is often wrong in most movies. The combination of staged re-enactments and documentary style commentary is very effective. No doubt the real Boudicca was an extraordinary woman to create even a short lived union against the Romans, but be prepared for a degree of predictable myth-making with this production.

When I learned that the History Channel would be airing Warrior Queen Boudica on March 10, I felt more than a slight degree of apprehension. Had this not already been done – and very badly done at that – in the 2003 ITV film (Warrior Queen) starring Alex Kingston? What reason was there to expect that the compelling story of Boudica's heroic struggle against the legions of Rome would be rendered any more artfully or faithfully this time? As the author of a recently published historical novel on Boudica (Boudica, Queen of The Iceni, Robert Hale, London), I have more than a passing interest in the story and more than a casual acquaintance with the relevant history, archaeology and scholarship. Skeptical at best, I turned on the TV and steeled myself for what I was quite certain would be two hours of disappointment and annoyance. Five or ten minutes into the film, my skepticism began to "melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew": this was clearly a production that bore no more resemblance to the sad 2003 affair than – well, why not run with the Hamlet allusions? – Hyperion to a satyr. While both films may draw upon the same sources, the History Channel production is vastly superior as both history and film.

What I find most impressive about the film is its respect for the historical record. I don't mean that this is some dry historical film-lecture narrated by monotonous talking heads. Rather, it blends sound historical fact, realistic characterization, believable dialogue, authentic costuming and skilled cinematography into a moving docudrama of one charismatic woman's magnificent struggle against brutal oppression and tyranny. It's true that there are some "talking heads," but they are a well balanced lot of telegenic British and American authorities whose commentaries are succinct, informative and geared for a general audience. Between the action scenes and the commentaries, we get a full and accurate account of Boudica's rebellion, not some jumbled hodgepodge grossly distorted to fit the film's time frame or showcase the central figure. Some of the events are understandably compressed. For example, the Roman attack on the druids on Mona (Ynis Mon, modern Anglesey), which is narrated in vivid detail by Tacitus, is portrayed very briefly in the film. Also, the savage mutilation of Roman women near Londinium (London) by the avenging Britons that is recorded by Dio Cassius, our second major historical source, is in the film merely alluded to by one of the commentators. Still, nothing of real significance or interest – including the puzzling refusal of the Second Legion to obey the order to march to the relief of Londinium – is missing. I do admit that I found it odd that the Roman characters speak in Latin, a twist that had no particular justification as far as I could tell. If they speak Latin, shouldn't the Britons speak in their native language, which is Brythonic, a dialect of ancient Celtic from which modern Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Breton are descended? Fortunately, they speak in English, and good English at that, free of any of those glaringly modern words and phrases that mar the 2003 ITV production.

I found the acting and dialogue of this film realistic and in many places quite moving. The battle scenes – an artful mix of live and computerized action – are more exciting that one would expect from a TV movie, with more than enough gore to satisfy. The portrayal of Boudica herself is well balanced: she is a devoted wife to her husband, Prasutagus, a tender mother to her two daughters and a nurturing queen to her tribe, the Iceni. When her moment in history comes – when Roman savagery leaves her no other recourse – the wife, mother and queen becomes a vengeful warrior, a red-haired fury of extraordinary power and eloquence who spearheads a glorious rebellion that has inspired poems, plays, novels and films down through the centuries. And still does inspire, for in addition to this film, I understand there are two or three others (including one by Mel Gibson) currently in various stages of production. I'm curious to see what modulations of the Boudica saga the future may hold, but for now at least, Warrior Queen Boudica holds the title. Joseph E. Roesch

This made for TV production is superb in its rendition of the story of Boudicca, the First Century CE (AD) warrior Queen of the Iceni people, a tribe of Celts living in what is now East Anglia UK. Boudicca led a revolt against the brutal Roman occupation of Britain, and is remembered fondly as one of the great figures in early British history. Production value is first rate, with what looks like historically valid interpretations of Iceni and Roman characters. Boudicca is played by the little known British actress Charlotte Comer, who gives the production her all. Computer rendered graphics recreate what seem to be accurate accounts of the carnage of large-scale ancient warfare. Roman characters speak Latin, adding to the realism.

There does seem to be a small bit of pop feminist-style historical revisionism for TV's sake in this show, but this does not seem to detract from the production and is rather understandable in the greater context of the TV business.

This production is highly recommended.