Customer Reviews

Henry VIII

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

As an historian, I was a bit disappointed with the latest recreation of the lives and wiles of Henry VIII, arguably one of the most important figures in British history. The nursery rhyme is well known - Henry the Eighth was six times wedded; two he divorced, two beheaded...

This production, written by Peter Morgan (known for other television productions such as `The Jury') and directed by Pete Travis (also of `The Jury', also `Other People's Children'), is a period piece that largely rests on one primary theme - that Henry VIII was charged by his father with one task above all others, and that was to secure the succession for another Tudor. Since this was a world in which (supposedly) a queen could not rule in her own right, this required a male heir to the throne (of course, it would be Henry's own offspring that would change that assumption, for the better, and for ever).

Henry's quest to gain a male heir knew no bounds; by the time his obsession had destroyed many lives (not just those of the unfortunate women he married), he was an overweight and overbearing man with not too many years left to live. His succession of wives is made all the more dramatic by the speed of the unions - between his first divorce from Catherine of Aragon in 1533, he had five more wives in the span of only 10 years, the last one to last until his death in 1547. The women came into favour and fell out of favour quickly, sometimes due to infidelity and political intrigue, and sometimes due to the quirky whims of Henry.

It is this quirkiness that is highlighted in Ray Winstone's performance. Winstone is not well known to American audiences, but a regular fixture on British television and cinemas. Henry is presented as a brash, lustful, but often boyishly-innocent figure, vulnerable and wounded by others around him, especially the wives, if they do not live up to his expectations or desires of loving him for himself. The cast of women portraying the wives is impressive, including the award-winning Helena Bonham Carter as Anne Boleyn, Emilia Fox as Jane Seymour, and Clare Holman as Catherine Parr. If you think you recognise the voice of the narrator, you probably do - it is that of Shakespearean Derek Jacobi.

The sets, costumes, and other atmospheric pieces are well done and appropriate to the context. But this is an actor's piece, driven by dialogue, and here is falls a little short of fully satisfying. The characters are a bit too much of caricatures; they overemphasise certain strengths and weaknesses, and do not play as balanced figures (even for the imbalanced people that history tells us they were). This is meant to draw the tragedy of Henry's life out, and his role as more sinned against than sinning in many parts of the film play.

Well worth watching, the viewer who expects an undistorted history lesson will be disappointed. However, in the `some events have been changed for dramatic purposes' world of acting, it does help to cause some reconsideration here and there of all the events of the time. History is as much a record as it is interpretation. This is one.

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".

I was eagerly looking forward to this. Boy, was I disappointed. I'm a scholar of the 16th century and have been captivated by Henry VIII's court and wives. Especially Anne Boleyn. I have read every biography of the wives and Henry. I hate anachronisms and this drama was full of them. I hate historical inaccuracies and we had plenty of those. I agree with one reviewer who said Henry was over 6 feet tall, and although bluff and hearty, he was cultured and elegant until he became ill and irascable and disillusioned. No one ever gets Catherine of Aragon correctly. I think Annette Crosby came closest in the first PBS six wives to her personality and coloring. Catherine was very tiny, under 5 feet tall, auburn haired and blue eyed. As she bore children, she lost her figure and grew heavy. However, filmakers insist in casting dark haired ladies who are tall and slim. Anne Boleyn eludes them completely. She was slim and "above middle height" with dark hair and deep brown eyes. She was charming, bright, witty and talented, both musically and vocally. They always portray her as a shrew. She captivated Henry and excited him. Jane Seymour was demure and quiet and very, very plain. Has anyone looked at Holbein's portrait??? Anyway I won't go on. It's all just more of the same. One great big disappointment.

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

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.

I agree with many of the reviewers here. One even mentioned Tony Soprano as the inspiration for Ray Winstone's horrid performance. Give Tony Soprano a cockney accent, died red hair, and you have Ray Winstone. I have to admit I thought about James Gandolfini througout the entire time watching this. I am truly disgusted with the barrage of historical inaccuracies in historical period films, some I can tolerate, but this was not one of them. The miscasting of Ray Winstone was perhaps the largest blunder - he was short, could not provide any sort of "majestical dignity", and did not for one minute convince me of Henry VIII. The wives did not carry the movie either. Helena Bonham Carter was pregnant during the filming, and her large girth was evident and poorly hidden. It was distracting when you are picturing a petite attractive woman, and Helena Bonham Carter has a larger waistline than Henry!! I cringed when they had Anne Boleyn say goodbye to the three year old Elizabeth in the tower, that was the most gut wrenching inaccuracy of many. The only part I enjoyed was the last minute or so when the narrator, stating that Henry VIII, despite his quest for a male heir, did have a glorious heir in the form of a daughter, Elizabeth I.

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.

I was looking forward to this movie, as I love anything to do with the Tudors, and find the time period fascinating, as well as the bizarre monarchy! However, this movie leaves everything lacking. Let's start with the music. Lovely, but far too familiar. They stole it from Gladiator! I was wondering why I could anticipate the next note! Also some music and scenes were stolen from the movie Elizabeth. Truly, no need for this. A little original creativity, please! Helena Bonham Carter is usually quite good in her roles, but she showed no emotion, and her perfomance is dull and flat compared to Anne in "Anne of the Thousand Days." She never comes off as convincing, nor powerful, as the real Anne Boleyn was. Henry seemed weak, as well, and the whole story is a Reader's Digest version, which, unless you are familiar with Tudor history, makes it very difficult for a viewer to truly understand the politics between Church and State, in those days, and how the chaos influenced life at Court and beyond. I had thought I would purchase this, but won't bother, afterall, which is too bad. For movies, stick to Anne of the Thousand Days, Lady Jane, and Elizabeth. For accurate history, get David Starkey's The Six Wives of Henry VIII DVD, which will be time well spent. Sorry!

This thing is three hours and twenty minutes long. An hour an ten minutes into it, Princess Elizabeth is born. That should give you some idea of the horrible pacing. Plenty of others have complained about the wild inaccuracies, from tiny things (headwear) to major world-changing events (the break with Rome skipped over in a heartbeat), so I'll sum up quickly. The dialogue and situations themselves seem forced and highly unrealistic--for instance, Henry VIII leans over others watching a joust, including Katharine of Aragon and Cardinal Wolsey, to flirt with Anne Boleyn. Other highlights: Wolsey personally torturing Buckingham in the Tower (wrong in at least 3 different ways), Princess Mary torn shrieking from her mother by brutal guards, Henry bending Anne over a table and raping her. I haven't even made it to disk 2. I think I'm done, though, and my copy is now for sale. If I have to hear "I can do anything I want--I'm the king of England; I'm the king of England--I can have anything I want" one more time, heads will roll.

On the other hand, you do get to see Henry VIII's bum. That rates one star on its own.

I have been interested in Henry and the Tudor dynasty for 22 years and was very excited to discover this dvd as I had never heard of it previously. I should have read the customer reviews listed before I clicked "buy". While the costumes and locations are shot beautifully, the dialogue is insipid and the history is flat out wrong. Misinformation abounds. I would encourage the Henry VIII enthusiast to spend a little extra money and buy the BBC mini series from the 1970's instead.
Between the bodice ripping and over wrought emotion on display I expected Susan Lucci to make an appearance. Streaked mascara and all. My advice - skip it. "All My Children" is cheaper.