Henry VIII
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.00 You Save: $3.98 (40%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.64 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Henry VIII
Movie Review: Prettily Produced Historical Fantasy
Summary: 3 Stars
While it's hard to imagine any work comparable to the now famous 1970s BBC miniseries with Keith Michell, this ambitious and beautifully filmed movie treats the legend of "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" with a modern dash of Melrose Place.
If you're simply a fan of all things Henrician, you'll enjoy this melodrama...if you're a stickler for historical accuracy, you probably will not.
Bonham Carter is an appealing Anne Boleyn, although I don't know why such an intelligent actress spents so much time rolling her eyes... "Catherine Howard" is Kate Winslet-inspired gorgeous... Winstone as Good Old King Harry, himself, tries valiantly throughout, but comes off more as a football bloke (Sean Bean as "Aske" could have been a more interesting casting choice in the title role). "Cromwell" is god-awful and "Anne of Cleves" all but ignored. "Parr" is very good albeit virtually invisible. Interesting actress as "Catherine of Aragon." "Jane Seymour" woefully miscast.
Erratic direction. Beautiful wardrobe and music. The sole "Special Feature" is unenlightening and uninspiring.
Movie Review: Not bad but.....
Summary: 3 Stars
Okay first off this is a movie not a History lesson if you want straight up history read a book. That being said the movie is very well done as ENTERTAINMENT. The actors are good and Emily Blunt is always a good actress and good eye candy. The problem I have is the film is a little over three hours long and the first half deals with Henry's divorce from Catherine and the Anne Bolyn affair. The last half tries to cover Queens Jane,Anne,Catherine and the last queen also a Catherine. It just goes to fast Anne of Cleves gets ONE scene, the last half is WAYYY to rushed. Other than that though, not too bad. If you liked the Elizabeth movies you should like this too.Movie Review: Henry Should Have Been Institutionalized
Summary: 2 Stars
If you've seen the 1970's production with Keith Mitchell as Henry VIII, you're ruined forever from appreciating any other version. It's unbeatable with well drawn characters and superb acting. You really can't write a critique of this newer version without comparison to the 70's version. This version of Henry VIII isn't as gory as depicted by some reviewers e.g., Boleyn's bloody head held high for onlookers to see, some sword fights, a joust and the leader of the catholic insurrection bloodied topsy turvey. Who wants to watch gore anyway (yeah right). We want at least some semblance of historical accuracy and fine performances. Ray Winstone as Henry VIII has less of a cockney accent in the film than he does in the special interview section on the DVD. He did tone it down considerably so I have no argument with that. His Henry though is a narcissistic egomaniac, psychotic in his quest to keep his promise to his father, a promise that provided for a male heir. Today, he would be taken kicking and screaming from the castle, institutionalized and probably for the remainder of his life. Trumped up charges against Anne Boleyn led her to the axe, a vile Henry thrusting another wife to the floor while she was pregnant therefore resulting in her demise, another wife portrayed as a slut and adulteress leading her to the axeman etc. The man had no mercy for others, so in the end when he's near death you have no sympathy for him. Most importantly, there were no contradictions in Henry's character that made the viewer think about how a man of such intelligence and often gentleness could be so cruel, murder two wives and try and have history see his spanish queen as a slut and their children bastards. The 70's version provided wonderfully portrayed characters who even when you detested them you also felt some kind of pain for, especially Henry portrayed magnificently by Keith Mitchell. I would also have liked to have seen more script for Catherine of Aragon. I think she was really the most fascinating queen of them all and with a will of iron. One gets the feeling that if she had been sent to the axe, she wouldn't have publicly praised Henry as all the others did before the axe ended their lives. This wasn't even fun to watch. The 70's version at least had some fine areas of humor. Henry too was shown in that production as an intelligent man curious about the world about him. There's no such Henry in this newer version. As for Helena Bonham Carter as Anne Boleyn, costumed in some kind oF frizzy material either wrapped around her head or hanging off of one side of her head, reminded me more of Miss Faversham than the allegedly seductive Anne. Her costumes were dreadful. In fact, often Henry's costumes looked made on the cheap. Bonham-Carter was miscast. Whether true or not, we've come to think of Anne Boleyn, because of her reputation as "The Great Whore", more than just attractive but with that special quality a woman exudes that makes her appear as beautiful even if she's plain. Bonham-Carter, no matter how you dress her up is always plain and her costumes dominate her, not the other way around. England was fortunate that Henry never had a male heir who lived long enough to rule. If you can get a copy of this DVD at the library, get it. Don't waste any money on it.Movie Review: no way
Summary: 2 Stars
Ray Winstone is a really good actor but as other reviewers have already said he comes off as a merry olde England version of Tony Soprano. Sure I love Tony but that's all wrong here. If you know anything about Tudor England you will be very unhappy with this version of Henry VIII. It is historically inaccurate to the extreme. It's like the MTV version. Why does everyone in the cast sound more educated and sophisticated than the king? Heck why are they all so obviously smarter? Why do they even look better dressed? Who would've dared in real life to outshine the king to his face? The portrayal of Jane Seymour was an anachronism. By all contemporary accounts Jane was a little mouse who was content to let her brothers do the wheeling and dealing. She is too bold in this version. Helena Bonham Carter looks like she was born to play Queen Anne but she doesn't play the role as tough as she should've. The real Anne Boleyn got the king to abandon his wife and child, give up his religion, and slaughter 1000s of people including friends who had served him faithfully all their lives. She must have been INCREDIBLE. Bonham-Carter wasn't.
I liked Winstone a bit better when he was playing old Henry and some of the lout-in-the-pub mannerisms were toned down. His courtship of naughty Catherine Howard was almost touching. I really liked Sean Bean. Sean was the one really bright spot and I liked the montage of memories at the end of Henry's life and the smug look on Princess Elizabeth's face at his funeral. Although I have to point out that in real life Elizabeth would've hardly dared to look so pleased under the circumstances. To sum up I have to say that unless you really love Ray Winstone and want to watch everything he does skip this version. Just wait until it comes on Masterpiece Theater again.
Movie Review: Blah...simply not that good at all
Summary: 2 Stars
I can handle a historically muddled presentation like this...that is, if it is presented fairly well. But this production just isn't all that good, not on any level. Just like many other reviewers have mentioned, a number of the principals, most notably Bonham Carter, turned in performances that range from the bizarre to the utterly disengaged. Bonham Carter's performance rendered the historical Anne Boleyn unrecognizable to anyone familiar with the period.
Of course, this would fit in with the production as a whole. It is nothing new for these costume dramas to presume intimate knowledge on the part of the viewer of the historical period in question. This production goes farther than most in putting demands on most viewers, even those who are reasonably well-aquainted with the Tudor period. I would like to think that I have a decent enough grounding in that period, but there were more times than I can count that I was yanking Scarisbrick off the shelf to try and figure just what the hell was going on.
All in all, this really was an unsatisfying experience, both from a historical & dramatic point of view. There are definitely better television productions of Henry VIII that have been available for years now, and discriminating viewers will seek them out before turning to this mediocre effort.