The Other Boleyn Girl

I was so happy when this came out on film because I loved the book. The book this movie is based on is historical fiction so I knew it was not going to be historically accurate but this movie does take some facts and stretch them pretty far. So if your looking to learn something about Anne Boleyn don't go to this movie. But this movie is very entertaining and the costumes are perfect. You did get a sense of what it was like during that time period and what the two girls went through. There are some nice special features as well. Yes, this movie is historically inaccurate, but all movies are unless they are a documentary. So if you keep in mind this is a movie to ENTERTAIN you, then you will enjoy it. Natalie Portman does a great job as Anne Boleyn.

What a terrible film. Can someone please tell Natalie Portman that her 15 minutes were over a long time ago. Why does she keep trying the horrible fake British accent? It's almost as bad as Madonna's .... almost! And her acting, well it's about as bad as the accent. Scarlett Johansson isn't much better. Both of them are so out of their element it's frightening. As for the film, it's a total mess. It blows so fast through the historical events that you don't care one iota about any of the characters except maybe for the poor British actors in the film who had to go to their trailers every day and bang their heads against the wall trying to figure out how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Not an art movie--not quite an epic--but a regular costumer, in what has become a culture with Focus Films: Make as many movies about Elizabeth I, or her relatives and historical milieu. This time it is about her mother, Ann Boleyn, but the story--slow moving at first--let's us know about her younger sister, Mary, and her manipulative uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who sees it is an opportunity to further his family's interests by promoting her as the prospective mistress of his king, who else, the infamous Henry the VIII. She is married already, and that makes it easier, for the king need not bother with her virginhood. Mary has a child with Henry and then is abandoned; his interest now turns to her sister, Ann, who had been in France a while, "educating" herself in court manners. Now she is a daring woman who has the temerity to exchange witticism with the mighty king. She defies him to marry her, something that will cost England a rift with the Pope. All this is well known stuff of history, and the movie does not bother with much detail. But when Ann seems to go too far, fails to produce a male heir, and thence is beheaded; that simple. The details of two beheadings, for she has to be found guilty of something--incest with her brother--are gruesome, and both she and her brother undergo the usual decapitation process, he with an ax, his head on a block, she by a horizontal hit with a blade that cuts off her head while she knees, and her head and neck are in vertical position.

Eric Bana, who plays Henry, makes an effort to make this male monster's tale sympathetic--after all he has to have a son!--but, in this one of his weakest performances, only succeeds in giving the viewer a bag of inconsistencies, for Henry seems beyond redemption--whatever his reasons. Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johanssen give creditable performances, and the rest of the cast is on the excellent side, in this tale which nothing but a repetition of royal sins and monstrous inhumanities.

I was very disappointed in the movie. It was to short and left out some interesting things that was in the book. Love the book, dissappointed in the movie. A big let down.

I was curious to see what other viewers thought of this. While loving historical pieces, I am also guilty of liking silly romance novels. This fits into what pleases me on days that I don't want to think too deeply...

The plot was entertaining if not terribly engaging. Although I really disliked the rape scene and the end. The end was rushed and choppy....it seemed to all occur in a few days or weeks. The rape scene - who ever wants to see that? Nonetheless, it just did not seem to fit. It was harsh. I mean, I know Henry must have been angry that suddenly his country was being turned upside down by the whims of a vixen he had fallen for, but why the abrupt turn of passions? It was just a bit over the top and probably just done to show the differences between the relationship with the sisters.....

Someone previously had mentioned that Mary and Henry's conversations in the movie seemed inadequate and unfulfilling....I think that for the time it was appropriate. The king was looking for a pretty face to entertain him and Mary was an easily swayed girl looking for love. A few words and glances were all that were needed for someone to be convinced they were in love then (perhaps now?)

Overall I enjoyed the film. Overdramatic and intense sometimes sure, but mostly a nice, easy watch for those who wish to fill their heads with romance :)