LONDON CONNECT:

Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Director: Justin Chadwick

Time Out rating

Average user rating

32 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Why in the name of ermine boleros would anyone make such a dull, coy and, worst of all, pretty film about Anne Boleyn? Writer Peter Morgan (‘The Queen’, ‘The Last King of Scotland’) again ventures into the parlours of the rich and powerful to excavate a crisis. This time it’s the marital and succession woes of Henry VIII (Eric Bana) and their knock-on effects on two noble sisters, Anne and Mary Boleyn, who are vying for the eye of a broody king, egged on by their father (Mark Rylance) and their scheming uncle, Thomas Howard (David Morrissey, playing Alastair Campbell to Rylance’s Blair).

It’s no doubt a producer’s wet dream to cast Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman as the two Boleyn girls. Johansson is the domestically-inclined Mary (‘What about our future in the country?’ she grumbles in Good Housekeeping fashion to her drippy husband) and Portman (more successfully) is the more forthright Anne, newly and unconvincingly emboldened by a spell at the French court (it’s a small mercy she doesn’t return with a copy of ‘The Second Sex’ under her arm).

The pair’s stellar presence at least fits the film’s Holbein-meets-Annie Leibovitz colour palette; let’s call it the Vanity Fayre look.Polite, well-made, adequately performed, moderately paced – television director Justin Chadwick’s take on Philippa Gregory’s racy, trashy novel is everything you don’t want it to be. Morgan’s script is workable if skeletal and possessed of some odd turns of speech (‘Would you accept the challenge?,’ Howard asks Anne, imitating a gameshow host as he pushes her towards Henry).

The film takes itself too seriously (see the literal dark clouds over the palace) and never ignites as it should in a storm of rivalries, fear, sex and religion. There’s a 15-minute period of paranoia as Anne’s relationship with Henry (a brooding Bana, sidelined) falls to pieces and you wish there was more of this. Where are the sparks? The dirt? The sex? And where’s Cardinal Wolsey while we’re at it? Most memorable are the costumes.

Author: Dave Calhoun 2008-03-03 17:15:17

Time Out London Issue 1959 March 5 – 11 2008

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

pac-man said...

Posted on Aug 16 2008 01:14 Pants. Read the book which I really enjoyed. This was hacked to peices with no real sense of attachment to the caracters. Didn't really care what happened to them. Stilted 'English' accents didn't help either.

Report as inappropriate
John Cooper said...

Posted on Aug 04 2008 23:59 This is a better film than the critics would have you believe. Natalie Portman's performance, in particular, deserves praise. Those criticising the film for its historical inaccuracy are being somewhat disingenous
as there is considerable debate amongst historians
as to what is fact and what is conjecture in Tudor history, and I think most
viewers are able to grant artistic licence to this account
which takes Mary Boleyn as its central and most sympathetic character. Not a great film by any means,
but nethertheless thought-provoking ( without being heavily intellectural ) and moving ( without being
overly sentimental ) Scarlet Johannson is miscast, and looks distinctly `unenglish` most of the time, and has difficulty playing what seems to be, on the evidence of this screenplay, a rather idealized character. On the whole, however, you will come out of the cinema `wiser` than when you went in, which is no small achievement.

Report as inappropriate
Jackie said...

Posted on Jul 20 2008 04:52 I haven't read the book, or studied the period, so I'm commenting on this purely as a film when I say it was very disappointing. There was so much potential to be good, firstly with the talented cast (Natalie Portman is utterly amazing when she hits her stride) and with the material, but it just never went up a gear. It was just reasonably engaging, keeping you watching while you waited for something to explode, but as massive historical events slipped quietly by with seemingly little drama, you started to realise that it wasn't going to happen. Bana was a fairly bland Henry, failing to capture the charm or charisma of a king who utterly embodied the concept of courtly romance (ok, I have studied the period a wee bit), and he displayed no real sense of passion or frustration in his relationship with Anne. The only relationship that seemed at all developed was his one with Mary, which built very sweetly from their first night together, and then culminated in his poignant letter to her after she begged him to spare Anne. Perhaps that was intentional, as the title of the novel/film suggests a shift in focus from Anne onto Mary, but the opportunity for a great contrast between the two sisters’ relationships with the king was sorely missed by the lack of chemistry or sparks between Anne and Henry.
On a positive note, the costumes were great ;-)

Report as inappropriate
Lou said...

Posted on Apr 22 2008 21:30 I cant believe they missed so much out and left so much rubbish in. Raping Anne was ridiculous, as were the massive plot holes such as Carey not dieing, catherine not being born - and yet mentioned later, the meeting at hever in thebeginiing. It was all awful. And why was anne walking around with her hair covered one day and not the next when unmaried? Surely she would not have had it covered at all? ih. And how did her and henrys wedding come from nowhere? where was the 6 year courtship in which she shined above all other women?

Report as inappropriate
natisha said...

Posted on Apr 11 2008 16:45 I thought the movie was better than I thought it would be. Plus the scenes were amazing. But it was good. Worth a watch..

Report as inappropriate
sum1 said...

Posted on Apr 07 2008 13:20 BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report as inappropriate
Hannah said...

Posted on Apr 03 2008 12:28 Loved this film, very sexy. Natalie Portman is fab as always and Eric Bana hawt!

Report as inappropriate
JANE ANNE said...

Posted on Apr 03 2008 03:20 Isent my comments but you trashed them

Report as inappropriate
jannarta said...

Posted on Apr 03 2008 03:17 I thought that the film kept to the truth of the matter veryclosely and the costumes are magniticant. the role playing was convincing and set data accurate. Photography and dolly work superb with distant shots in focus with the foreground like your real eyes. I went with a bunch of female students taking A level History and I thought Henry 8th was a MONSTER IN REAL LIFE, and should have been castrated for what he did to the women.JANNARTA.

Report as inappropriate
Ozzie Colchester said...

Posted on Mar 29 2008 02:54 I thought the film was fantastic. I watched it on 25th March and was totally engrossed throughout. It captured the reality of history and its hidden agendas. What a story. I bet there are many history boffs that didn't realise the 'true' story of Jane and Anne Boleyn. I for one didn't. Enthralling! Can't wait until the dvd comes out in the shops!

Report as inappropriate
winnie said...

Posted on Mar 28 2008 21:06 really interesting anne was really nasty !
reccomend to those who have a box of tissues in hand .beautifully filmed .can't wait to read the book

Report as inappropriate
mystery lady said...

Posted on Mar 27 2008 17:42 i didn't think it would be any good but i actually really enjoyed it! i would recommend to anyone. there were a few good actors in it which stood out to me.

Report as inappropriate
M said...

Posted on Mar 27 2008 15:22 I can see why the likes of illiterate girls who posted their comments here liked this film. It is just the right level of shallowness and fool-hardiness for such viewers. I agree with Ella and Collette, it was awful. But I guess it’s our fault that we expected something good from it. I’ve never seen an adequate adaptation of a good book by Hollywood especially where history is concerned. For those who say historic representation is not important provided the costumes are good, why don’t you go and watch some TV commercials instead. They are just about as deep as this film.

Report as inappropriate
Briannarchy said...

Posted on Mar 24 2008 23:03 Deeply disappointed. Why does Scarlett Johanssen have to look vacant the whole time and why does she never close her mouth? Eric Bana didn't convince me as Henry and was pretty one dimensional. By the end of the film my friend and I were cringeing - particularly when Scarlett rushes through the court shouting 'give me the child'....what a missed opportunity...

Report as inappropriate
Ella said...

Posted on Mar 24 2008 17:41 I have never been so disappointed in a film. An utter waste of time. The film does in no way justice to the book. The storyline has been twisted and changed so much it's hard to recognise the original story. A story which is being told over a decade and more, a story in which the love for the queen as well as the king torments Mary, a story which portrays her struggle between love and hate for her family and her husband (who rather inconveniently doesn't die in the movie - has noone thought about how she's able to marry Stafford when she's not been widowed yet???)
Ommitting one of Mary's children and several of Anne's miscarriages, ommitting the years of torment and struggle of Henry to free himself of Katherine and also ommitting George's love for another man... There is so much missing in this movie it's a surprise it can still claim to be based on P. Gregory's novel.

Report as inappropriate