AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

davidorcutt31 I'm generally a fan of Tudor history and have seen most of what's out there from The Tudors to the White Queen. This was by far one of the absolute best because it dispensed with the grand set designs and overly sweeping costumes which, in others version, completely disguises the fact that the Tudor court was an auction of women. Whether daughter, sister, niece, women were the commodity to be traded for lands, property, and most important of all, titles. Lesser lords traded their women to greater lords in a way to scramble to the top of power. When a queen became pregnant, all the lords began bringing their newest female relatives to court to try to snag him. Same when a queen delivered a girl. They all knew - and they all played - and the women paid.

didi-5 From Philippa Gregory's novel, 'The Other Boleyn Girl' does not pretend to be a historical record but explores some themes and basic facts concerning the Boleyn girls, Mary and Anne, and their relationship with Henry VIII of England.This adaptation has the benefit of strong casting - Natasha McElhone and Jodhi May as the girls, Steven Mackintosh as their brother, Jared Harris as the King, Jack Shepherd and John Woodvine as the scheming elder Boleyns, seeing a chance to get their influence felt through sexual power over the King. This angle is well drawn, showing the girls as pawns in a power game. Smaller parts are equally well cast, including Philip Glenister as Stafford and Ron Cook as Cromwell.Shot in a modern style - Mary and Anne talk to the camera as if in a reality show - this drama is compelling if not necessarily accurate.

MsKris I'm still amazed that they were able to take such fascinating subject matter and turn out such a dull, miscast and disjointed feature. Switching the ages of the two main female characters didn't help, either. On the plus side, it was enjoyable to see Jared Harris apparently channeling his late father for his role of Henry VIII.Skip the movie, read the book.

sydneypatrick Contrary to what the other reviewer here states, this was not meant to be a sweeping vision of history. It was clearly meant as a chamber piece - a chick flick of dark proportions.While this production does not begin to embrace the scope of Anne's criminal nature, or the greater national ramifications that became of her union with Henry VIII, it doesn't aim to. What it does do, however, is paint a poignant portrait of what it was to be a woman in the 16th century, and how ruthless those days in court were.I'm a fan of the novel this is based on and am hugely thrilled by this adaptation. It is bold and striking and the lead performance by Jodhi May is one of the most compelling I have ever seen anywhere. It should certainly act as her calling card to producers everywhere that she is more than ready to make the transition from ingenue to adult role. By this performance, I'd say she made the leap long ago.Jared Harris turns in a dead on performance as the Tudor king who became a tyrant and not the least bit because of his union with Anne Boleyn. The rest in the cast paled in comparison to these two, but that does not mean they turned in poor performances. To the contrary, this was a top notch production I wish greater American audiences could see.The only glitch for me was toward the end when there is video footage of modern day England, tourists at the Tower of London. I don't get it. But I can forgive one small moment in light of the greater ambition and success of this project.Period drama should always be so delicious!