The Other Boleyn Girl (2003) Reviews

• Television Should Always Be So Compelling!

  sydneypatrick2003-04-11

  Contrary to what the other reviewer here states, this was not meant to be a sweeping vision of history. It was clearly meant as a chamber piece - a chick flick of dark proportions. While this production does not begin to embrace the scope of Anne's criminal nature, or the greater national ramifications that became of her union with Henry VIII, it doesn't aim to. What it does do, however, is paint a poignant portrait of what it was to be a woman in the 16th century, and how ruthless those days in court were. I'm a fan of the novel this is based on and am hugely thrilled by this adaptation. It is bold and striking and the lead performance by Jodhi May is one of the most compelling I have ever seen anywhere. It should certainly act as her calling card to producers everywhere that she is more than ready to make the transition from ingenue to adult role. By this performance, I'd say she made the leap long ago. Jared Harris turns in a dead on performance as the Tudor king who became a tyrant and not the least bit because of his union with Anne Boleyn. The rest in the cast paled in comparison to these two, but that does not mean they turned in poor performances. To the contrary, this was a top notch production I wish greater American audiences could see. The only glitch for me was toward the end when there is video footage of modern day England, tourists at the Tower of London. I don't get it. But I can forgive one small moment in light of the greater ambition and success of this project. Period drama should always be so delicious!

• Disappointing

  sapphogrlu2009-07-25

  This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book. Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general? Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along. Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad. Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.

• Very bad adaptation

  chips763092009-07-01

  I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse. First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne. Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution. On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.

• A stylish, unusual and absorbing TV movie

  princess_stomper2004-07-26

  The ever-dependable Steven Mackintosh and Natascha McElhone turned in solid performances to back up Jodhi May's powerful portrayal of the Tudor monarch. Jared Harris' Henry VIII managed to be sympathetic, seductive and tyrannical in turn. The unusual talking-to-camera, reality TV-style direction was a feature that really ought not to have worked but somehow did. As a depiction of the ruthless politics and intrigue of the medieval court, the movie succeeded very well. One word said out of place and heads, quite literally, would roll. A historical film could be said to be good if it increases interest in its subject matter. This fascinating and complex story is sufficient to have the laziest viewer reaching for the history books by the time the closing credits appear.

• Entertaining, but not accurate

  inamourada_flux2004-11-23

  If you're looking for historical accuracy, this is not the place to find it. Although entertaining, the plot (amongst other things), is flawed. In the novel, Philippa Gregory seems to portray Anne Boleyn as a bit of a ruthless strumpet with no brains, and Mary appears as some kind of angelic victim, where history states the opposite. However, it is supposed to be a romantic fiction, and this is achieved well in the TV adaptation. Jodhi May portrays Anne as passionate and strong-willed - overall an excellent performance. Natasha McElhone's meek representation of Mary certainly gives her credit as a fantastic actress. Jared Harris plays Henry, and to be honest I wasn't convinced (then again, Keith Michell is the only man I can picture as the king, so I may be somewhat biased). Harris just didn't seem as harsh and regal as I imagine Henry to have been. I was very impressed by Steven Mackintosh's depiction of Anne and Mary's brother, George Boleyn. His performance during the scene where Anne and Mary are trying to convince him into incest is especially worth seeing, and this really 'brought the character to life' for me, as I never really pondered on his influence before. What 'The Other Boleyn Girl' does succeed in, is portraying the Boleyn family's ambitious attempts in using Anne and Mary as pawns to grasp the crown, thus obtaining social power via the favour of the King. Though it seems to tone down the Tudor court in appearance (the costumes are unrealistically plain), this adaptation certainly gives you an idea of the malevolence during the court at the time. Overall, a nice film to watch. I wouldn't recommend it to history nuts who are likely to complain at the inaccuracy, but it is enjoyable, and well worth watching nonetheless.