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: Could have been much better
Summary: 2 Stars
Well, let me start by confessing that I do not know enough about British history to say anything about how historically accurate this series is. But I do enjoy good acting and historical drama and a well written script. I agree with one of the reviewers that it is a soap opera set in historical times and I think some of the things filmed are quite over the top, like the swimming sequence with Henry and Anne. It does not seem to fit the historical context of the series and somehow it seems out of place or inappropriate and did not serve a purpose (if only to show Ray Winstone naked, which I did not enjoy at all), as do a number of other scenes. This series did not have me longing to know more of Henry VIII or either of his six wives as did the miniseries Charles II (Rufus Sewell is absolutely great in his role of Charles II). I was not at all engrossed and sometimes a little bit bored, wanting to skip through scenes. I think Ray Winstone was miscast, but I liked David Suchet (whom I did not recognize at first).
I'll just stick to the documentary of David Starkey for the time being. Also recommend his documentary of Ellizabeth R.
Movie Review: Henry Soprano
Summary: 2 Stars
Ray Winstone is very good in the recent King Arthur film, where playing a side-thug to history is fine. But in the title role of this film, his all-to-20th Century thug acting left something to be desired. In fact, the producers admitted to the very flaw of this film as their intention, to make Henry VIII a modern day gangster. Tony Soprano as King of England.
Part two, which features Henry in his later years, is much better than part one, but all in all, I still felt this was far too modern an approach to history.
My main gripe about this was its lack of historical "feel" and "style". This was a conscious decision and not one I agree with. If you want a "Henry the VIII for the new Millennium" ... well, this might be it.
Movie Review: Go Back to The Original
Summary: 2 Stars
Boy was this disappointing. Like most fans of this period I looked forward to this new version. Bah humbug. Ray Winstone seemed to be auditioning for a gangster movie and there were too many inaccuracies.
The original Six Wives series (a very early Masterpiece Theatre production, I think) with Keith Michell is much better.
For historical accuracy the Starkey version is very interesting and gives a better view of both the characters and their time.
Movie Review: so so and very historically inaccurate
Summary: 2 Stars
I was really looking forward to this since I loved the Six Wives one with Keith Michell. Unfortunately, it just left me cold. Very beautiful, lavish sets and Helena Bonham Carter made a wonderful Anne Boleyn. But too many flaws historically left me sad and wanting.Movie Review: East Enders goes Tudorian...
Summary: 1 Stars
For those of you who know about the BBC Series "The East Enders", about blue collar Britons in East London, this will be a clear message.
For those of you, who know nothing about this, let me just say, that although "East Enders" is a long running series on BBC, and very successful at that in its own right, it is the story of a working class community that shows everyday dramas of common "Cockney" people.
Although they do not speak too tight, they still preserve their working class accents.
And so it is here, in this version of "Henry VIII".
This is an insult to intelligence and good taste.
Not just history-wise, but also to all those working class people in the East End of London, who are in fact, far brighter and intelligent as to fall for this weak attempt to bring History to the "simple man".
How can you imagine that a man such as Henry VIII, brought up and educated by the Company of Jesus (a.k.a. Jesuits), both in rhetoric and fine literature, as well as mastering Ancient Greek, Latin and French, could still speak with a working class "Cockney" accent?
This alone should give you a hint on how bad and how ridiculous the entire movie is.
Nor does it help to have Charles Dance (who actually appears and disappears almost immediately) on board, or Helena Bonham-Carter, doing her own bit, as usual, but that has no connection to the true Anne Boleyn (neither physically, nor in personality), or again David Suchet, whose experience as an actor gets totally wasted, by making him too, into a "Cockney" Cardinal Wolsey... (better watch him in Poirot).
This film takes so many liberties with actual historic fact, such as actual historic feats and details, up to even having all the wrong hair styles, wrong costumes and completely wrong social behaviors of the time.
No one bothered to do in-depth biographical researches nor to stick somewhat, to actual court protocol and etiquette of the times.
It seems that all the producers, writer(s) and the director wanted, was to slam an MTV generation styled drama onto film, to entertain their own aficionados.
Unfortunately they actually managed to go public with this embarrassing product of ignorance, arrogant populism and primitive conception of history.
In one word: Revisionist.
Revisionism, as we all know, is the specialty of upstarts who never bothered to actually study about what truly came before them, and just love to rewrite history as they please, in order to make it more comfortable to them to justify their otherwise embarrassing and abysmal ignorance pervading the world they have built for themselves, out of accumulating money, but never having spent a minute studying the texts they claim they know, nor having set eyes on actual books of the period.
Some reviewers have criticized the 1972 produced movie "Henry VIII and his Six Wives" (starring Keith Michell as Henry VIII, reprising his role from the successful BBC series "The Six Wives of Henry VIII"), as being bad, but let me tell you, that the movie was made for U.S. audiences in mind, who either never got to see the BBC series in the first place, or never got a chance to hear about it (the BBC series is now readily available on DVD in a box set).
In fact, the movie has a completely new cast, sporting actors such as Charlotte Rampling and Donald Pleasence (whose daughter was part of the BBC series also).
This movie was meant as a sort of a "compendium" to the BBC series, and both form a complete and almost accurate (except for some dramatic licenses here and there), history lesson and are far more biographically accurate than this present product.
Add also Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold's "Anne of the thousand days" and Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw's appearances in "A Man for All Seasons" and you will truly have the complete Henry VIII's tale as it should be told in a movie.
This "Henry VIII" is pretentious and simplistic to say the least and it is not even "modern" as the director tries to defend himself.
Being modern can also mean to still have some taste and intelligence left to produce something of value, without treating history as trash.
But more important than anything else is that no matter whether you try to reach blue collar workers or white collar ones, a movie-maker ought to have some respect for them.
I do not get a great sense of this respect in this movie.
They liked it, so we have to like it.
No, this is not how it works my dear fellas. You are meant to educate and to bring awareness among people, especially when dealing with history.
IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS, THEN GET YOUR PAWS OFF OF IT!!!!
Besides, Ray Winstone is the weakest Henry VIII I have ever seen walk the stage or the screen.
I still remember Charles Laughton or Robert Shaw playing him, or even Keith Michell (to me still the definitive Henry), and they all brought majesty into the character.
Ray Winstone, probably due to his background as an actor, and to his stocky appearance, but not stature, is constantly forced to yell and yell, but never really comes through as a Monarch.
He could at best play King John Plantagenet, but never, ever Henry VIII.
He is too weak and looks more like a "docker", than a true King.
Besides as far as Kings go, they would never shout in public. Their rants and their anger attacks always happen behind closed doors, away from the public eye.
I had hoped that this production be as good as its predecessors, or at least as its contemporaries with "Elizabeth I" (Helen Mirren) and "The Virgin Queen" (Anne-Marie Duff), but no such luck.
While I am at it, why did they not cast Robbie Coltrane ("From Hell" and "The World is Not Enough") for the role of Henry VIII?
He is a "Cockney" as well, but at least HE would have had the stature and I bet he would have played the role with more distinction and fervor than Ray Winstone.
The DVD transfer is OK, both in sound, as well as in its image quality, but as said, the movie is not worth a dime or a penny.
If you are seriously interested in History and want also acting skills and good writing going hand in hand, then go with the movies and BBC series I have mentioned above.
Leave this forgettable and empty-headed MTV-styled product to those who love to drink beer and eat popcorn.
They won't mind either way, since their attention span is as long as the length of a commercial break anyway.
I am sorry, but in order to produce a History movie, it takes far more talent than this.
Certain rules will always apply, but some people don't seem to really care nor do they seem to realize that their careers depend on this simple fact.
I cannot recommend this movie to anyone, not even to my dog, who seems to be far more intelligent than some people...