If Tesla want to stick to the 211 claim on a track it's a whole different matter. From the press release Tesla seem to be saying that Top Gear lied about how far it would have gone on the track, which is nonsense.
After all they knew exactly where Top Gear was taking it, all cars go there.
Overall I thought that Top Gear were positive about the car in terms of raw performance, just as something you'd drive it's not practical even as a sports car.
"The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed."
The greater point is that Clarkson doesn't pull any punches, regardless of the make/model/drivetrain. He likes what he likes and speaks his mind about it.
Not exactly, Clarkson is notorious for letting its biased feelings cloud all forms of objectivity. See e.g the Civic Type-R 2008 review which is a complete joke when the Stig review is the direct opposite. Either a car is a lemon or a gem but it can't be both. Whether Clarkson is genuine or stages such opinionated behavior remains unclear and part of the myth. It's a fun show, but a show nonetheless.
"this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value"
Comedic, no, but creating a sense of drama, yes. in both cases the goal is to generate emotion. Either way, I felt like it was emphasized when I watched it some time ago.
Besides, complaining a 200+ miles casual range shrinks to 55 when you're beating crap out of the car is nothing short of ridiculous. Did they complain that the Veyron 100L tank burns in less than 15min at 400+kph? That's a 60 miles range! Heck, no pure electric production car, let alone electric sports car, matches the Tesla range today.