The Other Boleyn Girl Reviews

• But it is very pretty to watch...

  
  By A328S9RN3U5M68 on 2008-03-02
  THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL suffers from overexposure to the passion for all things Tudor that has produced multiple novels, television series, and films that range from great to mediocre. Having not read Philippa Gregory's best selling novel, this viewer entered the theater without preconceived notions of the path the story would take/stray in the wake of heightened interest in historical data. From the opening scenes to the end the impression is one of having viewed some very beautiful scenery, sumptuous costumes, grand lighting - and very little involvement in caring for the plight of the characters. The soggy music score underlines the unrelenting dark atmosphere of the story and the production, and despite a cast of actors known for credibility in historic roles, there is little compassion stirred.
  
  King Henry VIII (Eric Bana, in relatively little screen time) tires of Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent) and her inability to bear a male heir. The Boleyn clan (Mark Rylance and Kristin Scott Thomas in collusion with the Duke of Norfolk David Morrissey) seize on Henry's frustration and serve up their daughters Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Scarlett Johansson) to satisfy his dalliances. The younger Mary beds him first, does produce a son, but falls out of favor leaving Anne to work her newly honed skills of feminism learned during her exile in France on the easily seduced King to become his queen, yet is able to only bear him a daughter, Elizabeth. The results are tension in the castle, in the Boleyn family, and between the sisters Anne and Mary. History is molded by the writer to maintain more of a Hollywood soap opera that a recreation of fact and it all ends with beheadings and the child Elizabeth running gaily through sunny old meadows of England.
  
  The actors all try to make us buy into this version of betrayal and lust and loathing, but the dialog (written by Peter Morgan) is tired and used and anything but in keeping with the period. But then, the movie is a collection of scenes that are very pretty to watch... Justin Chadwick directs. Grady Harp, March 08
  
  
  
  

• "I am Henry the eighth I am, Henry the eighth I am, I am"*

  
  By A37PV5GMP2ILJC on 2008-04-29
  Seeing that this movie is from a novel based on historical events, the general gist of the story may not be unfamiliar to most, although the accuracy of some of the content may be debatable.
  
  
  Short Attention Span Summary (SASS):
  
  1. Henry VIII (Eric Bana) was a handsome, hunky, hunka hunka burnin' love
  2. Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) and her sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) were babelicious babes
  3. Married Henry didn't have an heir, so he wanted to pick up a spare
  4. Sir Thomas Boleyn had tons of ambition and a couple of daughters to spare
  5. Henry picks up the wrong one, who might have turned out to be the right one, if not for ....
  6. ... the other Boleyn girl
  7. Abstinence can make the heart grow fonder but befuddles the brain
  8. The lady may have been in waiting, but the King wasn't
  9. By George! I think she's done it
  10. Off with her head!
  
  
  Warning to students: Quoting the above in History class may be detrimental to your grades.
  
  
  More hysterical drama than historical drama, this movie seems more "Desperate Housewives" than period piece, but there's no denying that the costumes and sets are stunning, and the lead actors and actresses simply amazing, despite the lack of the proper accents.
  
  I'm going to vote for the entertainment factor here.
  
  
  
  Amanda Richards, April 28, 2008
  
  
  (*from the song by Herman's Hermits)
  
  
  

• Waste of time

  
  By A3NH7PYU4AD5GA on 2008-05-11
  Not all recent cinematographic attempts to portray historical British royalty are a success. Actually, as much as I liked the Queen (i.e. Helen), the sequel to Elizabeth with Blanchett was a disappointment, and the other Boleyn girl is plain nonsense. There is no script worth mentioning, just a series of pretty pictures with pretty people. No plot is developed, no interest in the protagonists has a chance to grow.
  Don't waste your time here!
  
  

• The Other Boleyn Girl - Surprising Period Piece About An En Vogue Topic

  
  By A17BUUBOU0598B on 2008-03-08
  
  The Other Boleyn Girl is bound to give historian's mixed feelings, and has elicited a wide range of reactions from audiences. It benefit's from and adds to the interest surrounding King Henry VIII's royal court. Showtime's Tudors miniseries has heightened interest in all things related to English royal history.
  
  Yet the writers have taken enough artistic liberties to raise questions regarding the accuracy of these accounts. This story is based on the historical fiction novel The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory. Despite the artistic liberties taken with the story it is very well put together and interesting to watch for those willing to broaden their historical views on the period.
  
  The Story and the Acting
  
  The story of King Henry VIII's many romantic exploits are well known. He married Catherine of Aragon for political gain, yet engaged in many well publicized affairs. Eventually, each of the Boleyn sisters landed in his crosshairs.
  
  Eric Bana is very good as the king, though his isn't the best written role in the film. Anne Boleyn's character is dynamic and vindictive, and Natalie Portman shows her range here. Her sister Mary, played by Scarlett Johansson, catches the King's attention. Though she is newly married, her husband is disposed of and the King has soon added her to his list of conquests.
  
  But Anna will not be outdone. She coyly preys upon the King's desires, and soon becomes the object of his affections.
  
  All three of these actors put in strong performances. Johansson's role is understated and Bana's is exaggerated. Only Portman has a character with full range, both manipulative and vulnerable.
  
  Jim Sturgess, whose star seems to be rising, has a somewhat understated role as the brother, George Boleyn. His role is ultimately manipulated by the powers that by to undermine Anne when her perceived value falls. He is perhaps the most under-utilized actor here, with few lines and a role not in keeping with the importance he played in history. Yet with his lead role in 21 to add to this one, he is clearly not hurting for work.
  
  Yet the sets and the costumes are also characters here, as in any period piece. The castle is made shadowy with expert lighting. The costumes and the makeup are also beautifully done, though I can't comment on just how historically accurate they are. Yes, we can expect Academy Award nominations in many categories, including costumes, set design, art direction and cinematography.
  
  The DVD Extras
  
  While the DVD version of this includes the standard commentary track to accompany the film, it is the other extras that really add dimensions to the story. There are bios and back-stories of principal characters which were close in production value and content to something one might watch on The History Channel. Including the standard author, cast and crew sound-bites, there were also interviews of historians to put the story in context.
  
  Warnings and Considerations
  
  At the close of the picture, after the inevitable historical event which everyone familiar with the story will be expecting, there is a somewhat strange montage of all the characters which includes brief captions explaining their fates and the historical significance of the events they took part in. The notes are hard to read, somewhat prosaic and are definitely subjective. Yet they do seem to convey a message which I conclude was intentional: that the somewhat petty sexual and interpersonal exploits of this group of people had tremendous historical consequences for the UK, Europe and the world. This is very subjective, yet it partly justifies what is otherwise a very convenient and abrupt technique to end the movie and tie up all the story lines neatly.
  
  This is definitely a version that is not for kids. The story deviates in sometimes shocking ways, with the sex turning violent in at least one scene.
  
  Some of the actors do suffer from a loss of their accents in some scenes, yet the in-the-moment performances make that easy to ignore.
  
  Conclusion
  
  If you're a fan of period pieces and all things English royalty, this movie is already on your list. It's worth the price of admission.
  
  Enjoy!
  
  
  

• Even worse than the book, if that is possible

  
  By A3VQYLN15L8BFI on 2008-07-18
  First off, let me say I am not a fan of Philippa Gregory, mainly due to her blatant disregard for history (although she claims to do extensive research for her novels, she uses no primary sources (first rule of historical research = use primary sources) and her secondary sources (which from reading the book, she appears to have only skimmed over) are often outdated or don't stand up to the test of time). I watched the movie mainly to see the costumes (I'm a Tudor period fanatic) and to see if it would be better or worse than the book.
  
  The Tudor period is a fascinating time, and it doesn't need to be changed or altered in order to make it more interesting. There's plenty of love, sex, betrayal, political scheming, etc. so I'm not sure why PG felt the need to completely alter the story so much.
  
  I won't go into all of the historical inaccuracies here, if I did, I would be here all night. Besides, there are many other amazon reviewers who are better-spoken than me and have far more knowledge of the Tudor period than I do (I'm only a student), and they have written some wonderful reviews pointing out errors (head on over to the TOBG book page, or check out forums on IMDB).
  
  My main problem with this movie was that it seemed much more like a TV Movie (Lifetime channel anybody?) than a Hollywood film with well-known, highly-paid actors and actresses. The Henry/Mary relationship was almost non-existent, they have a few sex scenes, but nothing to show that they might have actually cared for one another. Henry and Mary have TWO very short conversations before they sleep together. And this is supposed to be our heroine, who has fallen in love? This is preposterous even to romance novel readers. There is no character development or relationship development between the beginning of Henry and Mary's affair and Mary conceiving. So when Anne comes back and "steals" Henry away from Mary while she is pregnant, do we really feel that bad for Mary? Not really, since we haven't seen anything to show us that Mary is in love (at least in the novel there was an actual emotional relationship, one-dimensional as it was).
  
  The one main thing that *really* put me off of this film was the rape scene with Henry and Anne. Henry certainly was not a wonderful guy, history has clearly shown us this, but is this scene necessary? As far as history goes, Anne held off Henry for many years, so a rape is very unlikely (not to mention she wasn't pregnant when she and Henry married secretly (winter 1532, second ceremony in London January 1533, Elizabeth born Sept 1533)). I'm not really sure if this scene is here to show us that "you'll get what's coming to you" if you act like a shrew, or if it's supposed to make us feel a hint of sympathy for Anne. Yes Henry and Anne's relationship (obviously) fell apart, but it fell apart over a period of years, not months. *SPOILER ALERT* Also, the ending with Mary storming into the castle and grabbing Elizabeth from her caretakers and walking out with her seems pretty preposterous. Henry had gotten rid of Anne, but he still did show regard for his children and made sure they were properly raised. Snatching Elizabeth, especially after the king has warned you he will not tolerate you, your pleas to him, or your family anymore, seems like asking for some major punishment to me. *END SPOILER*
  
  Strangely enough, considering that Ms. Gregory considers herself a "feminist author," the only characters remotely resembling anything feminist was the Boleyn mother, Elizabeth, who encourages her daughters to be well-educated and shows her objection to the Boleyn-Howard males pimping out their daughters for political gain (gains which usually fell to the males), and Katherine of Aragon, who acts honorably and respectably at all times. I don't think these are the characters we are meant to admire, but Anne is made out to be a self-serving, conniving shrew and Mary is too meek and mousy to be likeable.
  
  One major (non-historical) error: Mary is married to William Carey, but midway through the film William Stafford asks her to marry him and leave court with him. Um, what happened to Mary's husband (He died of the sweating sickness, but the film never shows this)?
  
  I was hoping for some great costumes from this film, and I was very disappointed. The fabrics were very modern (some of them looked like 1970s curtains) and seemed very out of place. Natalie Portman basically wore the same version of a dress, just in different colored fabrics, through the majority of the film (same for Scarlett). Tudor fashion is amazing; the costume designers could have shown so much more variety with the costumes. The accents of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson were incredibly bad. Portman's accent seems to have gotten worse from when she did V for Vendetta. Also, at times certain scenes were so dark that I had to readjust the settings on my screen (which I've never had a problem with).
  
  The one positive thing about the film is that they chose to leave out the incest plot-line that was very strongly suggested in the book.
  
  
  
• Fans of the book will be majorly disappointed
  By A3KEZLJ59C1JVH on 2008-03-02
  As a standalone movie, "The Other Boleyn Girl" is okay....not great, but okay. However, as someone who is a die-hard fan of Philippa Gregory's novel, I wasn't at all impressed with this film adaptation.
  
  The problem with this movie is that the script sucks, pure and simple. Obviously, the basic plot is the same as the book: The young Mary Boleyn (Scarlett Johansson) is commissioned by her ambitious family to cast her husband aside and become the mistress of King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) while her older sister, Anne (Natalie Portman), jealously looks on. Eventually Henry's eyes drift over to Anne, who replaces Mary as the favorite and embarks on a dangerous plan to replace Queen Katherine (Ana Torrent) on the throne of England.
  
  Unfortunately, this movie doesn't capture the energy and passion of Gregory's brilliant novel. The pacing is tediously slow, and so many details of the plot were changed for the film, for no apparent reason at all. The Boleyn girls grow up at court, so the way Mary and Henry initially meet was rewritten in the film. Mary had two children by Henry, but only the boy is shown in the movie. Lady Boleyn (Kristin Scott Thomas) was reinvented for the screen and is portrayed as a woman who actually gives a crap about her children, but in the book she supports the use of her daughters as pawns in the family's quest for power. I didn't understand what happened to Mary's first husband in the movie...he just sort of wanders off-screen 15 minutes into the film and is never seen or heard from again. (In the book, he dies from the sweat, which is why Mary is later free to marry William Stafford.) What else? I was disappointed in the way the incest issue was handled in the film. I guess the producers assumed that it was too taboo of a topic for the movie, because they totally changed the way it was handled. Oh yes, and King Henry never raped Anne Boleyn in the novel, and he certainly didn't tire of her before he married her! That was so ridiculous.
  
  There are many more discrepancies between the book and the film that I don't even have time to list, and they completely ruined what could have been an excellent film. Another thing that bothered me is the way the pacing constantly shifted. At times things moved very slowly, but then the plot jolted forward at lightning speed, especially toward the end of the film. Major historical events were glossed over and only mentioned in a sentence or two of dialogue, such as Katherine's banishment and the establishment of the Church of England. If you blink while watching this movie, you'll definitely miss something important.
  
  This movie had all the makings of a hit. Visually, it's absolutely stunning. I especially loved all the brilliant costumes. Also, the performances by the actors were phenomenal. I was particularly enchanted by Portman's portrayal of Anne, which was completely on the mark. However, all of the actors were limited by a terrible script. It's such a shame.
  
  I am so incredibly bummed about how crappy this film turned out to be. Do yourself a favor and read the book BEFORE you see the movie so you know what you're missing (that is, if you even want to bother with the movie at all).
  
  
• "Since when has ambition become a virtue rather than a vice?"
  By A3AVJCB1ZD6ZY5 on 2008-03-01
  King Henry VIII's (Eric Bana) growing tired of first wife, the Spanish Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent) since she cannot bear him a son. The Duke of Norfolk (Morrissey) and Sir Thomas Boleyn (Rylance) offer young Anne Boleyn (Portman) a 'commission'. If she becomes the King's mistress, she will both advance the family's interests and secure a ducal marriage for herself.
  
  Anne's mother objects with the review's tagline and more, but Anne's intrigued. Unfortunately, the men's advice on a hunt to 'ride strong' gets the King injured and ill-disposed to Anne, who showed herself a better rider than he. When just-wed Mary (Scarlett Johansson) is sent to tend the King, he fancies her instead and sends for her to court.
  
  Soon, Mary's husband is disposed of, and King and younger Boleyn girl are having a torrid affair. When Mary lies in with Henry's child, the balance switches. Anne is brought in "only to keep the King's interest on Mary."
  
  The following film details Henry's subsequent 'beguilement' by the older Boleyn sister, and Anne's rise and fall. While the historical accuracy isn't there, it's an interesting tale.
  
  Eric Bana would not have been my choice for Young Henry Tudor. While he's handsome enough, he doesn't look the part. Scarlett Johansson was the performer who I thought luminous in this tale of court intrigue.
  
  I suspect this film will get the nod at the 2008 Oscars for Costuming. The garb was gorgeous and beautifully detailed. The film's a treat just for Ren Faire junkies just to see what everyone's wearing.
  
  "The Other Boleyn Girl" is based on the historical fiction of the same title by Philippa Gregory.
  
  
• I wanted to smash my face with a rock
  By A3HBNOC6ANFNSK on 2008-06-10
  Or better yet, smash the director's face. This movie was painful. Natatlie Portman was awful, the characters flat and lifeless, and even the movie's title makes me want to drift off to sleep. There is no reason to see this movie. Avoid it like a sledgehammer to the shins.
  
  
• History is Interesting Enough - You Don't Have to Change and Distort It
  By A1FS88P0VN7RXA on 2008-06-12
  This movie is one of the most God-awful portrayals of Tudor history I have ever seen. It even beats out "The Tudors" in it's inaccuracies and outright fictionalizations.
  
  They completely miss the mark on the time-line, the ages of the characters; they skim over important events, they portray main characters falsely - in short, they totally screw up this movie. If you are going to do an historical film, you should make it as true to history as possible.
  
  The historical truth of Henry VIII, Anne and Mary is much more compelling and fascinating than this tripe. If you want to see a more factual adaptation, watch "Anne of a Thousand Days".
  
  The ONLY good things I can say about this movie are the costuming is gorgeous and the acting is well done.
  
  
• The Other Anne Boleyn movie
  By A22YLBD5GTHWP8 on 2008-03-23
  This movie is terrible. The soundtrack music and the ending are the better parts of this farce. The same dialogue spoken in "Henry VIII" (starring Ray Winstone as Henry VIII) by Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Anne Boleyn was also used by Natalie. Helen is by far the BETTER actress. As a matter of fact, other british actress that played Anne Boleyn in the past are better so there is no comparison. Natalie makes this Anne Boleyn so weak and bitchy and a crybabay that is not funny to watch. She has made a fool of herself by acting in this film. Just because she is Academy Award nominated actress does it now mean that she gets top billing and thinks that she can pull off a british role? HA! Gwyneth Paltrow and Rene Zellweger can do that, but not Natalie.
  
  
• The Other Boleyn Girl Movie Review
  By A2MYUI8IT6UBUU on 2008-02-29
  Despicable people doing contemptible things have never equaled solid entertainment. The Other Boleyn Girl is not without its highlights - those being negligible and spread out amongst poorly-paced, drawn-out bits of heavily censored romance. Natalie Portman delivers a worthwhile performance as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, but the rest of the too-beautiful cast doesn't ever seem to authentically fit in to their lavish period piece costumes. Undoubtedly after viewing The Other Boleyn Girl, the audience will probably only want to research what truly happened.
  
  When the Queen of England, Katherine of Eragon (Ana Torrent) is unable to produce a male heir for impatient King Henry Tudor (Eric Bana), he becomes besotted by Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman), who is intentionally placed before him to allow her weak father Thomas and her conniving uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, to remain in good favor with royalty.
  
  During the King's visit, Anne's competitive personality finds Henry becoming injured, and being taken care of by her sister, Mary Boleyn (Scarlett Johansson). The greedy King soon falls for the dewy-eyed sister, and she is whisked back to the court for his pleasure. Not long after, Mary is pregnant, and Anne Boleyn secretly gets married to nobleman Henry Percy. Anne is banished when the Duke of Norfolk discovers her spontaneous and unplanned marriage, but within a mere two months is brought back to keep the King occupied while Mary is bedridden.
  
  Anne soon finds herself infatuated with potential power and control over the King, and manages to have Mary sent back to the countryside and Katherine of Aragon banished for false infidelities. Henry eventually breaks away from the Catholic Church when he arranges an annulment with his wife and marries Anne. Despite her promises, she is unable to produce a male heir for Henry, and he begins to regret his decisions over Katherine and his country, which leads to...well, the rest as they say, is history.
  
  The Other Boleyn Girl is not entirely a history lesson, but it certainly is about as much fun. Which is to say that the beginning plods along with ruthless details on trivial things, and the love triangle that forms is predictable and blasé. Perhaps the most unappealing factor with this film is its dislikeable characters. Mary is initially at fault for dispensing misery to her sister, causing her to be banished; after this, she never really feels like a leading force of good, but is sadly the only character the film steers the audience into rooting for. After Anne becomes jealous of her sister's success with the King, she is immediately an antagonist, wheeling and dealing to increase her power and remove her competition. The King himself is portrayed as an uncontrollably lustful and self-absorbed despot who thinks of himself before his kingdom, and presiding over all of these miserly characters is the Duke of Norfolk, who pulls the strings of his brother Thomas and plays with the lives and romances of Anne and Mary.
  
  With the leads dressed in luxuriant costumes (Portman looks like Queen Amidala from Star Wars) and being traded like cattle, The Other Boleyn Girl goes to great lengths to show off beautiful people frolicking about in medieval fetes. Outside of Portman, who does a sensational job in a poorly penned role, the remaining cast feels horribly misplaced, like wolves in sheep's clothing. By the conclusion, which perhaps unintentionally perfectly sets up for the film Elizabeth, all we really want to do is read about actual facts, and clear our minds of this heavily flourished film.
  
  - Mike Massie
  
  
  
• 4 Stars for the film, 5 for the DVD
  By ACEA95FQS1AVP on 2008-06-12
  After seeing this in the theatre, I was ready to give it 5 stars. I love period movies, especially about the Tudors, and I really enjoyed this one. However, after watching the deleted scenes on the DVD, I realized this movie should have been much better!
  
  When I ordered the DVD, I had already resigned myself to little or no features. Elizabeth, and Elizabeth: The Golden Age were sorely lacking. Most period movies have few extras, despite having such a treasure trove of history to mine. However, I was surprised and delighted with the excellent selection of special features on this DVD! First, there are several deleted scenes, many of which should have been included in the film. For the most part, they centered around Mary and gave more insight into her life with her husband after Anne supplants her, plus some calculating scenes with Anne. One scene with Mary's husband upon seeing her "bastard" child of Henry was quite poignant. All of these would have enriched the movie to be more than just two women in rivalry for a king. It could have been 5 stars and would no doubt have pleased more people who saw the film. Also included in the extras was a feature called "To Be Lady" about court etiquette and the precarious life of a woman, even noble, in those times. It featured interviews with the author, some college history professors, and the cast/crew of the film. Women were often exploited in that time to the benefit (or detriment) of their families. And Mary and Anne were no exception. Another excellent feature was about translating history to film. They discussed the book vís á vís the movie, what they used of history, how the expanded on Mary's lesser known character. I have not read the book this film is based on, and didn't feel any urge to do so after seeing the movie. However, these two features and the interview with the author and cast have piqued my interest in the novel. I definitely intend to read it now.
  
  Many DVDs throw in biographies of the characters just to have another extra to list. They are usually nothing more than frozen screen shots a viewer clicks through. But, this DVD included bios of 5 principal characters which included interviews from the author, historians, the cast and crew, coupled with footage from the movie. They were like mini-bios from A&E. Very well done, and I would recommend first time viewers of the movie watch before the film as they really help to keep the characters straight (such as Mary's two husbands, William Carey and William Stafford who look enough alike with the same name that I sometimes confused them). The DVD also includes a commentary, which I didn't listen too because I find them very boring. Overall, a fantastic set of features on a single disc edition.
  
  As to the film, I thought the costumes and sets were phenomenal, the story was very good and the casting spot on. The cinematography is expertly done, and helps set the tone and tell the story as much as the script. Some viewers have complained that Natalie Portman wasn't good as Anne Boleyn. I've read a lot of history books and historical fiction on Anne and I thought she played the part true to the person (if not the book, which I can't comment on). Anne Boleyn wasn't a raving beauty, she was striking. Her major appeal came from denying Henry and being intelligent, ambitious, manipulative - in short, a match for him in many ways. She intrigued him. Portman brought all these qualities to light in her portrayal. Scarlett Johansson actually exceeded my expectations. I have only seen her in a couple movies, and the parts didn't require much effort. However, I thought she embodied the somewhat naïve and soft Mary, who is quickly disillusioned about the real world, and even her family. The two women played against each other beautifully. In one of the features, the director mentions how in the book it is often not clear which of them is "the other" Boleyn girl and that he uses this in the film. He does, and it works to great effect.
  
  Eric Bana as Henry is perhaps the weakest casting choice, but he wasn't bad by any stretch. History bears out that Henry was young, handsome, charming and athletic until injured falling from a horse so Bana fit that fine. Bana is best as the temperamental king who is at once attracted and disgusted by Anne's manipulation, and drawn to Mary's docile nature. His interactions with other characters didn't really stand out, but the movie was focused on the women so this was fine. Two other stand outs were Anna Torrent as Queen Katherine of Aragon and David Morrissey as the Duke of Norfolk. Though her role was small, Torrent's Katherine made a big impact. She commanded every scene she was in. She was at once regal, and pitiable, as the victim of her husband's desperation for a male heir. Morrissey played a consummate politician - calculating, controlling and just a bit sleazy. Without him, it would be difficult to sympathize with either Anne or her family. His ruthless game of chess, in which they are pawns was vital to the film. Yes, liberties are taken with historical fact, but some license must be given to film as its own art form just as for a historical fiction. Not much is known about Mary Boleyn, but this film certainly stirs the imagination of what she may have been like.
  
  Overall, I highly recommend this DVD!
  
  
• Hollywood run amok again
  By A21S556MEX2TP3 on 2008-06-21
  If you have read the Philippa Gregory novel, watched "The Tudors" on Showtime, or know anything about Anne Boleyn, you will be throwing bricks at the screen within five minutes. Philippa Gregory tries to "fill in the gaps" in her novels, but essentially doesn't mess around with history. Hollywood, for some reason unbeknownst to me, cheerfully rewrites history to suit its own ideas of character development or conflict. Please. When you are dealing with one of the most compelling chapters in all history, you don't have to rewrite it!
  
  I was really looking forward to seeing this film. I couldn't have been more disappointed. The acting was lackluster, the direction disjointed, and the pacing erratic. Please, Hollywood, if you can't do it right, leave it to A&E or someone else who will actually tell the story right.
  
  
• Glad I Only Rented It!
  By A2GR4MU0DZ133O on 2008-06-29
  I can't remember the last time a movie made me want to bang my head against a wall. That's what I felt like doing when I got to the ending of this movie, perhaps the most absurd ending I've ever seen. It's a real shame. I've been reading everything I can about the Tudors (Anne especially) for about 10 years and of course, I read the book. While the book is very inaccurate and is pretty unfair to Anne, it's an overall enjoyable read. Despite the heavy material the book covered, there was still a light, fluffy, romantic feeling to it. The movie was shot dark and dreary, losing a great deal of the entertainment value of the book. There was ZERO character and romantic development in this film. The actors couldn't seem to decide whether or not to do English accents. The production felt comparable to a TV movie. I think the only thing anyone really worked on for this film was the costume design. I've seen lots of period pieces but these costumes were absolutely stunning. But the whole movie felt like it was slapped together. It just jumped from time period to time period leaving out major events and people. (WHERE'S WOLSEY???!!) It was even more inaccurate than the book. It was almost like the screenwriters just decided to rewrite history. Let me put it this way....I was actually thinking that Anne was going to survive and live happily ever after with Henry.
  
  
• Amazing 15th Century Movie
  By on 2008-03-01
  Before seeing the movie, I recommend you read the book. The movie is great, but lacking a lot of important information that was mentioned in the book. One is, Mary Boleyn's(one of the main characters)first husband dies of illness, they barely mention him in the movie. And Mary has two of the king's children, not one like in the movie. Overall though, the movie is good, but the story line could be stronger, and they could include more of the parts that made the book such a hit. Though there is little I would change. The casting is perfect and the actors shine through out their entire performance(I won't be surprised if the movie is nominated for a few academy awards). There is simply something in this movie that makes it separate from all the other films about Kings and Queens.The Other Boleyn Girl (Movie Tie-In)
  
  
• An editor's nightmare in "The Other Boleyn Girl"
  By A3RWR50VUII07D on 2008-03-10
  Anne and Mary Boleyn came from a prominent English family where rise in rank was put above everything-even the sacrificing of the two sisters in order to advance.This is the heart of the story of the fictional melodrama "The Other Boleyn Girl" based from the passionate novel of Phillipa Gregory.Which sister will win the affections of King Henry 8 and secure him a son and nobility for the family?
  
  The story is great and uniformly all of the performances are believable,with the exception of English accents all over the bloody map from American,Australian and English actors! Natalie Portman outshines the entire cast as Anne Boleyn,for her role has the greatest range of emotion in a really chopped up screenplay...or was it the editing? Scarlett Johannsson plays the doe-eyed Mary,innocent as the driven snow, and uses her fat pouting lips to their fullest poutiness.Eric Bana, as the King,is reduced to nothing more than a careless brute.Now granted, we all know that Henry was desperate for an heir, but this film does nothing to show any humanity in the man.
  The chief problem,as I see it, is the way in which "The Other Boleyn Girl" is put together,that being poorly.Not since Love in the Time of Cholera have I seen such a bad adaptation of a book and a worse editing job.The movie is a total hatchet job and if you want to spend your time and history knowledge filling in the blanks, be my guest.Scenes shift so rapidly with no explanation that either this film was rushed into production,the director had no sense of story, the screenplay was terrible to begin with,OR post production tore it apart.For a film of this potential to bomb so badly is a travesty and a waste of our hard earned money.
  
  
• Kept me glued to the screen.
  By A3FY3H6F4249E0 on 2008-03-17
  I saw this one in the theater. It seems to be getting some mediocre reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Obviously, there is some historical fact. As most of us know, Ann lost her head over love. How much of the rest is accurate? I have no idea. This is a story about the Boleyn family, King Henry VIII, and surrounding people. It is not about war or anything else. It includes: deception, lies, and the goals of achieving power and wealth by using people. There are also 3 violent scenes that I had to hide my face from (but I am a wee bit sensitive). Still, I very much enjoyed the movie and thought the parts were well played. I heard someone call it a "chick-flick," but I did not see that as accurate. Natalie Portman (from one of the Star Wars movies, as Luke & Leia's mother--and other movies) did a great job as Ann Boleyn.
  
  The story begins with the 3 Boleyn children playing on the grounds of the family's huge English estate, while the father plots of whom he might marry his daughter(s) off to, to secure wealth or power. Next thing you know, the children are all grown up. Ann is the eldest. She has a sister, Mary and a brother. Ann is a pretty girl. She is also very independent and with a fiery disposition. Mary is more plain in appearance, a simple quiet soul. Mary marries a simple young man and they hope to live a quiet life in a small village somewhere. Mary and her husband have no interest in the English Court. Then things change.
  
  The Duke of Norfolk, in the best interests of King Henry VIII of England, decides to help the king out. The Duke is also uncle to the Boleyn children. The Queen has born a daughter and had still-borns trying to bear the king a son. The king and queen are barely speaking at this point, so the well-meaning Duke decides the king needs a girlfriend, who could maybe bear him a son while she's at it. The Uncle and the Boleyn father try to set up the king with Ann, promising her that when the King is done with her, she will be set up with a nice Duke or Earl (maybe the Duke of Earl :-) Then the Boleyn family would be set for life. (Those English estates were often inherited and cost money to maintain.)
  
  Well, as luck would have it, Ann is all ready to enjoy the pleasures of the King's generosity, when the King does a flip and takes an interest in Mary, because of her good nature, honest, kindness, etc. (and Mary is pretty too--just more plain than Ann.) This causes a bit of tension between the girls as the whole Boleyn family moves to Court to, again, enjoy the generosity of the King.
  
  I don't want to tell you any more because then you will know everything I know. Most of you already know what happens to Ann and that is where the movie ends, but I found all the stuff in between pretty interesting. I wanted to get up from my seat for a couple of minutes but could not walk away. By the way, Queen Elizabeth was the daughter of Ann and Henry.
  
  How about the Boleyn father. Nice guy, huh? "Take my daughter and just set me up financially."
  
  Just a side note, but I would not recommend this for your children. Children sometimes see things that invoke fear, project the fears onto people they know, and have fear, nightmares and bad feelings for years.
  
  
• Ye Olde Floppe
  By A3W13VVBRY5GL7 on 2008-03-21
  "The Other Boleyn Girl" charts the story of the fortunes of Mary Boleyn (Johansson) - Anne's (Portman) less famous younger sister - in her earlier bid for the affections of King Henry VIII (Bana). It also covers the major points of Anne's relationship with the avaricious monarch, as he divorces himself both from his barren-yet-faithful wife Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent), and the Roman Catholic Church.
  
  Good points first: the cinematography and production design in "The Other Boleyn Girl" are stupendous. There's a real sense of reserve and quietly simmering passion in the hazy lighting and dream-like camerawork, and the sets and costumes are duly lush and incredibly detailed. Visually, Scarlett Johansson is a great choice to play the innocent, buxom Mary Boleyn, and there are several moments where "The Other Boleyn Girl" looks like a moving painting, reminiscent of Vermeer or Holbein.
  
  Unfortunately, almost every other element of "The Other Boleyn Girl" is below-par, not least of which is a truly awful script. It's a kind of mishmash of faux-Tudor dialogue peppered with contemporary phrases so the audience can follow the story - but sadly, it's overdone and cheesy. And the movie's truncated running time means that major events of the film - such as Henry's discarding Mary for Anne or his divorce from Katherine of Aragon (a major event in European history) - are given the briefest of scenes depicting them, before the too-thin script takes off to cover yet more ground. There's no real sense of drama or danger anywhere in the movie.
  
  And it's because of this poor scripting that Eric Bana doesn't get much to do: I'm still not sure that he was in love with either Mary or Anne Boleyn, such is Bana's one-dimensional and expressionless reading of one of History's most vibrant kings. Portman as Anne is alright, but she doesn't really capture the intensity or the ambition of this most forward-thinking of women in history - nor does she touch on the dangers of Anne's situation when her marriage to Henry begins to fail. And Scarlett Johansson comes off as a bored simpleton. Other cast notables include Kristin Scott-Thomas as the Boleyn Matriarch (yawn, she's not around for much of the movie), Mark Rylance as Daddy Boleyn (with one expression of less-than-fatherly concern slapped to his face for all of his scenes, this guy gets really boring really quickly) and David Morrissey as their uncle, the Duke of Norfolk (high camp in Tudor tights: this guy's been nominated for two consecutive Razzies - I'm not surprised, and he's not good).
  
  All-in-all "The Other Boleyn Girl" is a one-dimensional romp through some dull acting and poor writing, saved from one-star hell by its beautiful appearance. You'd be better off with a few episodes of season 2 of "The Tudors" - high-camp soap opera that doesn't try to be anything else. "The Other Boleyn Girl", sadly, is too high-falootin' to really recognise its own limitations, and it's in this pretension that the audience, once again, loses out.
  
  Not recommended.
  
  PS: For fans of the book: avoid this one. The book is one of my favourite novels, I've read it many times, and this movie by itself is bad enough - when compared to the book that spawned it, it's just plain rubbish.
  
  
• What's worse than "inaccurate"?
  By A1L5M2BI8080AZ on 2008-06-25
  This movie is something far worse than historically inaccurate. It's just plain BORING. I'm a Tudor junkie from way back, and I nearly fell asleep watching this. A horrible script. At least Showtime's THE TUDORS is riotously good ridiculous fun.
  
  
• Deeply disappointed
  By AQ9IJDF8AKQ1H on 2008-06-29
  I read the book so I just had to see the movie. They only vaguely resemble each other. The book is written from Mary's point of view, but the movie focused mostly on Anne. The plot of the movie (I use the term loosely) jumped around a lot and wouldn't have made sense to me if I hadn't read the book. I spent half my time while watching just filling in the gaps for my husband and daughter. They had not read the book and still felt this movie was a waste of a couple of hours.
  
  
• An enthralling and beautifully done historical romance
  By A1G9FX1KV45N41 on 2008-07-26
  Hungry for political power, Sir Thomas Boleyn ( Mark Rylance)and his brother the Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey), taking adavntage of the fact that Henry VIII's (Eric Bana) Queen Katerine of Aragon ( Ana Torrent)cannot produce a male heir conspire to makeone of Sir Thomas
  Seymour's daughters the mistress of KIng Henry.
  Initially Anne (Natalie Portman) is selcted but after a riding accident he is nursed by Mary (Scarlet Johansen) who he coerces into becoming his mistress.
  Meanwhile Anne marries the nobleman Henry Percy (Oliver Coleman) and refuses to keep this a secret, therefore being exiled to France by her angry uncle and father.
  
  Lady Elizabeth Boleyn (Kristin Scott Thomas) is broken hearted about her children used as pawns in Sir Thomans and Norfolk's power play but is powerless to stop it.
  Anne returns from France at a time when Mary is recovering from a miscarriage and beguiles the king with her beauty, charm and intelligence.
  Though Mary bears the king a son born out of wedlock, Anne has enraptured the king and by withholding her sexual favours, forces his hand in wedding her.
  The divorce of Queen Katherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn, as is well known, resulted in Henry breaking with the Roman Catholic Church and founding the Church of England.
  Anne bears Henry a daughter Elizabeth but the marriage is unhappy and Anne is brutally raped by the King.
  Desperate for a male heir Anne unsuccessfully asks her brother George Seymour (Jim Sturgess) to impregnate her. This is discovered and Anne is accused of adultery and imprisoned. Her sister Mary begs King Henry to spare Anne's life but both George and Anne are executed.
  Mary fulfills her last promise to Anne and takes care of her infant daughter.
  Ultimately one is struck by how for all Anne's machinations both girls are simply porns in a game by powerful men and don't stand a chance.
  The closing scene tells us that though Anne did not produce the male heir desired by the King, she instead was the mother to Elizabeth who would reign for 45 years as one of England's greatest rulers, accompanied by a photographic shot of the little Princess Elizabeth (Maisie Smith), a truly beautiful ending and promise of great things to come out of the tragedy and heartbreak.
  This is a beautifully set period piece with sterling acting and the starring roles by two of the world's most beautiful actresses.
  The costumes and the background set was magnificent.
  It holds the viewers attention throughout and is one of the best historical dramas on film in years.
  There are historical inaccuracies and Anne Boleyn certainly did NOT at any time ask her brother to commit incest, this was in reality a malicious and paranoid accusation by Anne's sister in law Jane Rochford.
  But I have seen very few historical movies that do not take liberties like this.
  
  
  
  
• Good for Natalie Portman fans, otherwise a royal snooze
  By A10G4BPT5MGBHY on 2008-02-29
  This piece of pulp fiction is a mixed bag. It seems to be made for those who like history and love a racy tale, but don't want to see any nudity and don't mind a screenplay that doesn't know where it's going and is in no hurry to get there. Cursed with a story that too often sinks into being just another generic melodrama, the movie has Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson all dressed up with no place, at least on screen, to get naked. Worse, it's not even good eye candy. Though the costumes are lavish (especially on Portman), the film displays them, as well as everything else, in a color palette that's as drab as its story.
  
  When I read the book I was a little bothered by its repetitive story and inaccurate history. The movie is worse on both counts, and in the process also cuts the novel's intriguing glimpse into what life was like back in the 1500s. Its many slow-moving scenes give the gals plenty of chances to comb the lice from their hair, but, unlike in the novel, never once do they do it. The book also certainly didn't pretend that women were anything more than what they were back then -- unimportant and often humiliated, used as pawns by the men of the family. In the movie, however, Anne and Mary's mother makes more than one speech with a modern, feminist take.
  
  Despite all that, I must say that Portman impressed me. She knows how to play someone with a nervous, desperate obsession. Good ol' Queen Amidala is really the only reason I gave this even three stars.
  
  
• Cat-scratch Tudors! History goes to camp.
  By A32XW50ILWOXNO on 2008-03-04
  Perched stupidly between an austere prestige picture and a tempestuous bodice ripper, "The Other Boleyn Girl" is little more than a posturing goof ball that happens to feature a semi-decent turn from Natalie Portman. Why this movie was made, and the purpose of its tone, is beyond me. It almost makes "Marie Antoinette" look restrained.
  
  Based on Phillppa Gregory's novel, which pads the story of Henry VIII and his marriage to Anne Boleyn - as if the split from the Catholic Church and Boleyn's eventual beheading needed it - "The Other Boleyn Girl" introduces us to Anne's moon-faced, guileless sister, Mary (Scarlett Johansson). It's she, not Anne, who's the first pawn in Sir Thomas Boleyn's plan to ensnare Henry (Eric Bana) and cement the family's royal bloodlines. It's Mary who goes to court, bringing Anne in tow. Mary, who drops her sap of a husband to crawl into the king's bed. Mary, who bears the son that Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, couldn't provide.
  
  But Anne only trails until halftime, so to speak, returning from a short exile in France to pour all kinds of sugar on the grim, sad-faced Henry while Mary's bed-ridden, awaiting her child. Anne taunts Mary with this knowledge as payback for Mary's betrayal during Anne's first, "secret" marriage. According to Peter Morgan's screenplay, Anne's hard-to-get routine is more or less the source of the great schism between Henry's England and the Catholic Church. When the king finally "has" Anne, it's in a fit of petulant rage after a scolding from wife Catherine. The movie's final act concerns Anne's rule as queen and her eventual execution.
  
  How accurate is any of this? Who knows. History generally tells us that Mary got around quite a bit more than Anne did in the French courts; a sweet simpleton she was not. Gregory's book acknowledges this; the movie does not. The bigger problem lies in Justin Chadwick's oppressive direction, which throws an odd, dark tint on the visuals and the portentous music over too many scenes. That's a holdover from the movie's Oscar hopes - dashed once it became clear "The Other Boleyn Girl" has all kinds of lapses and absurdities, not the least of which features Mary riding alone on horseback, presumably for days, to save her sister's life, and walking out of the castle with Anne's daughter Elizabeth to ride that same horse back home.
  
  Gregory's novel doesn't exactly have a healthy scorn of Henry's intelligence, but, as Bana plays him, Henry's a chiseled stud with a Dom DeLuise beard and a pea brain. The man was indeed an oaf, but history's shown him to be a brilliant one: A musician, a poet and an accomplished thinker. Henry enjoyed as much power, if not more, than any royal before or since. The movie doesn't reflect it. Bana, a dark-eyed brooder, is the wrong fit for the role.
  
  Portman, however, makes an intriguing Anne. Her looks fit the paintings of the queen to some extent, and the actor manages to suppress that giant, unflattering grin of hers. Portman's never going to be a particularly great actor - charmed lives such as hers rarely produce the needed range - but she's endearing in her own way, and the role of Anne lets her try on manipulation. It suits her, as does the trappings of the time period: Wardrobe, accents, etc. Better than Kirsten Dunst, anyhow.
  
  And, frankly, Johansson, who glides through her scenes with her trademark opacity. We don't find out what makes Mary tick so much we hear the wind blowing through her ears. Although Mary smartens up by the end of the picture, she always seems a little slow on the uptake, and Johansson's bewildered, open-mouthed persona transforms virtue into the addled gaze of a milquetoast. It worked five years ago in "Girl With A Pearl Earring;" it's growing a little old now.
  
  
• Read the book or see the mini series, but skip this.
  By A20G957N2TEVQX on 2008-03-29
  Have you ever noticed how Cliff Notes generally do a fair job telling the plot of a story and a poor one handling the characters. Then in the case of character driven pieces they do an even poorer job.
  
  Well watching this movie felt like the director sent an assistant to read the Cliff notes, then got the assistant drunk and then based the story on what the assistant told him
  
  Henry the VIII is not exactly praised in the book, but he's not a rapist.
  
  But Henry is not the only character mutilated in such a fashion. The books rich tapestry of feelings and sublety is shredded in a way that cannot simply be blamed on the change of format from book to movie.
  
  Almost every role is dreadfully miscast, especially William Stafford, who in any responsible adaptation should have been a man of clear ability, not doe-eyed innocence. The all important son is basically ignored and that's just the beginning.
  
  I don't know how the author is responding to this "version" of her work, but as a reader I went in to see a screen version of the Other Boleyn Girl and over two hours later I was still waiting. (Yes, that was a paraphrase of a review of Our Town, but unlike it's original use, this time the work deserves it.)
  
  
  
• Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves...and Their Greedy Families in 16th-Century Tudor England
  By A13E0ARAXI6KJW on 2008-06-11
  When they were publicizing the theatrical release of this film during a fluffy interview with Matt Lauer on "The Today Show", Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman came across as two attractive, sensible young women who admired each other to no end. Ironically, that bonding is exactly what works against the movie, specifically the lack of a sharp edge in their characters' intractable relationship which dilutes how far sibling rivalry can go in shaping fates and destroying lives. Granted there's a palpably pulpish tone to this fanciful 2008 historical fiction based on Phillipa Gregory's 2002 novel, but the royal intrigue in the House of Tudor is overwhelmed by melodramatic flourishes and transparent character development. First-time feature director Justin Chadwick (BBC's Bleak House) has made a handsome film with an attractive trio of stars, but he places most of his focus on the soap opera elements of the book's adaptation by Peter Morgan, a specialist in merging fiction with truth (The Queen, The Last King of Scotland), and lays waste to what could have been a more fully rounded historical drama.
  
  The overstuffed story begins with a cursory portrayal of the Boleyn sisters, headstrong Anne and diffident Mary. Even though Mary is married to wealthy courtier William Carey, the sisters soon find themselves in a competition for the affections of King Henry VIII, thanks to the machinations of their weak-willed father Thomas and their Machiavellian uncle, the Duke of Norfolk. Henry is initially drawn toward Mary's gentle nature, siring an illegitimate son as he is still married to the barren Catherine of Aragon. However, Mary's difficult pregnancy and mandatory bedrest opens an opportunity for Anne, who uses all her cunning wiles to land the King. At the expense of Mary's happiness, Anne succeeds but not before the creation of the Church of England and her own ascension to England's Queen. Meanwhile, Henry evolves from gregarious womanizer to haunted despot, and everyone already knows what becomes of Anne at the end. The film's perspective alternates between the sisters, thus reducing Henry to a convenient plot device. Thanks to the film's broad brush strokes, the challenge for the viewer is to monitor the imbalance between the sisters. For instance, Mary is rather bland in her virtue but her story is affecting, while Anne is comparatively intriguing in her blind ambition but her fate feels less than tragic.
  
  I still think Johansson is the more natural temptress onscreen, but she actually plays Mary and manages to elicit sympathy to her character with surprising ease. However, Portman gets the lion's share of meaty scenes and runs with them, especially a couple of effective face-offs with Henry. As expected, both are alluring in period costume even as their accents waver a bit. As Henry, Eric Bana seems to have been hired for his brooding persona and beefcake appeal, while the character's lightning-fast transitions make Henry an elliptical figure at best in Morgan's truncated script. Kristin Scott Thomas again brings her innate chilliness to the abbreviated role of Boleyn's mother, while there are mildly interesting turns by Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe) as devoted brother George, Mark Rylance as Thomas, and David Morrissey (Sharon Stone's befuddled paramour in the execrable Basic Instinct 2) as the Duke of Norfolk. Spanish actress Ana Torrent brings conviction to her few scenes as Catherine of Aragon. Sandy Powell, no stranger to the period (Shakespeare in Love), designed the exquisite costumes, while John Paul Kelly's sumptuous production design feels authentic. Kieran McGuigan's richly colorful cinematography is undermined by his recurring tendency to use a side-swipe effect to transition shots. Production details aside, the film remains stubbornly hollow at its core.
  
  Starting with Chadwick's zealous albeit sometimes overly technical commentary track, the 2008 DVD has a robust set of extras. Thumbnail sketches of the film's historical figures are provided in brief video snippets with insight provided by scholars and various members of the cast. Two featurettes are also included - a ten-minute short, "To Be a Lady", which discusses the severely limited role of women in the 16th century, a theme addressed pretty well in the film; and another ten-minute short, "Translating History to Screen", which prominently features Gregory and focuses on how a voluminous bodice-ripper of a book had to be pared down to a running time of 115 minutes. Separately, there are twelve scenes presented, mostly expanded versions of the ones that ended up in the film and none I would consider indispensable to the final cut. Rounding out the extras is a brief reel of a test used to calibrate the HD cameras used during the shoot, as well as eight previews of other films.
  
  
• boring
  By A24IP941G32CWG on 2008-06-13
  The only positive thing to say about this bad movie is that the costumes are
  well done. The script is terrible, the acting is wooden, the interiors dark with lots of fireplaces. Eric Bana is not lustful, and there is no sex to speak of. There is no comparison with the lively sexy fast-moving Tudors on cable television.
  
  
• Don't waste your time.
  By A3CMSOVOZV9Z6D on 2008-06-21
  This movie was TERRIBLE!!! I completely understand that it was historical fiction, and that is not what bothered me- my issue is that it was supposed to be based on the novel by Phillipa Gregory. I read the book just before seeing this movie and I do not think the two are connected AT ALL!!! I loved the book, but the movie was atrocious. I think the biggest issue was that they tried to turn a 660+ page book into a 2 hour movie- that just does not work. They skipped over too many important details (like that in the book Mary has 3 children by the King, and that Anne miscarries 3), and they changed too many more (in the book Anne and George do sleep together, and Anne conceives by George but miscarries the monstrocity that results). All-in-all, terrible script, terrible acting.. the only redeeming quality of this film is the constumes. Don't even waste your time- read the book instead, or watch The Tudors.
  
  
• Don't Always Believe Reviews
  By A1V1AKYM2KX1OC on 2008-07-06
  I avoided this movie when it was playing in theaters, since the reviews from established critics portrayed it as an empty, boring waste of film. I rented it from our local video store only because it was one of the few blu-ray titles still on the shelf, and because I wanted to see the great costume and set designs in hi-def. In fact, I was mesmerised by this movie from first frame to last. Everything about it--plot, character development, cinematography and music--was top-drawer. Easily, I would have nominated this film as a top contender for Best Film of the Year.
  
  Particularly noteworthy were the characters, in both a lead and supporting role. Although a movie's limited time space cannot create well-rounded development, each of these characters came across as strong and unique; clearly each had his or her agenda, mixing fear, betrayal, rage and ambition as they interacted with one another and the circumstances they found themeselves in. Of course, this could not have been possible without great acting and plot development, and so credit has to be given to the writing and casting crew. In the fifty years that I've been studying film seriously, I can't remember the last movie that had such strong characterization.
  
  So why is my review so much higher than most others? Honestly, I think it's because today's movie audience wouldn't know a good film if it bit them where the sun doesn't shine. Our society pushes people to go faster and faster to go exactly nowhere. We want action to blast our senses five seconds after we sit in our seat, and as such have no patience to allow quality movies to develop. You may note that the movie industry no longer makes classic films such as 'Lawrence of Arabia', 'Doctor Zhivago' or 'Ben-Hur'.
  
  If you're one of those rare individuals who appreciates great drama, this is the movie for you. On the other hand, if you have the attention span of a house fly, with half the intellect, you might be better off drooling over '30 Days of Night'.
  
  
• Bad but beautiful
  By A3NLJZI5NEOT0K on 2008-07-10
  It was with great anticipation that I ordered this DVD because the medieval/Tudor era is my favorite in history, and I enjoyed the book upon which it is based. But OMG, I don't remember when I saw a less appealing movie. Let's start with the pluses. (There actually are a few.) Visually, watching TOBG is a feast. Stunning costumes, authentic settings. With respect to performance, Ana Torrent was superb as Katherine of Aragon, outraged but dignified. Thus the 2 star rating.
  
  Now for the problems. The screenplay deserves a special Oscar for "worst ever based upon best selling novel." History be damned, let's turn this amazing, tragic epic into a travesty of lust and corruption, telescoping 8 long years of struggle into a choppy series of racy vignettes. Some of the dialogue is absurd. Mary's relationship with Henry occurred years before Anne's. There is no evidence that Henry ever raped Anne, or that she attempted to seduce her own brother. There is no evidence of much of what is portrayed in this version.
  
  Had to turn it off after suffering through an hour and a half. Do yourself a favor, and don't even bother with this turkey.
  
  
  
  
• Very Dissapointing
  By A2MVY05Q2EWZI7 on 2008-07-20
  This movie was absolutely horrible. It was also a very big letdown after waiting for it to come out and then watch. Where was Wolsey in this? He played such an integral part in the lives of Henry VIII and Anne. I think they mentioned his name once. The movie was choppy and did not flow at all. It seemed as if the script was the result of the good idea fairy gone bad. Too much cognac at a cigar bar is not what makes good script. If you want a much better movie see Anne of a Thousand Days with Richard Burton and Genevive Bujold.
  
  

• The Bucket List
• Jumper
• Fool's Gold (Widescreen Edition)
• Vantage Point (Single-Disc Edition)
• Definitely, Maybe (Widescreen)