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: Horrible! History Begone!
Summary: 1 Stars
In reading some of these reviews, I wonder if we had seen the same movie.
Even if I did not have a degree in history, the terrible inaccuracies and inconsistencies would have been apparent to even a casual historical buff. It is so bad I don't know where to begin.
Henry VIII came across as a blue collar worker who dutifully goes bowling every Saturday night. There was not even a rudiment of royal aspect to this character; whether or not it was due to the terrible miscasting of the actor (one of many; more about that later) or a clueless director, one can only guess. If I didn't know the main events and personages of this period, even a scorecard wouldn't have helped me understand what was going on.
Major historical events simply flew by without any rhyme, reason or explanation. At least in some productions, actors are sought who bear some resemblance to the actual person. In this case, an attempt to do so must have been thrown out the window. Henry VIII was over 6 ft tall according to his skeleton unearthed in the 1800s. In this movie almost everybody towers over him, in an age when most men were around 5'6"-5'8" in height. And the rest--Wolsey, Cromwell, Cranmer--not one of the actors bore any recognizable resemblance at all to their historical personages, and in most cases were the exact opposites. And why the crewcuts?
The personalities of Henry's wives were many and varied remarkably from one to the other. This movie, however, took that fact of their differences in individual traits to a ludicrous extreme. At times, they were downright incorrect. Jane Seymour was way too overbearing, talkative and meddling. In reality, Henry had been initially captivated by her because she was quiet and unassuming. Catherine Howard was a promiscuous young girl, but I doubt she exhibited such sauciness in Henry's very presence. Didn't anybody involved in this fiasco read a history book?
Skinny dipping in Tudor England?????????
I cannot finish this review without commenting on the total lack of knowledge of the time period. Didn't anyone know that women, especially those of the upper class, NEVER appeared in public without the sometimes elaborate headresses of the period? The only exception would be when a woman was crowned; she would ride to her coronation with her hair loose. Otherwise, women generally hid their tresses under headpieces and scarves. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the young Lady Mary in public without any head covering; likewise Catherine Howard.
What makes this especially disappointing is that usually the British are sticklers for historical accuracy. Can someone tell me what happened with this movie? Are they no longer teaching English History in the schools?
This sad movie is nothing but an elaborate soap opera set in Tudor England and altering the principles to such a degree that one had to guess whom they were portraying.
If you know very little about history, please do not use this movie as a starting point in your education. As for those of us who have made an intense study of Tudor England--this film isn't even good enough for a laugh. History massacred! This production does not really even merit one star, but the scoring method does not give me the option of a "0".
Movie Review: bloody ,awful
Summary: 1 Stars
Granted, historically based movies can never be completely historically accurate, and there is room to debate many of the key issues in Henry VIII's reign, but it doesn't even appear that the producers read one historical account, opting instead to produce an violent, nauseating portrayal of Henry VIII, his wives and their times. Yes, the sixteenth century was violent, but Henry VIII was much more than a barbaric thug. The scenes with Anne Boleyn, played with some skill by Helena Bonham Carter (though her character is far too underdeveloped) were overshadowed by moments which ranged from laughable (Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn skinny dipping) to horrific (Henry VIII brutally rapes Anne Boleyn toward the end of their marriage.) There is no need for this, and if you are a person who has studied the lives of these individuals as I have, it is offensive. Not to mention there was no need for the gratuitous scene of the beheading of Anne Boleyn, where you see the executioner hold up Anne Boleyn's severed bloody head. It's all shock and very little substance.
There is not enough room to recount the historical inaccuracies in this film. Suffice it to say there were many, and while a good film could rise above those inaccuracies, this did not. When it wasn't completely wrong, the movie repeats (almost verbatim) lines from a much better film about these characters, Anne of the Thousand Days. Anyone who is interested in knowing more about Henry VIII should stay away from this film. some creative license is acceptable and expected, but I would at least expect the makers of this movie to base some of the plot on historical facts. Anne of the Thousand Days is not wholly accurate either, but at least it attempts to ground the plot and the characters in some historical basis. I would refer anyone to Anne of the Thousand Days or better yet, a good biography such as Starkey's Six Wives or Ives' Anne Boleyn. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would advise anyone truly interested in Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn to avoid this film. I am just glad I saw it on tv and didn't waste my money buying it, as I am very disappointed. I will admit I haven't seen the second part of this series, but I have no doubt that it will be as bad if not worse than the first. Even if the second part is better, I doubt it could redeem the first part of this movie which I have just reviewed
Movie Review: What went wrong here?
Summary: 1 Stars
I do not expect historical accuracy in every movie about Henry VIII like we've seen it in the BBC production with Keith Michell. Even the BBC production bears some inaccuracies and changes in its script but they do not contradict history like this one!
Ah, where to begin? The actor chosen for Henry VIII was dreadfully miscast. The only resemblance was that he had red hair & that's it. The historical Henry VIII towered over everyone surrounding him at his court (He was 6''2, a very unusual height at the time), he didn't speak with a Cockney accent & didn't behave like a drunken brute. Henry VIII, for all that Hollywood attempts to change, was a king of refinement and knowledge. Despite being married to six women throughout his life he was a prude whose behavior towards women & the lords at his court was worthy of a king. I do not expect the genius of Keith Michell from every actor who portrays this role but here we've arrived at a new low! A Henry VIII hitting & raping his wives? Nothing we know of Henry (And his enemies would have been delighted to report such low behavior) suggests that he ever abused any of his wives in such a way. Not even Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard suffered from his hands directly once he had chosen to send them to the block for whatever offense they may have committed but were left by him in cold blood.
Aside from this the wives were portrayed awfully. Has any of the writers here read a history book? Katherine of Aragon was fair & blue eyed (Only the BBC productions got that right) & not slender, dark eyed & dark haired. She never spoke in such a fashion to Anne Boleyn for it would have been beyond her dignity to address the matter to anyone, much less to the lady who caused it. Helena Bonham Carter was too old to play 19 year old Anne, plus she was obviously pregnant.
It goes on and on.... Breaches of etiquette, inaccurate costumes & hairstyles, overly corny executions...
These days it's in to rewrite history in Hollywood. But not in a way that produced enchanting little masterpieces like "Young Bess" or "The private life of Henry VIII"....no, history is reduced to a tabloid soap.
Movie Review: Another Wasted Opportunity
Summary: 1 Stars
Sad to say, this is numbingly bad, best passed over in silence. In general, this disappointing (yet expensive) production appears to continue down the path of the recent (and awful) big screen version of "Elizabeth", where the talents of Cate Blanchett were totally wasted and in which historical accuracy was simply jettisoned in favour of camp, the resulting mess actually containing much less compelling drama than the historically faithful version would have. We know that Tudor monarchs didn't speak Oxbridge English, but were they really cockneys, as Henry is portrayed here? There are some disturbing, gratuitous and perversely gloating bloody execution scenes as well and the actors are often placed in truly laughable situations. The script distorts history so badly that it is not even worth trying to untangle it here. Pity poor Thomas Cromwell, for example, who is portrayed here as nothing more than an evil, inept buffoon. Whoever cast these actors as leading lights of the Tudor court should have at least looked at Holbein's portraits of many of them. These actors don't resemble them at all. Poor Helena Bonham Carter, who plays Anne Boleyn as the wronged but unreasonably understanding wife. Her final (quite unhistorical, by the way) scene with baby Elizabeth plumbs new depths of bad taste, outdone only by her execution scene, complete with bloody head.
Despite its being thirty-five years old, Keith Michell's portrayal of Henry for the still admirable BBC series is the one to watch, while the resemblance of a host of fine British actors to known likenesses of Tudor courtiers is simply uncanny (especially Cromwell and Cranmer). Why can't someone today do a good job on Tudor history, given how far our knowledge of the period has advanced since the 1970's, the last time the subject was tackled convincingly? The opportunity still remains unexplored, alas, and this present effort probably means that it will be some time before it is attempted again. Too bad.
Movie Review: What a God-awful mess!
Summary: 1 Stars
How much did I hate this? Let me count the ways:
1. Catherine of Aragon as a pathetic Spanish shrew rather than the dignified queen she was;
2. Anne Boleyn as a sulky femme fatale with none of the qualities the real Anne was known for: intelligence, wit, superb fashion sense, musical talent, and a strong interest in social reform;
3. A non-existent Anne of Cleves;
4. A Catherine Howard who falls to pieces and struggles on the scaffold, rather than conducting herself with dignity (what a wasted dramatic opportunity -- the real Catherine actually spent her last night in her cell PRACTICING with a block so she wouldn't make a spectacle of herself)
5. Nothing much said about any of Henry's military campaigns, or the way his constant spending practically bankrupted England;
6. Gratuitous scenes -- marital rapes, skinny-dipping, severed heads, etc., ad nauseum;
7. Wincingly bad dialogue;
8. Worst of all: A portrayal of Henry that suggests nothing of the early grace, charisma, looks, education, or culture that made him the marvel of Europe when he was crowned king -- instead this Henry starts as a boorish oaf and degenerates from there. The part is horribly written and miscast.
I could go on and on, but won't -- I'll only recommend that you don't waste several hours of your life watching this. Instead, pick up the PBS series starring the incomparable Keith Mitchell.