Film

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

Updates:

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

Joe said...

Posted on Mar 24 2008 12:26 I thought the film was truly schmutz. Worst film in history!

Report as inappropriate
Robert said...

Posted on Mar 23 2008 13:40 For people who have not read the book and/or have not studied the period in which this film is set then you will find it very entertaining.
Admittedly i am not one for history, and i think because of my lack of deep knowledge alowed me to enjoy this film for what is was.
In short, if your not a a lover of details in History, you will thoroughly enjoy the film^^

Report as inappropriate
Anne said...

Posted on Mar 22 2008 03:18 I've read all I can get my hands on about Anne Boleyn and think this movie is very well done. Couldn't stand the book - or finish it. But though this movie, and Natalie's protrayal of Anne to be very satisfactory. They took some liberties like Henry raping Anne and the close call with incest - but hey, who knows? Maybe it did happen that way? Gotta see more of Bana.

Report as inappropriate
CHARLOTTE&AIRA&OLLIE said...

Posted on Mar 20 2008 17:34 we are going to go see it in a min. we hope it is good and from the reviews we have seen we are not to sure we will post back with our review later. watch when it's deaddd. but yep/ ANNEBOYLEN. Sounds good... lolsssss

Report as inappropriate
JANE BRAWN said...

Posted on Mar 20 2008 15:58 This was a fabulous film, stop picking holes in the history content, it wasn`t meant to be a history lesson, take it for waht it was a story put into film, Natalie Portman was superb,watch it and lose yourself in the drama and amazing costumes, after all it is suppose to be entertainment, go entertain yourselves.

Report as inappropriate
charlotte said...

Posted on Mar 20 2008 12:12 If you really want dirt and porn go out and buy paris hilton's sex video. It's not going to have sex in it because it's rated 12A. And as for the 'no aging in the short amount of time' if your on a short budget then it's not going to show every little bit of the story. also there's not enough historical information saying EXACTLY what happened. not to mention once you say that a movie or album, ect. is coming out by this date then you have to have it out by that date otherwise i think it's you either get sued or the movie files are taken away from them. if you were under pressure like that you wouldn't put every little detail in!

Report as inappropriate
Colette said...

Posted on Mar 20 2008 10:59 I have never in my life been treated like such an idiot viewer by a screenplay writer. I read the book and loved it; for all its trashiness, it was still full of all the lovely grim stuff you would expect from a setting at the Tudor court. But the film... Well, to say it was dumbed down is an understatement. Were we to assume that everything happened in a short space of time and that nobody aged? The novel brilliantly shows the contrast between Henry's young court; full of jousting, merriment and male bonding, and his later, darker, fatter years. And yet, the film was portrayed in what seemed like like one bleak shot. The character of Mary should have narrated as she does in the novel to give the viewer a better understanding of her and her relationship with her sister. Indeed I think it was a crime that Morgan never thought of this. My favourite line in the whole film came from the Boleyn mother ( magically turned in to quite a nice sympathetic women to keep the audience happy) who said "that wuold mean breaking with Catholic church?!" Really? Never! Not that there were many other churches around at that time... This film was, as usual, watered down and idiot proof. A complete shambles that is an insult to Phillipa Gregory.

Report as inappropriate
Tom McMaster said...

Posted on Mar 17 2008 11:19 Interesting historical drama with some fine performances, none better than Natalie Portman, who plays Anne Boleyn to perfection, complemented extremely well by Scarlett Johannson. Eric Bana also plays Henry to perfection. This film is well worth a look.

Report as inappropriate
CHARLOTTE said...

Posted on Mar 14 2008 13:30 i went with my friend and we found it trully great. The costumes and actors/actresses played great parts and allough it was slightly rushed would u have sat their for several hours just to see all the nitty griity. We are both 15 and found it highly interesting and a great love story.

Report as inappropriate
Brian said...

Posted on Mar 13 2008 17:51 My wife and I enjoyed the film very much. Take no notice of the two stars review from many critics . . . if you enjoy historical dramas and don't nitpik on fine details you will enjoy this. We thought it just as good as Elizabeth, the Golden Age. Go see it!

Report as inappropriate
Sarah B said...

Posted on Mar 13 2008 12:48 Saw this film last night and what a lot of pap it was. Talk about playing fast and loose with history! I wasn't expecting a documentary but it really was shameful, Pretty costumes though

Report as inappropriate
Alex said...

Posted on Mar 10 2008 12:01 The costumes are stunning, some of the actors are good, but anyone who's read the book, or knows anything about history will be disappointed. The story is too rushed, too simplistic, and lacks any of Phillipa Greggory's original charm and panache. Characters start one dimensionally and are not given a chance to develop, and the complex intrigues of Tudor politics and the divorce which changed a nation are simplified to Anne stroppily pouting "I won't have sex with you until you marry me".
Read the book, watch the earlier BBC adaptation or get your costume Drama fix from "The Tudors" (well done BBC again) but don't bother with this film.

Report as inappropriate
Matt said...

Posted on Mar 09 2008 20:01 I tend to agree with the reviewer. I found the film to be mildly entertaining, and the insight in to the story from Anne Boleyn's view was interesting, however the script and the performances lacked excitement and conviction. Scarlett Johanssen's Mary in particular was fairly weak. I wanted much more from Natalie Portman's Anne, but ultimately felt that she did her best with a script that very much seemed like Footballers Wives in the sixteenth century. Whenever a scene got vagueley interesting, the action moved on several months with little character development, giving a sense of spoon feeding the key information to the audeince in order to rush the film to its conclusion.
All in all, quite disappointing. I had high hopes for this film.

Report as inappropriate
Ray Jubb said...

Posted on Mar 09 2008 18:38 An excellent production and insight into an important period of English history. Good casting and presented in an atmospheric environment in which the viewer could certainly feel taken back to the ways of court life and their personal development, and downfall, at any cost.
Maybe some of the omissions, mentioned by this critic, were important, but did not detract from a most enjoyable and enlightening experience resulting from this relatively short film.

Report as inappropriate
aaron said...

Posted on Mar 08 2008 13:53 i agree with the above writes that review just does not do the film justice i think it is a very enticing tale that all shud see and if dave who ever wishes to see dirt and sparks maby he should go to a bonfirenight show and as for the sex well is that what u would say to put in all films theres not enough sex in it for hevens sake this film is a inspiration not a porno and i think everyone should give it the chance it deserves

Report as inappropriate