russellalancampbell Flora Robson's portrayal of Elizabeth1 is monumentally great. She dominates her own conflicted emotions as she dominates her subjects and country. "Give me my disguises" she commands her lady in waiting in order to hide her blemishes, loss of hair and age. It is done not merely in the name of vanity but as a requirement of her position. She subverts her emotions in the name of duty and country. If the real Queen Bess was as forceful and charismatic as Robson's portrayal, then it is easy to see why England followed her lead. Olivier is quite good as the young, eager adventurer and emissary to Spain but it is Vivian Leigh that demonstrates the screen craft that was to carry her to fame. The film is not historically accurate but then neither were Shakespeare's history plays. The film reveals much about the human condition and, if you want to know "what really happened", look it up at a history website rather than watch a film.

gamay9 I watched this movie on TCM this morning, from start to finish, and was totally bored. This is British filming at its' best but not my best.Flora Robson and Laurence Olivier were stage actors who just recited their lines...i.e. no emotion, just typical of the 'English way' (to quote Pink Floyd)and yet, American TV (Fox News) promotes journalists, such as Jonathan Hunt and Stuart Varney because U.S. born citizens love the British accent.The only talented actress in the film was Vivien Leigh, who had a small part. I was eight years old when I first saw 'Gone With the Wind' and I really thought she was a southerner. Then, she married snobbish Laurence when she could have married a U.S. actor stud, and I lost all respect for her. So did movie studios.TCM is airing British films without respect for how little they have contributed to international cinema. How about televising great films? Like Bardot's best or 'Montenegro,' the latter being my all-time favorite. I even rank that film above 'The Best years of Our Lives,''Forrest Gump,''Gone With The Wind,''Rain Man,'Casablanca' and 'Shane.' I have been to every major European country in my lifetime (so far) and I'll take any over England; bland people with no direction. Give me Madrid, Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen and many others over London.

csteidler In a way, this is a picture about generations. May Robson is Queen Elizabeth; Leslie Banks is her lifelong adviser and admirer, the Earl of Leicester; and Morton Selten is Lord Burleigh, loyal and aged adviser. Together they are the elder generation: as Burleigh puts it, they have spent their lives as caretakers of the monarchy during mostly quiet times. Now it's 1587.Among the younger generation is Vivien Leigh as Burleigh's granddaughter Cynthia, a lady in waiting to the queen. Cynthia is passionate, flighty, forgetful—and beautiful. She loves "the boy" Michael Ingolby, son of another of Elizabeth's loyal followers. Michael is portrayed with great energy by, of course, a very youthful Laurence Olivier.The plot focuses on the court in London, where it is feared that spies may be afoot…and then on the Spanish court, where Olivier plays a dangerous role as forces gather toward an invasion of England by the imposing new armada. Among those involved on the Spanish side are Robert Newton, very good as a young nobleman; and an actress named Tamara Desni, excellent in a key role as a young woman who encounters Olivier.Raymond Massey is superb as King Philip of Spain. His best speech is one in which he simply repeats a single word several times: "And?"—Not much to it, but as played between Olivier and Massey it's a classic scene. Flora Robson is perfect as the queen. She's given such wonderful speeches, and she speaks them so well….In one scene, she asks Leigh's character how old she is; eighteen, the answer comes. "When I was eighteen, I was a prisoner in the Tower," Robson replies—neither bitterly nor scornfully, but with just a trace of wistfulness and the calm of a monarch who has ruled long but can indeed remember her own youth. This is also a deeply patriotic English film; viewers were certainly aware that the foreign threat looming over England in 1937 was every bit as daunting as that posed by the Armada 350 years earlier. It's a call to courage that both celebrates tradition and promotes the idea that a new generation must grasp its own opportunities—meet its own needs—for heroism.

ifasmilecanhelp The movie is a bit slow, but I wonder if it does not correspond better to times the story happens, at the end of 16th century... This is not as much an adventurer movie as is the Sea Hawk, not at all, but again, the rather lingering rhythm, if you enjoy Middle Ages history and costumes, may be the best to conduct the play. Personally I prefer quiet a lot 1940's Sea Hawk Curtiz version, perhaps, even though I wrote this one (1937 version) may have the proper rhythm, because I like more powerful adventures and Erroll Flynn's charisma and energy certainly fits me better. But I also think Laurence Olivier, who's not one of my favorite actors, did a good job, not overplaying. Flora Robson is the right person at the right place, but I admit too that she does not play an extraordinary performance. She is not Bette Davis :-) Howard, the director, all in all, offers a solid film, pleasant to watch at, even though not memorable. To summarize, I enjoyed this Fire Over England, but would rather suggest to see the Sea Hawk, with lot of actions, excellent actors performances and with a pleasant end (a family movie)... or at best one of my favorite movies about this era (but not centered on the same historic events) and a stunning drama with fantastic and mesmerizing performances : The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex...a film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles