For a film covering the circumstances of King Henry VIII, his desire for a male heir, a queen not able to deliver such, the social-climbing machinations put forth by the Duke of Norfolk, and his brother-in-law, Thomas Boleyn, in attempt to catch the King's eye and basically pimp out his daughter Anne in return for the King's favor and elevated social status, the film's screenplay moves swiftly from one plot point to the next, playing like a Jane Eyre tale at times, offering ironic humor from the situations driven by lofty ambitions.

While Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana deliver good performances, there is a serious lack of heat and chemistry between Bana and either of the Boleyn girls to fully entertain the thought of what Henry VII does for love in this film. Plus, the direction of the film was simply average, providing the viewer with awkward angles and transistions that don't quite work for period piece (in the 16th century).

Overall, it's got this trashy soap-operish feel to it, and doesn't elevate the story into something grander or classy.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

this genre is deader than dead.

I give this thread a 2 or a grade of C.

I liked it. A bit soapy and it started off slowly, but it became fairly engrossing down the stretch. This is a story in which the real history is so interesting that practically any adaptation will be watchable, and this one is no exception. And I thought Natalie Portman did an impressive bit of acting in it as Anne Boleyn. Even knowing the real history beforehand (I even accurately predicted the very final scene with the text as the point the movie would highlight to end on), I still was caught up in the movie due to Portman's solid performance.

Wait, it's trashy?

Do Scarlet and Natalie fight each other?

It's never exactly been alive though, has it? I mean, are you talking about box-office? These films (specifically the recent "Elizabeth: The Golden Age") need to stop being marketed as mainstream. They're art house films at best with a limited audience. At least in the theater.

Sadly, no.

um... neat?

between this and that Showtime show The Tudors, I couldn't care less about these sort of movies. they're all marketed in the same fashion. just nothing interesting about people dressed up and talking as if everything they say has some sort of profound importance.

Excited to see this.

Well said. And you obviously haven't seen the movie.

I gave The Tudors a chance and was completely bored. Maybe this is better, but I'll gladly wait for home viewing.

I had actually entered an image of Anne of the Thousand Days here, Starring Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold, from 1969. But for some reason it seems to have come up "I am gay!"

Can't understand this at all.

and BTW, I'm not gay!

I bet you tried to use a picture off someones personal website and when they saw you hotlinking, they changed the picture to the one mentioned above.

I was wondering what that was about,

Yeah, me too!!

As far as I was aware, I wasn't hotlinking to anyones personal web site.

Oh well...

Despite mixed, somewhat lukewarm reviews, we're planning to go see this using the free tickets we got from the CC deal a few weeks ago. Also plan to see VANTAGE POINT from the same deal (got seven tickets). Get to treat some friends.

I figure they can't be too bad for free. And the eye candy should be good with the Boleyn girls.

Saw this on Blu last night with the wife. Although I really don't care for period dramas or costume dramas, whatever you want to call it, I was entertained. As usual I agree with much of what Patman said regarding the chemistry but the performances were very good by all the leads.

The Blu Ray did look very nice. Excellent picture, active surrounds and sub.

I think it's one of the top 3 best blu-ray picture quality discs I've ever seen.

Huge thread bump I know, but I just wanted to say that I finally caught this today and actually liked it.

I'll admit that I knew nothing about Henry VIII other than he had a bunch of wives and beheaded a couple of them, but I found the film interesting enough to actually look up the real history behind it and spent more time reading up on the actual story than I spent watching the movie.

The true story is MUCH more interesting than the movie even though I thought the movie was actually pretty good. It took a lot of liberties and made some assumptions, but it got at least some of the history correct and it was pretty entertaining. Natalie Portman did a very good job...much better than Scarlett in my opinion.

Watched this a few weeks ago myself. Was sort of interesting, although I thought the best parts weren't necessarily the girls or Henry, but the light exploration of family structure that the film did. It revealed a lot about how families would qualify for nobility or notoriety by marrying off their daughters.

I found that more interesting than the actual love/hate story - that's the history nerd in my I guess. Eric Bana was also a curious choice since it appears Henry was a pretty big slob and not a very attractive guy, odd to cast a good looking, in-shape actor for the part.

From what I read, in his later years Henry was injured in a jousting accident and was unable to exercise, so he got really fat. Waist was 54 inches. In his younger years he was strong and handsome. He was an avid hunter, jouster and tennis player. Since the movie was about his younger years, Bana probably wasn't a bad choice given his looks and physique.

If you have Blu-ray and didn't see it that way, do yourself a favor and check out the BD. Absolutely gorgeous.