The Other Boleyn Girl (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
301 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Eh... Nice costumes and sets
dollparts12155 March 2008
If you want a good movie about Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen, rent Anne of the Thousand Days. That was a film that used history to tell a story about real people who had a love to change a nation.

In this version of the eponymous Phillipa Gregory novel, historical inaccuracies abound. Approximately fifteen years are compressed into two hours with no indication time has gone by except for various babies. None of the characters ever change or grow any older. The characters in this movie are completely one-sided. Anne is ambitious. Henry is a womanizer. Mary is simple. No one has any complexities. The sisterly rivalry plays out like an underdeveloped soap opera.

On the other hand, the film is engaging and the costumes lovely. Same with the gorgeous palace settings.

Eye candy it is. Truthful or realistic it isn't.
283 out of 342 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sometimes the Truth is Stranger Than Fiction
divadrummer16 March 2008
A quick glimpse at the Tudor family line on Wikipedia will yield hundreds of years of made-for-movie material, but none quite as compelling as the story of Anne Boleyn. Pair a classic story with airy language, beautiful sets and costumes, and some A-list names and you have Oscar magic in the making. Right? Well, not always. We've seen it before and we're not necessarily impressed with royalty anymore. The Other Boleyn Girl offers new perspectives and dramatic angles on the saga of wives that is Henry VIII's legacy, but nearly drowns in melodrama.

And it's not entirely the movie's fault. Boleyn Girl follows the story of both Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Scarlett Johansson) Boleyn and their relationship with the English court. King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) has trouble producing a male heir, so the Boleyn family offers their daughter Anne to bed. When Henry has a hunting accident due to Anne's carelessness, he is nursed and subsequently charmed by innocent Mary. But Mary is already married, so the King promotes her husband and sends the couple to court where he can meet with Mary whenever he pleases. Mary falls in love with Henry and becomes his mistress. Anne, the elder sister, is scorned by what she believes is her sister's ultimate betrayal, and plots revenge. The two continue on in these roles for some time, swapping places in bed with Henry and spurting out babies while their relatives egg them on. This isn't quite how things went down in reality, but the changes are minor and seem necessary to condense the timeline and create at least one sympathetic character.

The Other Boleyn Girl fares best when it's exploring the relationship between Anne and Mary. This isn't the first story of sister rivalry, but the dynamic between Anne and Mary is extraordinarily well-played. Their previous roles and their public images make Portman and Johansson perfect fits. We believe Portman to be intelligent and coy, and Johansson to be naive and desired. More - we believe these roles might be easily reversed. As sisters, their relationship is deeply disturbing: they love each other, they hate each other, they're unable to escape the expectations placed upon them by their family. As an older sister (with an admittedly not-as-screwed-up relationship), I found this portrayal very realistic - rich with emotion and complex meaning.

I wish I could say the rest of the movie was as artful. There's constant allusion and foreshadowing to the Boleyn demise through use of visual and editing metaphors. If some details were twisted, other details might have been cut out - too many tear-filled scenes means that this eventually feels like a soap opera. At one point in the movie, Anne is sent off to France and comes back wearing a very distracting "B" charm, which she sports until the end of the movie. When I finally finished inventing what else "B" might stand for (besides Boleyn, there are plenty of other fits), I wondered about Anne's character. She's now praised as being changed and thus back in play, but I don't see it - she was smart and ambitious before, and only gained a bit of wit during her trip to France - certainly not the drastic change everyone seemed to be making it out to be. There are some very poorly done scenes where supporting cast spell out the politics of the situation for you. This is a little condescending and probably unnecessary, if not repetitive. The costumes are beautiful, but the matching dresses become unbelievable and even plain in places. PETA must have a field day with this movie and its use of fur and meat. You won't get to see Scarlett Johansson naked in this movie, in case you were wondering - just lots of fuzzy sex montages, weirdly full of backlit hair and fur. Katherine of Aragon (Henry VIII's first wife) is given some of the most powerful lines in the movie, but they're delivered with such woodenness that my disappointment must be made known.

The Other Boleyn Girl could be so much more. As a hyper-dramatic costume flick, it does stand out. There's more than meets your eye, and the costarring performances are not to be missed. There's a lot of material to cover in this story, but a simplified script would have helped keep this film farther away from melodrama. Especially with a true story as wild as this, there's not a lot that needs to be changed or added to grip the viewer. Any embellishments verge on destroying believability and creating situations we can't relate to.
120 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Beautifully filmed historical film that is not historical at all!
gazebo1 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I went to watch this movie knowing that even though the historical figures are real, the story is basically fiction, only Philippa Gregory's version of the tragedy of Anne Boleyn. Watching this film with this attitude really helped me enjoy it rather than be upset that all the historic characters' personalities were so distorted that they were almost unrecognizable. I suggest anyone else going to see this movie adopt this attitude too.

Sitting back, I proceeded to enjoy the scenery, the costumes, the beautiful actresses portraying the Boleyn girls and the over the top acting.

It was a fun movie and it moved along quickly. Scarlet Johansson and Natalie Portman were excellent as the Boleyn sisters. Eric Bana played a very conflicted Henry VIII who is continually frustrated by not getting a male heir. Eric Bana was not very good in this movie, I'm not sure what it was, maybe it was the way how the character was written or that he was just not comfortable in the role. He was extremely miscast as King Henry.

The one to watch in this film is Natalie Portman who seems to have a grand time playing the evil, scheming Anne Boleyn.

I am pleased to see that all the women in this film, like Lady Boleyn, Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn and Queen Catherine of Aragon were portrayed as having strong characters and not easily pushed around. Even Mary Boleyn, who seemingly always acquiesce to the wishes of her father and uncle, decided in the end to run off and marry someone who truly loves her.

It's a very entertaining film. Just remember that it's only someone's version of the Tudor history, not the real history, and you won't run into trouble!
50 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Don't go expecting accuracy!
rebwt6 March 2008
Overall, the movie is entertaining. I thought the acting was good, particularly Scarlett Johansson's. The cinematography and editing leave much to be desired, and the entire movie seems rushed. If you have any knowledge of Tudor history,you will recognize the many inaccuracies, but those did not bother me as much as did the fact that important characters were omitted, undeveloped, or even seemingly forgotten (as in the case of Mary's husband, William Carey).

There ARE very affecting characters and scenes, but I left the theatre wishing for MORE. The fascinating lives of these people simply cannot be dealt with in a movie that lasts less than two hours.
87 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Satisfying and entertaining, but it promised so much more
blackburnj-18 March 2008
The Tudors are very chic at the moment. If it isn't "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (awful) or the television series, "The Tudors" (soft-pornographic trash), then it is "The Other Boleyn Girl", the latest film written by the Oscar nominated screenwriter, Peter Morgan. After his work on the Golden Globe winning TV film "Longford" and the Oscar winning (for its lead actors) "The Queen" and "The Last King of Scotland", his scripts must be in demand by actors across the globe. Little wonder then that this film attracts a stellar cast, including Eric Bana, Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. So, why is it that this film, which is filled with great talent and potential, delivers only satisfaction? This was originally slated for release late last year, right in the middle of the awards season. Yet, for some reason, it was moved back. Why this was done is not widely known, but, as the IMDb had the film listed as completed last autumn, I should think that the decision was taken that this film would draw more attention outside of the congested awards season. Watching the film, you are aware of the ambition and lavish costumes that would draw the gaze of Oscar. But the film lacks punch, depth and the power to grip you the whole way through.

That's not to say that it isn't entertaining. Far from it, the film is, for an hour and a quarter, perfectly pleasant, with intrigue, scheming and romance aplenty. A lot of the credit must go to the performances, which range from accomplished to fantastically enjoyable to watch. Natalie Portman is impressive as Anne Boleyn. She ranges from scheming and nasty to genuinely sympathetic. It is her most notable work to date. Scarlett Johansson is fine, but everybody is still waiting for her to realise the potential she showed when she announced herself on the scene in "Lost in Translation" and "The Girl with the Pearl Earring". The supporting cast are a joy to watch. Eric Bana is excellent as Henry VIII, but it is the schemers in the background who provide the best entertainment. David Morrissey is having a lot of fun, whilst Mark Rylance and Kristin Scott Thomas are great as the Boleyn parents.

It is a perfectly bearable watch, but unfulfilling. There's an awful lot crammed into the hour and fifty minutes. As year after year of history is skipped through, the film's focus continually shifts, failing to allow certain characters from gaining appropriate intensity. Henry VIII is not as proactive as he might, or should, be. He is more driven then driving, whilst his first wife, Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent), is given very little time on screen, thus sidelining a character which should be a figure of great interest. But your expectations are dashed mainly because the film reaches its climax with half-an-hour to go, with an emotional pinnacle being reached and never again surpassed. A rape scene, which seems to be the start of the culmination, with so many points of interest going on in it, proves to be the end of it. The last thirty minutes, whilst quite stylish, are drawn out and slow, and end with a final scene that can only be described as cheesy.

It's a shame that this film is nothing more than admirable in places. But it is a good film for this time of year (that springtime lull between the quality of Winter and the bombast entertainment of Summer). It is an entertaining and satisfying way to pass an afternoon, but it won't live long in the memory.
77 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a history lesson, it's a movie, a good one at that
Smells_Like_Cheese29 February 2008
When I first saw the trailer for The Other Boleyn Girl, I have to admit, it looked good, but like it wasn't accurate. I am a huge history buff, especially in the time of England's dark ages, I am fairly familiar with the Boleyn sisters and their affections for King Henry, Anne being the second wife to be executed for committing adultery and not birthing a son heir to the thrown, her life was absolutely horrific if you think about how hard it was to be a woman in this era. I was a little scared that they wouldn't portray her well in this film, but my mom and I saw The Other Boleyn Girl today and even though I'm not fully satisfied with the portrayal of Anne, the movie is still very good. The story has a Hollywood layer to give the story a little more "oomph" sort of speak, like most other pictures, but The Other Boleyn Girl is still a very decent movie.

The Boleyn has quite a family, a mother, father, a son, and two daughters. After failing at several attempts for Queen Catherine to have a son heir to King Henry's thrown, he wishes for a mistress. Sir Thomas Boleyn offers his daughter, Anne, but when King Henry sees Thomas's other daughter, Mary, he is smitten with her and wants her as his mistress. She gives birth to a son, but they are not married and she is looked down upon. Anne is given a second chance to come back after a marriage that was not granted and then annulled, but King Henry then falls for her and wishes her to give herself to him, but she puts up a fight and tells him not until she assumes the crown and to be his wife. But she fails to give him a son, her life depends on it as well sadly.

The true story of Anne Boleyn is very sad, but extremely interesting, I wouldn't recommend the book, just go for a regular history book when it comes to this story. But for the movie, The Other Boleyn Girl, I liked it, it had good acting, beautiful costumes and sets, and a very good story. If you are looking for a history lesson, this is not the film for you, but if you are looking for a good movie, then watch it. Just like the film "Elizabeth", they make the story a little more juicy, it's for the sake of some audience members who don't understand why England has the system it does, but it still makes for good drama.

7/10
48 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Brilliant acting, intense story, weak script and bad directing.
OrleansB4 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The second half of this movie almost gave me a BLOODY HEART ATTACK! MAN THAT WAS DISTURBING! Ignore the false advertisements that make this movie look like a romantic bodice-ripper. One can call it a soap-opera, but you CANNOT call it a romantic period drama! For those of yous who don't know your Tudor history don't worry, you don't need too (on second thought it'll probably be better if you don't know the story), just treat this as a FICTIONAL eye-opener (and yes, it is extremely historically incorrect) OKay...disturbing themes and historical inaccuracies aside, the movie has brilliant acting by it's leads. Johansson is very capable and believable as Mary (yes, I know...I'm shocked too), whilst Portman is psychotically intense as Anne (I'll explain later). The supporting cast is decent, Kristen Scott Thomas is morally in-tune in the Boleyns' mother and Jim Sturgess is BRILLIANT as their tragic brother George.

The story on the other hand is WAY too rushed (you can SO CLEARLY tell that sonypictures butchered this movie up...BADLY, thus I'll be waiting for a director's cut indefinitely).

OK...first half of this movie is DULLer than the movie's god-awful cinematography, the audiences' disinterest is NOT helped by Peter Morgan's lazy script. The first half drags and drags....UNTIL the director and writer decides to go all HAPPY TREE FRIENDS on the lead characters (and I don't mean in the bloody fun way either).

Whilst Scarlett Johansson's Mary remains the movie's 'somewhat' moral center....Natalie Portman's Anne goes bloody bizerk (yes, in the crazy psychotic bitch sense)...kudos to her for bringing such intensity and whatever realism she can to the (clearly bias) role, although at points you may what to strangle Anne for her conniving ruthlessness, you nevertheless feel for her (and especially her brother) in the end.

Make no mistake, this is NOT a movie for the soft-hearted, as I explained before the second half contains MANY series of disturbing stomach-wrenching events that will leave you clutching your seat (or packet of Orange TicTac in my case) making the first ELIZABETH movie seem like the most feel-good movie of 1999. SO CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED! All in all, bad direction, awesome acting and melodramatically disturbing story with a beautiful score by Paul Cantelon and gorgeous costumes by Sandy Powell. A would overall give it a generous 7 stars out of 10.

I hope I left this review as spoiler free as possible.
72 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Film Worth Seeing for the Issues of Gender
lavatch1 March 2008
The Other Boleyn Girl is a compelling film due to the exceptional performances and the splendid costumes. Additionally, there is simply a terrific story told about the relationship of Henry VIII and the two Boleyn sisters, Anne and Mary.

Natalie Portman (Anne) and Scarlett Johansson (Mary) are outstanding as characters engaged in both sibling rivalry and sisterly bonding. In the central relationship of the sisters, the film develops the social roles and imposed limitations on women in Tudor England.

One of the film's most moving character portrayals is the mother of the two Boleyn Sisters. In the heartbreaking performance of Kristin Scott Thomas, Elizabeth Boleyn can only watch helplessly as her daughters become pawns of the greedy men (Thomas Boleyn and the Duke of Norfolk), who use the young women much like pimps in order to line their pockets and further their own advancement at court. Another sterling aspect of the film is the portrayal of Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent), another victim of the men due to the obsessive pursuit of Henry VIII to beget a male heir, leading to his momentous divorce from Katherine and England's break with the church of Rome.

While commentators may point out the omissions of many of the details from the novel by Philippa Gregory, the film is still true to the spirit of the book. It is also a faithful representation of the role of women in Tudor age. The film effectively presents the gender issues from the perspective of many of the remarkable women of the age along with the reminder of the greatest legacy of Anne Boleyn, which was the indirect result of her relationship of Henry VIII. That legacy was the future ruler of England...and also a woman: Elizabeth I.
136 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Showtime's Version ("The Tudors") is much Better
J_Trex3 March 2008
I was looking forward to watching this version of Ann Boleyn for the simple reason that I've had so much fun watching Showtime's version now running, "The Tudors".

However, after seeing the movie yesterday, my advice would be go rent "The Tudors" at Blockbuster or Netflix and skip this movie.

It's not that Scarlett Johansson is bad as Mary Boleyn, she does a pretty good job considering what she had to work with. Natalie Portman comes up short as Ann Boleyn. The actress who portrays her on "The Tudors", Natalie Dormer, is much better. There really isn't anything bewitching or captivating about Natalie Portman's portrayal of Ann Boleyn, unlike Ms. Dormer's performance, which is everything Natalie Portman's portrayal is not. Dormer exudes the aura of a temptress with sex appeal galore. Portman simply does not. I think Johansson would have been the better choice for Ann.

Eric Bana is so-so as Henry VIII. Rhys Meyers portrayal is much more entertaining on the "The Tudors". To be fair, Bana didn't have much more to work with than did Johansson. The main character in this movie is Portman's Ann Boleyn, who seems to miss the mark.

The supporting cast was good but overall you should save your hard earned money & wait for this to appear on cable.
22 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Outrageously Inaccurate
venessalewis29 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The "Other Boleyn Girl" hit theaters today, and of course, I was in for the first showing. I've been anticipating this movie for over 2 years now, ever since I first heard it was in production.

Why can't directors seem to get it right when it comes to this time period?I understand completely the Hollywood concept of "dramatic" flair for the big screen. But there is a difference between "dramatic flair" and complete revisionist history. This movie makes the HBO series, "The Tudors" seem like a BBC documentary as far as factual information is concerned.

Now, the director is not all to blame. Phillippa Gregory does a damn good job of distorting the truth in this alternate interpretation of the story of Anne Boleyn. Her portrayal of Anne as ruthlessly ambitious and downright devilish is at odds with the softer portrayals favored by Jean Plaidy and other authors of this period. Anne's own diaries would suggest her true personality to be more of the unwilling victim and royal pawn in the schemes cooked up by her ambitious male relatives. Only when she discovered that her path in life would be to submit or face death or exile does she succumb to Henry's advances.

The opening scenes of the movie concern how Anne and Henry met. Well, there is debate on this, the movie selects Hever. I'll allow that. But this first it was most certainly not in front of the whole court and followed by a hunt in which Henry takes a tumble, to be nursed back to health by Mary, Anne's OLDER sister (the movie and book portrays her as the younger sister-this is false). Anne's ambitions are apparent from this very day, she indeed seems to find her father and uncle's schemes appealing and agrees to "hunt" his majesty. Hardly the case in reality. Anne was in love with and betrothed to Henry Percy at the time of her first meeting with Henry. The movie has it backwards. She does not "settle" for Percy only after Mary has "stolen" Henry. Another extremely annoying point of order here….Cardinal Wolsey is completely absent from this film. This is such a blaring error as to render the movie completely abominable. Wolsey is such a force in the entire drama, from the arrangement of the marriage AND the divorce, to all matters of state and religion in between…to leave him out is both amateur and foolish, not to mention a missed opportunity for much needed plot thickening.

Running through the laundry list of other inaccuracies….Anne was not EXILED to France because she fumbled her attempt to seduce Henry. This is utterly ridiculous. It is well known that both Anne and Mary practically grew up in the French court from the time they were 12 to their late teens. Only then did the sisters join the English court, much less begin their dramas with the king. And she was not brought back to entertain Henry whilst Mary lay in with his child. Again…Anne most strongly wanted to marry her first love, Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland. But once Henry had set his eyes upon her and chose to make her his own, then and only then were her uncle and father's schemes put into motion. Their original intentions were to milk the long-going affair of her sister Mary for all it was worth.

Now, as for the "incest" theory. Gregory is taking a huge risk here by suggesting that the allegation levied upon Anne and her brother George was indeed founded in truth, borne out of Anne's desperation to get with child after her miscarriage. I do believe Anne was desperate to get pregnant quickly, and she was very close to her brother…but this is a huge leap, and one true historians would never make. It also suggest that something other than Henry's brute desires were at play here when he charged them with treason, which is not the case. He simply wanted to be rid of Anne, to beget a male heir off of his next mistress.

And good gracious…what of the rape scene? Not only is this disturbing, but so far fetched. Although Anne resisted for years, when she finally gave in to Henry, she did believe herself to be in love with him…or at the very least, resigned to accept her fate. And Henry was completely besotted with her….why else would he break from Rome, Catholicism and risk his kingdom for anything less? No, he would not have raped Anne for their first sexual encounter. He was a brute, but he was most concerned of his image of the romantic courtier when it came to women's affections.

Finally, a note on the characters. Portman does an acceptable job portraying the character from the book…even though this character is not the true Anne Boleyn. Johannson makes a lovely Mary…and probably quite close to the real woman. As for Bana…a sore disappointment. Bad casting, bad acting. Is this the same Bana of the acclaimed Munich and Troy? Where was the range? He comes across as flat and not well studied. Jonathon Rhys Meyers of the HBO Tudors blows him out of the water on all levels….sensuality, intensity and evil as Henry the 8th.

Why can't I just watch these movies and leave feeling entertained? I don't quite know…I care too much about 15th century England for some reason. It became hardwired in me after watching Anne of the Thousand Days as a young girl. No Tudor movie since then has gotten close in accuracy or sheer entertainment since then. Burton and Bujold are classic and untouchable. But after watching this hack job, I have to say I am looking forward to the new season of the Tudors on HBO.
206 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
excellent drama
blanche-212 December 2012
Put it this way, if you saw Anne of the Thousand Days, you probably felt sorry for Anne Boleyn. After seeing this film, while you might feel sorry for her - not so much.

The Other Boleyn Girl is a 2008 film starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johannson, Eric Bana, Kristen Scott-Thomas, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, and Benedict Cumberbatch who at this writing is #2 on the IMDb Starmeter, so I'd say his fortunes have changed.

The story fills in what we don't actually know about the Boleyns and tells some of their story, though the writers had to leave a great deal out. Nevertheless, this is a great drama, beautifully costumed and filmed, with wonderful acting and, let's face it, two of the most stunning women in films today.

Natalie Portman plays Anne Boleyn, who is more or less pimped out by her father (Mark Rylance) hoping that she can give Henry VIII a son and, in so doing, increase the family's fortunes. It doesn't work out; instead, the King takes a fancy to the newly married Mary, Anne's sister, and both the young women are given a position at court. Henry, then married to Catherine of Aragon, then takes Mary as a lover. Mary later gives birth to a son.

Anne secretly marries someone who is betrothed to another, and as a punishment is sent to the court in France. When she returns, she captivates King Henry by refusing to become his mistress while he is still married, driving him to distraction. He eventually gets the law changed so he can divorce Catherine and marry Anne. By now he is long finished with Mary, barely acknowledging his son.

One of the created scenes in the film occurs when Anne miscarries her child, a boy. She is desperate that Henry not find out and appeals to her brother to sleep with her. He can't do it. In truth, one of the crimes Anne was charged with was incest, but these allegations were made up. Her brother George was executed because of it, however. In the film, someone sees them together and reports it.

I actually think the writers did an okay job with this story - in historical films one always has to combine events and characters or leave them out.

Natalie Portman is excellent as Anne, rather bratty, seductive, and emotional. Johannson has a less showy role but she's marvelous as well. Eric Bana is an attractive Henry. The real Henry was a redhead, but the depiction of Henry as slender and attractive is certainly correct for the period in which the story takes place.

The film makes a great deal out of the relationship between Anne and Mary -- Anne is furious when Mary nabs the King, then Mary is furious when Anne makes her big move. In fact, the two sisters weren't particularly close. And though in the film Anne is the older sister, historians today believe that Mary was the older one.

Mary actually had two children, but there isn't a lot of evidence to support that her second child was actually King Henry's. What isn't mentioned in the film itself is that after Mary's husband (Cumberbatch) died, she married a soldier secretly, a man way beneath her station, and was banished from court, never to return. Her family also disowned her. Up until then, she was at court; when she was widowed, Anne arranged for her to have a pension and had Mary's second child, a boy, educated.

After Mary's and Anne's parents died, Mary inherited some property and she and her husband lived quietly and happily for the rest of their lives.

Very good film, well worth seeing.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What A Piece Of Drama!
kiquescarlett25 February 2008
I think that the main critics done to this film came from those who don't like Natalie or Scarlett. I hope it has nothing to do with the the fact that it is a costum movie - I personally found this film an excellent piece of drama, as well as the book was (I think it's an awesome reading, too!). A perfect cast, a good storyline and a strong screenplay are the main reasons that made "The Other Boleyn Girl" a wonderful screen adaptation - and both Portman and Johansson revealed themselves in one of their best performance ever! I also believe that the choice of casting two of the most brilliant and famous young actresses in Hollywood (perhaps the best ones, right now) was a smart move from the movie producers and - as well as the most fascinating thing about it is the rivalry between the two sisters - let it able to do captivate young people's attention. I really hope this film is going to be a good hit - at least to receive good reviews from the critis...
88 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mary is forever doomed to be "The Other Boelyn Girl"
YoSafBridge3 March 2008
All and all, not a particularly enjoyable film.

This movie sacrifices all that was interesting about the novel in the first place just to squeeze in all the historical aspects. All of the page turning scenes in the book that would have been interesting to see translated to screen (Anne's bloodstained dress, the deformed child, the courtship between Mary and William) were cut.

Fortuanatly, I expected that. With such a long book, I had to expect most of my favourite scenes were going to get the axe.

What I didn't expect was for the narration to change from that of Mary (aka. "The Other Boelyn Girl" for which the book was named) to yet another story about Anne Boelyn. The film started off well, if rather slow, with the story being told from Mary, but it quickly changes gears as the audience is suddenly following Anne's courtship of Henry and Anne's trials, emotions and desperation. Mary is quickly delegated to little more then a secondary role, with many key moments happening while she isn't on screen.

The story of Anne was told well, she was portrayed brilliantly by Portman, and had several fun and emotional moments. But that's just the problem, I've seen that all before. There have been dozens of films, series, and books written from Anne's point of view. If I wanted to see a story about Anne, I would have watched Anne of the Thousand Days or maybe "The Tudors" HBO series. What made this story special was it told the story behind Anne and Henry (and it was mostly fictional which added to the drama).

Unfortunately the movie ignored this, and thus failed to create the same reaction I had towards the book.

Another problem is that of characterisation, I expected that the movie would make the two sisters friends as it creates more drama towards the end as opposed to them being not particularly close like in the book. Same with the enormous changes they made in the personalities of the parents (and honestly, almost every character)I expected it. Many of the characters in the movie were actually more two-dimensional then the callous characters from the book. It wasn't as though this movie was badly acted or written...it was just bad.

The person I was most disappointed about was George (one of my favourites in the book) who was given a woefully small role, although the actor who portrayed him did it brilliantly. Also, The character of William Stafford seemed to be added in as an afterthought which confused the audience who hadn't read the book (the two main questions I heard were "Is that the guy she married in the beginning" or "What happened to the guy she married in the beginning") and left those of us who had read the book wondering why he was portrayed as such a pansy?

And the editing, where to begin. Horrible, the particularly poignant scenes (few and far between as they were) were not given enough time to sink in before the audience was whisked off to another scene. Even having read the source material I was lost, so I can only imagine how it must have been from those new to the story.

The only bright side of this tedious film were the beautiful costumes, but even the bright colours and swirly dresses couldn't distract anyone with more then a 10 second attention span and despite them the movie soon became unbearably boring.

All in all, this movie probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. It was apparent there was too much story to tell in two hours, it had mini-series written all over it. But seeing as it had to be made for the film industry to cash in the the books success, it could have been done a lot better.
27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Historical drama set in Tudor time about ambition , love and power
ma-cortes8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This costumer was correctly based on historical happenings . These are the following ones : Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent) married Arthur , Henry VIII's (Eric Bana) older brother . Arthur died six months later and Catherine then married Henry . Twenty-four years later , Henry secretly married Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) , Henry had already had an affair with Anne Boleyn's sister (Scarlette Johansson) and the marriage did not last long . Henry annulled his marriage to Catherine on the basis that she had been previously married to his brother Arthur , and the marriage was therefore invalid . Pope Clement VII refuse sanction Henry's marriage to Anne and excommunicated the English king in 1534 , then Thomas Crammer (Wallis) sanctioned Henry's marriage . But his concern to produce a male heir brought out the worst in him and Anne was discarded . She was accused of adultery with her brother George (Jim Sturgess) and four commoners. Thomas Howard (David Morrissey) acquiesced at the execution of his niece , Anne Boleyn , but subsequently lost Henry's favour and was condemned to death . Anne was beheaded in May 1536 .Eleven days later, Henry married Jane Seymour (Galloway) , but even the birth of Edward was overshadowed by real tragedy . Jane Seymour died twelve days after giving birth to a son , later Edward VI.

This is a good costume-drama inspired on real events . The film relies heavily on the relationship between the Boleyn sisters , well acted by Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson . Nice drama with-top notch performances, as starring trio give triumphant characterizations . Splendid support cast , such as : Mark Rylance as the ambitious father Thomas Boleyn , Kristin Scott Thomas as Lady Elizabeth and David Morrissey as intriguing Thomas Howard , Duke of Norfork. Lush and elegant gowns by expert Sandy Powell . Sensational production design shot on location with breathtaking outdoors and impressive palaces fitting to Renaissance time. It displays evocative and sensitive musical score as well as atmospheric and colorful cinematography. The motion picture was professionally directed by Justin Chadwick, though contains some flaws and gaps . This story is a rich pageant of epic events for history lovers and dramatic deeds enthusiasts . Rating : Good and well worth watching.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
nothing convincing
Vincentiu17 April 2012
interesting cast. and nothing else. desire to present an old story in easy form. and the strange result. all is childish, nothing convincing, a nice game with facts, legends and parts of truth. and, after so many travels in Tudors world, this is only a joke. not very inspiring. it is not a bad movie but it is far to be more than mediocre. and nobody is guilty. just the ambition to make history with actors in incorrect roles. because Eric Bana is not Henry (not more than ambiguous sketch ) , Natalie Portman is in wrong position and Scarlett Johassen - shadow of good intentions. no nuances, no roots. only a dark story with ridiculous accents. good actors and nice costumes are not enough.not in this case.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"A woman who is the scandal of Christendom." Katharine of Aragon describes her rival, 1531
Galina_movie_fan28 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I would not study history of England based on "The other Boleyn girl" (2008) but I enjoyed it and found it quite entertaining. Boleyn girls, two sisters, Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Scarlett Johansson,) were gorgeous and Henry VIII (Eric Bana) long before he looked like on his famous portraits by Hans Holbein, Jr, the object of both sisters' desires was very appealing. Kristin Scott Thomas played Lady Boleyn, Anne's and Mary Boleyn's mother. Scott Thomas has so much class and dignity about her, and I like her in every movie I've seen her.

I actually did not know that Mary Boleyn, the older Anne's sister (in the movie she was younger), had been Henry VIII's mistress and might have (or not) had a son with him. According to the movie and the novel by Philippa Gregory it was based on, Mary had a son with Henry who then fell in love with sharp-witted, alluring, and unavailable Anne who firmly refused to become the king's mistress. So great was his desire for her, it led to Henry's annulment of the 20+ years marriage with the queen Katharine of Aragon and split with Catholic Church thus starting the Church of England. Katharine of Aragon comes as a decent and intelligent woman played by Ana Torrent. Now, that's the most pleasant surprise of the movie. Eight-year-old Ana Torrent gave an unforgettable performance as "Ana" in the film El espíritu de la colmena (The Spirit of the Beehive) by Víctor Erice. She was memorable in the relatively small role in Justin Chadwick's historical drama comparing to Portman or Johansson.

Anne Boleyn was a remarkable and bright woman, (bitch as she was, quick-tempered and spirited) and it is clear that her daughter Elizabeth, the future greatest Monarch in the England's history, Good Queen Beth inherited strength, iron will, brilliance, and brain from her mother. The fact that Elizabeth did not want to get married only speaks in her behalf - she was smart enough not to let any man to tell her what to do and to dominate her. Her mother Anne was not that lucky. The second part of the movie, the fall of Anne Boleyn, "Anne of Thousand Days" was rushed, sensational, and much weaker than the promising beginning. Since those historic figures had been dead for almost 500 years, it is easy to come up with any shocking accusation toward them - they won't defend themselves. Anyway, the costumes and the sets were the feast for eyes, I was not bored and after the movie was over, I spent some time researching on the web the key players of the real life drama that was set in the beginning of 1500s, changed the future of Europe, and included love, lust, ambitions that would destroy the family ties, rise to power, and deadly fall from it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Everyone wants to tackle Henry the 8th
VioletRDP22 September 2019
You probably could spend a week or more watching Henry the 8th films 24/7. This is one of the least historically accurate, but at least it isn't one of the worst. The book was better.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good but bad at the same time!
free_spirit200918 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Being a history fanatic focused on the Tudor dynasty I have read all of Phillippa Gregory's books based on this time period. The Other Boleyn Girl is my favorite of the series and I was ecstatic to find out that movie was going to be made! My father(who is also a history-buff) and I went and saw the movie soon after it came out. The movie is both and good and bad.

The good parts of this movie includes casting Natalie Portman as Anne Boleyn. I have always thought her to be a wonderful actress and was excited to hear that she would be in it. The costumes are wonderful as well, enough to make me want to get one myself! The sets are also great and transport the viewer back in time. The movie is good, but it does have its problems.

The bad parts of this movie are mainly dealing with the facts. The only reference to the period of time passing is the birth of children. The Anne Boleyn Henry VIII affair lasted a total of 13 years, but a viewer would guess maybe a total of 5 years. The one scene that drove me crazy was the rape scene. In the theater I said aloud "What the Hell?" Anne was not raped by Henry for their first sexual encounter, and this did not result in Elizabeth's birth. Other screw-ups include the absence of Mary's daughter Catherine by Henry and the death of her first husband William Carey, Elizabeth being raised by her aunt, or the fact that Anne was sent to France as punishment. In reality Anne was sent to France at the age of 4 and grew up there. She was sent to Hever after the affair with Henry Percy.

All in all the movie is okay. My suggestion is that if you want to see this movie and enjoy it, see it before you read the book. The movie is good by itself, but when compared to the book it is a failure. I like the movie as a movie standing alone, but not as an adaptation of the Gregory novel.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Give Natalie Portman an Oscar
funnygirl271 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Never have I seen an actress take control of a movie as much as Portman did with Boleyn. She stepped into the role so perfectly and did it was so much confidence. I could feel her pain and ambition. I started shaking during her downward spiral and couldn't stop. It was so intense and heart pounding.

Jim Sturgess also made a huge impression. His part was small but his performance was big. I wished there had been more of the brother.

The costumes also should win something, anything. They were amazing and really stood out.

All in all it was a a pretty good movie. It really grabbed you and kept you in their world for two hours. I would recommend this to anyone who's old enough because there is a lot of adult material.

8 out of 10 stars
114 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's GOOD to be the king.
rmax30482319 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
An uninspired title for a lavish royal story of intrigue, ambition, lust, power, mishigas, and witchery, bitchery, block. There were two Bolyn girls, you see -- Scarlett Johanssen as shy Mary Bolyn, with her exquisitely misshapen features, and Natalie Portman as Anne, girlish and grasping. The Bolyns, like the royal family itself, is full of knaves. I mean, imagine a father pimping off his two daughters, even to a Eric Bana's king.

Henry VIII (ruled 1509 -1547) is Eric Bana, who gives a subdued performance compared to, say, Charles Laughton or Robert Shaw. Henry ran through six wives, enough that a mnemonic peg has proved itself useful over the years:

King Henry VIII, To six wives he was wedded. One died, one survived, Two divorced, two beheaded.

This movie deals with the first two -- Catherine of Aragon of Spain, who stubbornly refuses to give Henry a son and heir but becomes instead the mother of Mary Queen of Scots, perhaps out of spite. The marriage is annulled, a great shock at the time, and the actress, the magnificent Ana Torrent, gives the role all she's got. But as Catherine approaches menopause after twenty-four years of marriage, the frustrated younger Henry has had enough. Catherine leaves the court in a high dudgeon, dies later in prison, and Henry takes up with shy Mary, she of the low dudgeon but high bosom, of which the viewer gets not a glimpse.

Now, I'm describing the movie, not the historical facts because I'm unable to remember anything that happened before I was five years old. In any case, Mary and Henry get along quite well, although of course they aren't married. The men of the court, especially Boleyn pater, are anxious to see Mary become queen. The dialog is exceptional when the nobles question Mary about her first night. "Did he lie with you?" "Yes, he lay with me." "Did he lie with you more than once?" "Yes, he lay with me more than once." It was enough. She gives birth -- but to a girl, not a boy. The end credits tell us that this is, in fact, the case and that the girl grew up to be Elizabeth I -- the Elizabethan Age of Shakespeare, Sir Francis Drake, the Spanish Armade, Errol Flynn, et al. I understand the claim is in some dispute.

The king sheds Mary, though. First of all, he's not keen on baby girls as heirs, though he's willing enough to give it another go. "Well, if she can bear a healthy baby girl, she can bear a healthy baby boy." He's put off the scent by the conations of Mary's sister Anne. It's hard to tell from the film whether Anne is deliberately trying to undo Mary's position, which has seemed secure. The king is tender with Mary and she has grown to love him. In any case, Anne enters the king's affections kind of crabwise, which isn't hard since Anne is beautiful and flirtatious while the king seems to be ruled entirely by his glands. As history has shown, Anne has made a big mistake and is succeeded by Jane Seymour, the wife from whom the actress (née Joyce Penelope Wilhelmina Frankenberg) copped her name.

All of the performances are up to par, as is the direction. Scarlett Johansson gives the most notable performance, possibly because it's the most complex, whereas Portman is shackled to the role of bitch with mute. We don't see that much of Eric Bana as Henry, but he joins all the men of the story in being scheming and unscrupulous brutes. Not that the women are much better, with the exceptions of shy Mary and proud Catherine.

I kind of enjoyed it, although if you stripped the story of its historical roots and cut its budget by about 999,999% what you'd wind up with is something resembling a Lifetime Network Movie. You know, give the characters contemporary dress, get rid of the "lie with"s, and make the king a CEO, and there you have it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A poor, inaccurate effort
mitcs1107 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Depressingly inaccurate and misrepresented. The book 'The Other Boleyn Girl' had a few inaccuracies of it's own, but made a good effort to truly flesh out character's lives and personalities. The movie had more historically inaccurate facts than it did true, and didn't seem to follow the book at all. Leaving out baby Catherine, showing William Stafford as a smiling fool, screwing up Henry Percy's story completely, and forgetting to mention Catherine entirely after her trial was over was a poor effort.

One of the things that annoyed me most was when Henry raped Anne. There is no historical evidence whatsoever to show that he would have done this, and every suggestion to the contrary. He either loved her with a passion or ignored her entirely. With Henry, there was rarely any middle ground. The other incredibly annoying scene was at George's execution where the crowd shouted and jeered as he had to be dragged to the block. In actual reality, he stood calmly before the crowd, and announced his innocence and respect for the queen. The producer's effort in 'spicing things up' by making things appear worse then they actually were was degrading to the fine lives of these characters, most of who died with dignity.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Another cinematic vehicle for a hugely talented actress
DeadManWalking125 October 2020
I was reading these other reviews that criticize this film for its "historical inaccuracies." This is utterly ridiculous since the movie never pretends to be a strict documentary about Anne Boleyn or Henry VIII or anyone, really. The credits even contain a very explicit waiver stating the film is a work of fiction. This is a creative retelling that freely admits it takes liberties with the historical facts in order to tell a compelling human story in a mere hour and a half. So chill out, people.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A historical character study that is beautifully-designed...
TheLittleSongbird15 May 2009
I saw this last year when I was 16, at the cinema with my mum and my sister, and I must say we were impressed. I will confess that I haven't read the book by Phillippa Gregory, but from my perspective of the film, this is a beautifully made historical character study of some of the most famous historical figures in history. The film does look exquisite, with lavish costumes and splendid locations. The acting from Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johanssen are the redeeming merits of an above-average but rather unsubtle movie. These two actresses are brilliant at showing emotional depth. I also liked the actress of Catherine of Aragon, though I didn't expect Catherine to be conveyed in the way she was. However, I was not so impressed with Eric Bana as Henry. He fits the part physically, but emotionally he comes across to me as rather flat and lifeless. There are many historical inaccuracies, probably an attempt to be faithful to the source material, and because of this, sometimes the dialogue is very wordy and could have been simplified, and the rape scene seemed as though it came from another movie. I also thought the film rather overlong and a bit slow, and I will confess that I was out of my seat in the execution scenes with genuine fright inside of me, believe me a man screaming for mercy is one of the last things you want to see portrayed on film.(I really found that scene in particular very upsetting to watch)In conclusion, a beautifully made and in general well acted period drama, but suffers from uneven dialogue and pacing. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why did they bother with a bit of accuracy at the end?
stancym-124 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I will admit that since I am descended from Mary Boleyn,I do have a bit of family honor at stake here....

I knew the film was going to take liberties with historical truth, but REALLY. The Other Boleyn Girl is almost PURE FICTION from beginning to end. Why did they bother to tack on SOME accurate historical outcomes (in written sentence form) of the characters at the end, just before the credits rolled?

Just to name a couple of examples: Mary Boleyn was married to William Carey as depicted, and Henry took her as his mistress with Carey's approval as he was richly rewarded. Maybe emotionally conflicted approval, I don't know. I rather doubt it. Anyway, in the film Mary marries a commoner at the end. The film never explains what happened to Carey, it would seem to suggest she is committing bigamy!

In the closing "write-over", we read that Mary lived happily ever after with the lower class guy; in fact, her family coldly rejected her because she brought down their status. She suffered emotionally and financially due to the marriage, but was still glad she finally married for love.

Other things that are totally false: Anne and Mary did not hang out all the time as is suggested in the film; I understand that serves the plot well so maybe I will let that one go. Can't let this one go: Henry raping Anne before she surrendered to him. That is ridiculous. And Anne convincing her brother to have incest with her so as to produce an heir? That is even more ridiculous. She would never have broken the incest taboo; also, if Henry was really shunning her bed by that time, as Anne suggests in the film, then if she turned up pregnant she would be accused of adultery and sent to the Tower!

Speaking of being sent to the Tower, in real life Anne conducted herself with great dignity and restraint before and at her execution, likely she was trying to protect her daughter Elizabeth and better secure her daughter's future relationship with Henry. She was innocent of adultery but kept her mouth shut when she knew her fate was sealed. This is not at all how Anne is portrayed in the film.

Cardinal Wolsey is left out of the movie entirely, and he played a MAJOR role in the whole drama of the divorce from Catherine of Aragon and Henry's desire for Anne Boleyn.

I just don't see why this same type of movie could not have been made with FICTIONAL kings and queens and other characters--no authentic names. Then it would not be a particularly good movie but it would be less aggravating. Of course, it could not then claim to be based on Gregory's book about Mary Boleyn. I don't plan to read that; there are too many accurate books about Henry VIII that are no doubt more interesting, and I can read about poor Mary Boleyn in those.
38 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting period piece, with attractive stars and sumptuous costumes....worth a look
inkblot1129 February 2008
King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) sits on the throne of England. His virtuous wife Catherine of Aragon, mother to Princess Mary, has just given birth to another stillborn child, a son. Sensing the king's growing discontent and fading love for his honorable wife, a key adviser decides it is time for the king to have a mistress. He calls on the family of his sister (Kristin Scott-Thomas) and her social climbing husband, Sir Thomas Boleyn. After all, they have two lovely daughters to offer. One, Anne (Natalie Portman) is beautiful and very clever while Mary (Scarlett Johannsen) is also fair, kind, and sweet but not as quick-witted. Oh, wait, Mary has newly been married to a country landowner so that leaves Anne. The father invites the king to his country estate so that the royal can get acquainted with his older daughter. However, on a foxhunt, Henry is injured when Anne, on horseback, leads the company into dangerous terrain that only she knows well. The king ends up bedridden and Mary is designated to be his nurse, as she is patient and adept at caregiving. Suddenly, Henry prefers Mary and, as he is the king, he moves the entire Boleyn household to court and makes the wedded Mary his mistress. Anne, greatly miffed and rejected, brews up some trouble for the sister she once loved well. But, is Henry through with Anne and devoted only to Mary? We shall see! This is an interesting period piece with a story that, somewhat familiar, deserves to be told again. Most folks have heard that Anne eventually married the king, gave birth to Elizabeth, and subsequently lost her head over some sort of controversy. But, here is a portrait, little known, of her much kinder sister who was also involved with the king, due to her father's insane scheming. As the principal players, you could hardly find a better looking trio than Portman, Johannsen, and Bana and they perform quite well. All of the secondary actors are superb, too, with Scott-Thomas spouting the best lines of the film, absolutely, in great style. Noteworthy indeed are the costumes, for they are sumptuous and worth the ticket price alone. There is also some nice scenery and excellent production values, while the script is interesting and makes history come alive. Most importantly, the film clearly shows that while feminism is a "recent" phenomenon, women have had important roles in the world's turning since time began. If you are a fan of romance and adore period pieces, this one is definitely for you. Yet, even those who usually can't be bothered will, I predict, take a shine to this one, where the drama is heavy and the stars so wonderfully winsome.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed