Customer Reviews

The Other Boleyn Girl

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Hollywood is releasing a new adaptation of Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl," so unsurprisingly the older BBC adaptation is also (finally) seeing the light of American day.

And it's a pleasant, intimate little look at the difficult world of women in Tudor England. It's hampered by what is obviously a very low budget, but Jodhi May and Jared Harris turn in performances that knock it a few notches higher. Seriously, they're both amazing.

While serving Queen Katherine, Mary Boleyn (Natascha McElhone) catches the eye of King Henry VIII (Jared Harris), and soon her scheming, power-hungry family has shoved her into his bed. Initially she's horrified and ashamed, but soon finds that she's starting to fall in love with the charming king.

Meanwhile, Mary catches her sister Anne (Jodhi May) in bed with an engaged courtier, and the disgraced girl is sent away. When Anne returns, Mary is pregnant, and the Boleyn family is afraid of losing Henry's favor. But when he meets Anne, Henry immediately drops Mary, and becomes enraptured by the ambitious, frank young girl.

But Anne's one mistake -- and exile -- have hardened her, and she's determined not to be the "king's whore" like her sister, but his wife. Amid a storm of angry protest, Henry divorces his wife and marries Anne. But when she gives birth to another daughter, her position begins to slip...

"The Other Boleyn Girl" is not an epic movie -- it's more of a Tudor chick-flick. The big issues (women's reduced rights, splitting from the Catholic Church, poor Katherine of Aragon) are pushed to the background, in favor of a more intimate look at two young women's lives.

The direction is something of a hit-and-miss -- there are some lovely moments, like Mary's moment in the church when she realizes who she's in love with, or Anne's tantrum in front of the court. And Philippa Lowthorpe really gets across what a woman's life would have been like in the Tudor court, as well as the controversial idea that Anne really WAS guilty of incest. Unlikely, but interesting in fiction.

But the sets and costumes look a bit low-budget for the sumptuous Tudor era -- this is glaringly obvious in Katherine's chambers, which look like they were assembled hastily on a soundstage. And for some reason, the characters keep talking to the camera as if they're in a reality show.

What pulls this above "average"? That would be the acting. McElhone gives a graceful, understated performance, but May is the real powerhouse here -- her Anne fills the screen as a vibrant, passionate young woman who is burned by her family's ambition. And Harris is simply amazing as the young Henry -- not a bloated, diseased wreck, but a charming and athletic young monarch.

"The Other Boleyn Girl" is a rather mediocre TV movie that is given a massive boost by a trio of talented actors, particularly Jodhi May. Just don't expect too much historical detail.

The first time I saw this movie I hated it. I had been expecting a serious costume drama that followed the book precisely. This is not that, so anyone expecting it should be warned.

I don't know why, but I found myself watching it again (long after the first occasion) and I liked it much better.

Yes, the costumes and sets are terrible. There was clearly a pitiful production budget for this. Where the movie redeems itself is in the performances. Jodhi May is excellent. Her transition from lovestruck girl to scheming woman is very well done. The other performances are all solid (although Jared Harris comes off a little mild as King Henry). I also liked the music. It's not epic, but very moody, melancholy, and elegant.

Some of the dialogue is ad libbed and the director uses a confessional camera technique (a la reality tv) to allow the characters to say what's on their minds directly to the audience. It's jarring, unexpected, probably my least favorite choice for narrative. But at the same time, it held my attention.

Overall, it's an odd little movie. But anyone who is curious should give it a try. (I think that after seeing the new version opening this week, I may find myself wishing they'd combined the production values of 2008 with the cast from 2003.)

I feel that this movie, compared to the American version, follows the book a little bit more closely. When I saw the American version, I was appalled at how the movie did not follow the book in any manner. They made it seem like the whole part of history (several years worth) happen in 3 months. I will admit that the book is excellent, so it is hard for any movie adaptation to match up to that caliber. At least this movie tries.

The story of the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn certainly has enjoyed a lot of exposure lately with two years of the Showtime series The Tudors - The Complete First Season full swing and the 2008 Hollywood adaptation of Philippa Gregory's novel, The Other Boleyn Girl, starring Natalie Portman as the ill-fated second wife of Henry VIII now released on DVD. With these money-generating Tudor-related vehicles generating such popularity, it comes as little surprise that an older once-televised version is now seeing the light of day. Be that as it may, I have grown weary with the actual telling of the tale in this instance. Or perhaps the fault lies in the production quality of the 2003 BBC version of the same story crafted by Ms. Gregory in her 500+ page novel. Whereas the Hollywood version sparkles with colorful jewel toned sets exemplifying the opulence of King Eric Bana's court and a bevy of model-esque beauties of the blonde, brunette and redhead categories statuesquely adorn the royal auspices of Jonathan Rhys Meyer's Pre-Elizabethan world, this 90 minute drama seems anemically plebian in comparison. Ultimately, however, the main fault seems to be in the selection of the piece's main character.

Although Natascha McElhone plays the part of Françoise Gilot, Picasso's live-in lover in the 1996 film Surviving Picasso with an initial ingénue quality that endears her to an audience anticipating her eventual seasoning as a woman, as Mary Boleyn, married sister of Anne, she fails to exude that fresh je-ne-sais-quoi that allows the Gregory character to win over her readers in spite of her human frailties. As her work in "Ronin" suggests, roles that require a little Mata Hari sophistication fit well with McElhone's physical appearance. However, despite the obvious conniving of the Boleyn family and its domino effect on its two daughters, the character of Mary requires more innocence--a quality Scarlett Johanson's lush renaissance beauty mirrors much better than McElhone's persona that exemplifies the attribute of sharp 21st century savvy.

On the other hand, Jodhi May, as Anne, radiates with a charm that certainly does not originate from her looks alone. At first glance and with the full understanding of the importance of male succession in 16th century life, we wonder how in the world someone as plain as Anne could entice a king away from his Church and his wife. Yet, May pulls this off without a hitch, embodying the enigmatic Anne and her apparent charm from the inside out in a much more subtle manner than the acclaimed Natalie Portman. While Portman projects the ultimate shrew in need of a spanking, only May's blazing eyes convey her wily ambition. Buttressed by her family's desire for power, she diverts from the truth with great finesse that seems second nature.

Jared Harris adequately portrays the young Henry incensed by what he cannot have. Much more low-key than Rhys Meyer's tantrum-throwing monarch, he gives one the sense of strength and confusion that seems appropriate for his predicament as the heirless tyrant.

Bottom line? If the story of Henry VIII and his wives never fails to entertain you, than this adaptation of the Philippa Gregory novel from across the pond may keep you in your seat for its playing time of ninety minutes. However, if you have become accustomed to the beautiful sets and people that populate the Showtime series, `The Tudors' and high profile actors that portray the same characters in Hollywood's version of "The Other Boleyn Girl," you will find this drab BBC presentation wanting in many ways. The technique of having the two main characters look soulfully into the camera and confess their thoughts diary-style breaks rather than sustains the story's momentum. Although a fully accomplished actress with a repertoire of fined performances, Natascha McElhone's Mary does not succeed in fully conveying every nuance of the character as depicted in the book. Recommended only for die-hard Tudor enthusiasts.
Diana Faillace Von Behren
"reneofc"

I had high hopes for this production of "The Other Boleyn Girl" since it was done by the BBC, which usually means high standards if not high budgets. However, this 90 minute production fails in a number of ways. The major sore spot for me is the way the characters have been changed. Mary is depicted as being extremely religious, and guilty about her affair with the king on strictly moral grounds, but in the book it was her love of the Queen that kept her guilt at such high levels. I don't strictly care about changing something like that, since after all it's historical FICTON, and there's no way to really know how these people felt about anything, since they've been dead for so long. However, I don't see the point of calling it an adaptation of Gregory's book if they're going to change such basic things that would be simple to keep the same.

Casting is another serious problem. Natascha McElhone is far too old to play the part of Mary, who starts off in the book at the tender age of 12 and was only 14 when she began her affair with the king. She is obviously older than the actress playing her elder sister, Anne. And she's so much more beautiful (Sorry Jodhi May, but it's true!) that it's not very believable when the King throws her over for Anne.

The other problem is unfortunate, because it was an interesting idea that MIGHT have worked with a different approach to the execution, but fails quite utterly. The entire production is shot documentary style, with hand-held cameras and close-ups replacing the usual sweeping vistas and grand crane shots we've come to expect from period pieces. I had no problem with that, but I DID have a problem with the confessional interviews the actors did directly with the camera, as if they were all starring in a reality show called "The Real World: Tudor England edition" or something. (Actually, considering the eventual death toll, maybe "Survivor: Tudor England edition" would be a better title.) It's jarring to see 16th-century characters speak to an invention that didn't even exist in their era, and the script at these intervals is absolutely feeble.

Overall I think it's sad that such a magnificent book with so many rich things that could have soared onscreen has yet to be adapted in a way that truly captures its thrilling, majestic scope. Even with a Hollywood budget, it couldn't be done, so maybe it wasn't fair to expect any better from a BBC production. Still, hope springs eternal, and I will hope ardently that eventually someone finds a way to faithfully capture this story in a motion picture.

Alas, my hopes of seeing a good film version of this book have now been completely dashed.
Jodhi May bears no resemblence to either the historical Anne Boleyn or her fictional counterpart as presented by Philippa Gregory. Her slightly stooped demeanor and diffident manner are slightly absurd, given that Anne was known for her sparkling wit, intellect and confidence. That is rarely seen in this film, which makes her flareup in front of the courtiers not only completely ridiculous but out of context to the way her character had developed.
On a more personal level, I found the hand-held cameras and characters speaking to the cameras more than a little distracting. It felt as if it was being done for the sake of being different, rather than for what it could do to contribute to the film.
I could go on and on with a list of things that was wrong with this production, but won't bother. It was simply bad in a very different way from the Hollywood version.
The only reason for the second star was the greater level of historical accuracy. At least in this version, Mary doesn't make off with an infant Elizabeth after Anne's beheading. (In reality, Elizabeth was nearly 3 years old, living with her separate household at Hatfield Palace, and had little contact with Mary until taking both of Mary's children into her court in favored places more than two decades later when she became queen..)
For a good Tudor drama, try Henry VIII or Masterpiece Theatre: Elizabeth I - The Virgin Queen Even this is a better look at Anne: Anne of the Thousand Days / Mary, Queen of Scots

This is the BBC production of "The Other Boleyn Girl." As a British production, one would think it had polish, grace and elegance. It does have that, of course -- given the period costimes & indoor and outdoor scenery -- but it also has far too many scenes where the beautiful period costumes come off...and our leading characters are seen in scenes inside the royal bedchambers. And they are doing what couples usually do in bedchambers. My rating for it would be "R", because of those very realisitic portrayed er.... bedroom scenes. (This DVD has no rating, however, so I was totally unprepared for these scenes.)

What struck me first, however, was what, in my estimation, was the miscasting of the leading ladies, Natascha McElhone, (who plays Mary
Boleyn), and Jodhi May, who plays Ann Boleyn. Both are good actresses, and both are very pretty. However, as I understand it, Ann Boleyn had a bewithing, stunning beauty -- and Jodhi May, though a very, very good actress, does not have that sort of beauty. As seen on the cover o the DVD, she is pert, and mischievous, and though, in later scenes, she does develop a depth of tragically beautiful face, so unlike the beginning scenes, it is NEVER as intriguingly beautiful as the face of Natascha McElhone -- a beauty somewhat on the style of (the ACTRESS), Jane Seymour. Were I the casting director, I would have switched these actresses in their roles. Both are obviously accomplished in their craft, and, even in the roles they are herein given, both add believabilty and depth to their characters. However, Ms. McElhone looks far more like my own idea of how Anne Boleyn looked, than does Ms. May.

The dialogue in this movie is formal -- but not overly so. It is not Shakespearian, nor even near-Shakespearian -- and for this, I, for one, am glad. No straining for meaning at sentences with archaic cadence here. Yet, the dialogue maintains an elegance of pattern and words, that makes the viewer realize that, though the acting makes these characters come alive, that they, (the characters), did live nearly five hundred years ago, and things were different then.

The scenery is equisite, both indoors and out. The rest of the cast acts credibily and with conviction, adding a deep believabilty to all the roles. The plot has many twists and turns, and the story goes rather quickly -- but the film is involving, and one can easily follow the story. Phillippa Gregory, the writer of the novel on which this DVD, (and anoter version, starring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanson), was based, and who served as Historical Advisor on this film, should be justly proud that her novel has been made into TWO movies. Her careful research into this fascinating story shows that two movies of it, at least, are deserved. ( S P O I L E R ) And I for one am glad that it has a quasi-happy ending -- at least for one of the sisters. Still, this sister becomes "a nobody" -- and is happy about it. There are echoes in this of the English class system, at least to my American ear. People of ambition in the lower classes were once, (and perhaps still are), being told that their ambitions makes them "wanting to get above" themselves. (To any English person in this dilemma who may be reading this, my suggestion is to say: "Only God is above me". At least, that's what I'd say in this situation. The sister who winds up a "nobody" in this film leads, afterwards, a comfortable life -- albeit away from the Royal court -- with husband and children. Several prominent people are descended from her -- including Winston Churchill, Charles Darwin, Princess Diana, and Humphrey Bogart! She was ONLY a "nobody" in that she did not live at court. Comfortable and happy, she led the life of an upper-middle class person. NOT a nobody -- at least, not to American eyes. E N D...O F...S P O I L E R )

All in all a good, well-acted movie. I only wish the casting had been done a little more carefully, and that some sort of a rating was attached to this film, (none on the outside, or inside of this DVD), so that viewers would fully know, (and be fully prepared for),
what they would see.

If I hadn't bought this directly from Amazon, I would say straight-out that this is clearly a bootleg DVD. All but the brightest, outdoor, filmed scenes are extremely grainy, like a 2nd- or 3rd-generation VHS copy from the 1970s.

Which frankly I wouldn't mind, if I were buying a rare, hard-to-get video that is only available through those kinds of 3rd-hand sources. But this was sold as a "real," commercial DVD, which makes me resent the awful and amateurish copying job. It looks so terrible that I was distracted from watching the story, which by the way is also done in a dated and amateurish way. For example, there are numerous odd scenes where the characters, alone, speak directly to the camera, making funny faces and delivering soliloquies to explain themselves -- not unprecedented, but hardly something you expect nowadays, so it is jarring.

Buy it if you are interested enough to ignore all of the above, but don't get your hopes up!

This inexpensive production of The Other Boleyn Girl grows on you. I first got caught by seeing who the actors were, the girl from Californication, and the one from Mansfield Park. I thought I'd watch them and see how the show was. I didn't like it that much at first, but it does grow on you and it is enjoyable. The cheapness of the production and some of the shoddy direction is irritating but you get used to it after awhile and can overlook it. I disliked the "talking heads" voice over style but survived. The story was interesting and I felt that the motivations for Henry's and Anne's attraction was much more believable than any other production I'd ever seen. Anne is deliberately impertinent to the King which he is unused to so he becomes attracted to her. Anne can keep this up only so far. After marrying him and having a daughter, the game begins a new phase. Henry has Anne and begins to look elsewhere. Anne, unused to not having Henry's attention, begins to fight. While her fighting and arguing was attractive before, it no longer is and after having no sons, Anne's fate is sealed. While not perfect, I do recommend this DVD highly and think you'll find it most enjoyable. Stick with it for about 40 minutes or so and you'll be hooked.

This unfortunate adaptation struggles from the beginning, and never finds it's footing. It combines modern, reality TV style "confessionals", budget costuming and awkward dialog that makes the movie look like a video done as an enthusiastic high school project. I adore costume dramas of all eras and all periods, but this was awful, period.