"Henry VIII, Hollywood Style" | 2009-09-24 |
| - Reviewed By User: A39IY0JU5JI69G |
I saw this only about a week after having seen Ann of a Thousand Days so, of course, my mind was busy making comparisons. I'm not a student of English history but from what I've read here, "Ann" was much closer to actuality. It seems to me that if you're going to make a historical drama, tell the real story--otherwise why bother?
As far as casting is concerned, Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold were head and shoulders better than this group, with the exception of Kristin Scott-Thomas, who is always good. Apparently these were chosen for box office appeal. Scarlett Johannsen is a gifted "personality" (don't know if I'd really call her an actress.)
She is physically gorgeous and has a strong screen presence, which suits her very well for some roles. However here she was given the role of the shy, mousy sister--what a waste of glam-power. She played "dumb" a lot, often by looking blank and breathing through her mouth---not attractive.
Natalie Portman is very pretty and she can act a lot better than Scarlett, but neither one of them had the substance that one looks for in a drama of this sort. Let them stick to what they can do. The fellow who played Henry was certainly hunky and handsome which gave credence to the fact that both sisters fell for him so quickly-but he lacked the power and authority that made Burton so convincing in the role.
The script of Ann of a Thousand Days was much more flattering to Ann. She was shown as an innocent for most of the film and Bujold shone bright and clear in that role, which captured the sympathy of the viewer. I wept at the final scene, when she asked the executioner "if it would hurt" and declared that she had "a tiny neck." In this film, Ann was shown to be a calculating, duplicitous girl from the beginning so that I really didn't care what happened to her.
I am not always a stickler for historical accuracy but in this case I think some pretty big liberties were taken with the facts. Having Henry rape Ann was certainly a violation. Also the question of Ann and her brother having sex--did this happen or not? Was he gay? These are not minor issues--they are important to the plot and should have been shown truthfully.
If you really don't care about what really happened, then you can watch this film and enjoy the pretty people and lush costumes. Although those pretty people are prettier in other films. |
| |
"Great film if taken as a work of fiction" | 2009-09-13 |
| - Reviewed By englishspadeslover |
| I was a history major in college and was surprised by this storyline, or more surprised by people who believed it to be true. I haven't read the book but I took the movie as entertainment and a work of fiction and if judged by those standards you will love this beautiful, cunning tale. |
| |
"Excellent Historical Drama. Beautiful Acting And Camera Work All Around." | 2009-08-13 |
| - Reviewed By shakespearefanatic |
| If you're either a history buff or a fan of any actor in this movie, you'll enjoy it. Natalie Portman, Scarlet Johansson and Eric Bana did very good British accents. SPOILER WARNING!!! The scene where Anne is executed is emotionally powerful. SPOILER OVER!!! I just love period movies, so this one was a good bet to watch, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie was unfairly given a PG-13 rating (in my opinion). Shame that the line "We are sisters, and therefore born to be rivals" was deleted from the film. Double shame that Ruby Films, which co-produced this movie, pulled out of financing a film version of "King Lear" that was to star Sir Anthony Hopkins, Kiera Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow and Naomi Watts. Now, all we have to look forward to is Al "Say Hello To My Little Friend" Pacino as Shakespeare's tortured monarch. I highly recommend this wonderful movie. |
| |
"The Boleyn Girls" | 2009-06-23 |
| - Reviewed By edleftwich |
This is a good movie, and I particularly enjoyed the special features that are found on the dvd. However, when I was watching the movie I felt it focused more on Anne Boleyn instead of Mary Boleyn, whose life the movie was supposed to be about.
Also, the movie (even with the deleted scenes found in the Special Features section) seemed to be missing a few critical details that are found within the book. |
| |
"Not a History Lesson" | 2009-06-22 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2CLHQAKLTCTRA |
This movie was a feast for the eyes: great costumes, sets and so on. But the dangerous thing about historical fiction is that, unless one has studied history and has a thorough knowledge of the subject being written about, one can't know where the truth ends and the fiction begins. This isn't the doing of the filmmakers, but of the author. And it IS publicized as historical FICTION and not misrepresented as complete fact, so it's not like the author meant for it to be a reference work.
Having studied Tudor history, I won't bore you with the discrepancies, but if you want a film that is full of historical color and not a history lesson, go for it. All of the actors turned in sublime performances; I saw it twice and really enjoyed it. Just don't believe everything you see! |
| |
"Soap Opera History" | 2009-06-16 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1X054KUYG5V |
The Bottom Line:
A sudsy look at British history starring two Americans and an Aussie, The Other Boleyn Girl isn't out-and-out bad but it's so "dramatic" and hystrionic that few viewers (with the potential exception of middle-aged women) will find themselves sucked into the story and/or caring about the characters.
2/4 |
| |