Customer Reviews

The Tudors - The Complete First Season

5 star:		(197)
4 star:		(66)
3 star:		(32)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

Yes, there are inaccuracies, as others have pointed out here. This is a dramatization and this is elegant popular entertainment. As an armchair historian, in love with the stories of Henry VIII, I find it absolutely gripping. The acting is for the most part marvelous, and the idea of doing these great personages as compellingly attractive people is a brilliant one. I think there is plenty enough here to draw a person into good books about Henry and the English Reformation. One thing I do like very much is that Anne Boleyn is being presented as the complex woman she obviously was; and Catherine of Aragon has been presented with immense dignity and respect. But the reason I've signed on here to recommend this series is that I really think it will encourage serious study on the part of many as to what really went on when Henry broke with the Catholic Church, and when popular entertainment invites us to study, to learn more, as well as giving us delight, well, that is worth something. The portrait of Thomas More is excellent, and the actor playing Anne Boleyn's father is quite remarkable. Finally, let me confess: there is something delicious about this series, something thrilling. I find myself charmed by it. Of course I wish the Catholic Church was presented with considerablly more understanding on the part of the writers. But in spite of that I continue to watch the second season, as enthralled as I was by the first. And I've ordered a whole slew of new books on Henry just because of this series, so I'm proof myself of what I'm suggesting here: this will encourage the serious study of history. --- The art direction and the costumes are gorgeous. The lighting is breathtaking. --- The sets are glorious. I hope Showtime gives us more of this top notch entertainment.

I just finished watching the entire first season of "The Tudors." When the show first premiered on Showtime, I watched the pilot episode and never bothered to watch it again. I thought the show was visually appealing, but way too melodramatic and historically inaccurate for my taste. However, I recently read a fascinating book about Henry VIII, and I needed something else to satisfy my Tudor fixation. I watched all the episodes of "The Tudors" On Demand in less than a week, and I really enjoyed them.

In order to appreciate this program, you have to be willing to accept the show for what it is. Yes, the majority of the characters and plots in the show are based on real historical events, but this is a cable television series, and of course things are going to be changed to appeal to a larger commercial audience. As a result, all of the people in King Henry's court are much more attractive than they probably were in real life, and there are some major alterations to historical timelines. Still, I'm impressed that the producers actually did get so many things right with the show, and overall, it's very engaging to watch. The pacing is exciting and fast...perhaps a little too fast, in my opinion. For example, Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount gets knocked up with Henry's illegitimate child in the very first episode, and by the second episode, she's already giving birth. I wonder how long "The Tudors" can realistically continue to air with such a rushed chain of events.

For the most part, I think the casting of the show is excellent. I've never been a big fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers until now, but his portrayal of Henry VIII is intense, dramatic, and exciting. Sam Neill is brilliant as the two-faced Cardinal Wolsey, and Natalie Dormer is perfect as the bewitching Anne Boleyn. As far as the characterizations of these famous characters goes, I think Henry VIII has been a bit one-sided in Season 1. I'll be interested to see how Meyers tackles the role when Henry finds himself betrayed by the woman he nearly sacrifices his kingdom for. It would be nice to see a more emotional side of Henry. Also, I think Anne has actually been pretty likable so far...hopefully she'll become a much darker character in Season 2.

Overall, I enjoyed "The Tudors" much more than I thought I would. It's entertaining, and people who enjoy learning about this period in history will definitely get a kick out of it. I am eagerly anticipating the arrival of Season 2.

Completely hooked after first episode. JRM, Henry Cavill, and Maria Kennedy give stellar performances. Absolutely love this show but there are a few inaccuracies, such as combining King Henry's sisters into one, Margaret, whom did not marry Brandon, but sister Mary did and bore his chldren.Henry Fitzroy dying at such a young age when he had a great deal to do with Anne Boleyn's trial was mind blowing. Do not watch this if you believe you are "learning" about the Tudors, it clearly deviates from the truth, but it is an amazing piece of fiction with a gorgeous cast!!!

I'm an Anglophle, and I was excited when I heard of this series. I don't have Showtime, so I had no exposure to the show as it ran its first season, so when the DVD's came out, I was ready to rush off and purchase them -- but first I read the reviews. They seemed to praise (great production values!) and pan (ah, the history!) the program in equal measure. So I figured, "Well, some of the reviews are positive, and it's only $25, so why not find out for myself?" I went ahead and bought them, and I've watched them. Here's what I think you should do about them.

If you are a history buff who cannot abide such royalty productions of the nature of as Elizabeth and The Golden Age with Cate Blanchett, then consider avoiding these shows. They are not historical gospel. They're not even a historical prayer book or historical hymn. They're pretty much historical soap opera that takes extraordinary liberties with "the truth." Such liberties can offend the serious scholar. So, quite simply, if you're a serious scholar, save your nitroglycerin pill, and go for one of the highly regarded film histories on the market.

However, if you're either a casual royalty buff or a film scholar, then I think you'd get a kick out of these DVD's. The shows are gorgeously photographed. The cast is unilaterally compelling; I am unfamiliar with these actors, and yet, I can't take my eyes off of them, especially Maria Doyle Kennedy (Queen Catherine) and the actor who plays the Duke of Suffolk (too bad he's too young for me!). Gabrielle Anwar, as Henry's sister Margaret, is not only surpassingly beautiful but has an authentic comedic flair.

Now, I will confess that I was rather shortsighted not to realize that as a Showtime production, there's plenty of nudity and bad langauge in these shows. Fortunately, after the first few episodes, the producers seem to begin trusting the integrity of the production over a parade body parts to engage the audience -- not that the show would earn even a PG-13 rating in later episodes, but by later episodes the nudity and vocabulary begin to serve the story rather than serve to garner an audience.

I did agree with the person who noted that the actual story of Henry VIII would play equally well if not better than this rather invented history; the recreational viewer won't know where to draw a line between truth and fantasy. However, maybe this show could provoke a few people to research the history, and in the meantime, it's a fascinating and well designed program.

So who should buy these DVD's? The person whose sense of scholarship can ride in the backseat behind his or her desire for some solid entertainment!

When I first heard about Showtime's series "The Tudors," I was really looking forward to seeing it. I've always had an interest in English history and in particular a fascination with Anne Boleyn. I also understood that this was not a documentary; I expected there to be some straying from the historical record. However, when a series purporting to be based on factual events strays as far from the historical truth as this one does, it becomes not merely laughable but maddening.

Other reviewers have pointed out the inaccuracies regarding Henry's sisters. He had two, Margaret and Mary. Margaret married the king of Scotland. In "The Tudors," he has one sister, inexplicably called Margaret. I say inexplicably because her story more closely follows Mary's life, but with glaring differences. The writers have this Mary marry an entirely different king than the real one did and on top of that they have her kill him. I don't get it. It's as if the writers decided that Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and the break with Rome just weren't interesting enough in and of themselves, so they threw in some murders, duels, and lots and lots of sex. Also, the timelines are just plain screwy. There are events happening concurrently that in reality happened years apart. And what's ironic is that in an ongoing series like this one, they could have taken the time to show events in the correct order.

I applaud the casting of Sam Neill as Cardinal Wolsey and Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More. They are excellent. However, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is badly miscast as Henry VIII. Henry was a tall and imposing figure. Jonathan Rhys Meyers lacks the physical stature to carry the role off. He also seems a bit young to be playing Henry at this stage of his life. I can't believe they couldn't find a more physically impressive actor to play Henry.

On the plus side, "The Tudors" is beautifully filmed. It certainly is visually appealing and I can see why some viewers find it enjoyable. I just hope they don't kid themselves that they are learning much about English history. I wish the producers would have given a fictional name to this series rather than tying it in to the Tudors, because history this isn't.

My take on the historical accuracy debate is that this show should not be viewed as a historical drama. Rather, it is a pure entertainment program based on events in the life of Henry VIII. If you throw out your cares about time-lines, actual family trees, etc., what you're left with is a captivating costume drama with all sorts of backstabbing, romantic entanglements, and international conflicts. The epic scope of the material is handled well, with strong performances and beautiful costumes and sets. The language, which is generally clean, has a faux-Shakespearian style that helps set the mood, giving the show a classic feel.

That's not to say the show is perfect. There are times when Meyers doesn't quite seem the right fit to play this king, and, though he's a very charismatic actor, he is often overmatched by the characters of Catherine, Anne, and Wolsey in their scenes together. He does, however, do a particularly good job of showing his frustration as his attempts to nullify his marriage drag on.

The biggest flaw in the show is its gratuitous sex scenes. As a Showtime show, it's no surprise, but I don't want to feel like I'm watching a porno when I'm really in it for the drama and intrigue. The series premiere is the worst offender in this regard, but every episode has its unnecessary moments. (Given the high amount of sex, though, I was pleasantly surprised at the relative lack of violence. I will say that given the choice between the two, it's better to have too much sex than too much violence - in dvds as in life.)

The Tudors is at its best when the conflicts drive the story. Catherine's stoic resolve against Henry's attempts to divorce her; the scheming members of Henry's court in their attempts to gain power by any means; Wolsey's desperation as his plans go awry; and on and on. As history, forget about it. As drama, there's a lot here to sink your teeth into.

Why can't one give a zero star review? Nothing, nothing, nothing deserves even one star - ah! perhaps Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More, who manages a shred of dignity.

Speaking of shreds, this shreds history into an unrecognizable mess of bodice shredding escapades. I am only watching this travesty as one would an accident in progress; morbid fascination trumps good sense and judgement all too often. My specialization is this period of history (over thirty five years of studying every primary and secondary source in existence), and I have yet to see an entirely accurate fictional representation - which I accept with serenity. Theatrical license is perfectly acceptable, but this is pure fantasy; I am pressed to find even one per cent accuracy. Earlier versions of Tudor sagas, such as 'Anne of the Thousand Days', Keith Michell's Henry VIII and Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth I, 'Mary, Queen of Scots', or 'A Man for All Seasons' (brilliant) capture the spirit of the personages and era, notwithstanding certain problems. A sixteenth century rock star brat pack? Replete with American idioms, furniture destroying rages and gangster behaviour?

Why, when the historical figures were far more nuanced and compelling? When events were, for the time, earth shattering? The writers here settled for titillation and romance novel cardboard cutouts, not complex, contradictory, fascinating individuals who changed the known world.

What lazy and sloppy writing!

I despair. I know this is a minority opinion, but the series had a soporific effect on me. The dialogue is not intriguing, nor evocative of the period: Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons in the miniseries 'Elizabeth' spoke dialogue suggestive of Shakespeare's era; a sophisticated, scintillating treat for the ears and intellect. Historical inaccuracies can be overlooked with a sharp script and superb delivery. Here, the dialogue is modern: Henry VII described as a "businessman"? Charles Brandon casually remarking he can easily obtain a divorce? Why the modern, almost American, English? Challenge me, please, force me to think, make me savour the words, transport me to the era I love. And why so many scenes of thrashing limbs, naked bodies, and suggestions of sexual practices I cannot name here? Gratuitous, fanciful and unneccesary.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is hopelessly miscast, and plays Henry VIII as an unpleasant, sullen, brooding brat/"lad" given to tantrums and meaningless sex; too young and without a whisper of charm. A flat, one note performance lacking in dignity. The real Henry was a fascinating, complex man: sunny one minute, stormy the next (unpredictable and hence, far more dangerous), a cultured and musically gifted man, intellectual and intelligent, emotionally expressive, a force of natural charisma; large boned, over six feet tall with thinning red-blonde hair. And rather prudish and discreet - flirtatious, chivalrous, unrealistically romantic - with only two known mistresses, taken late in his first marriage. He actually loathed risqué jokes, and furiously dismissed those who dared tell one in his presence. As his claim to the throne was tenuous, Henry VIII's behaviour was invariably dignified and commanding.

Perhaps my greatest disappointment is how this series all too deliberately resembles "The Sopranos" (which I loved), but without depth and intelligence: unfortunately, this formula does not fit the sixteenth century.

Anne Boleyn/Natalie Dormer? No physical resemblance (Anne Boleyn's dark eyes, high cheekbones, long neck and narrow but strong jawline), of course, but also lacking in fire, temper, culture, elegance, artistic abilities and keen intelligence; Dormer is round faced and vacuous. Katherine of Aragon/Maria Kennedy is presented as too old next to Rhys-Meyers, and again, as the dark haired Spaniard. Costume? Anachronistic (baroque/Italianate, sometimes Germanic, not at all English, with many elements much later than this era). Not a gabled hood or French hood to be found, but many ruffs; completely inaccurate. In the Chateau Vert scene, of which we have costume descriptions, women wear almost nothing: ruffs with Victorian corsets? And why is everyone beautiful in our modern sense? Perfect skin, perfect hair, perfect features, perfect makeup, perfect model thin bodies, perfect teeth. Historical personages should be rough around the physical edges.

Lest we forget historical inaccuracies bordering on the bizarre: the Mary/Margaret amalgamation (she married and killed the King of Portugal? In what universe? Drunk, a screaming banshee, a vulgar, common fishwife?). Henry VIII's uncle murdered? Thomas Tallis in court during the 1520s, and gay? Buckingham's absurdly raucous, undignified, execution? Wolsey, a suicide? Henry Fitzroy, dead as a child? Why would they do this, particularly as some might actually construe this as reasonably true? I will not delineate any more historical errors - the list is far too long for this venue. Change all the names, and I would not recognize a single historical personage.

"Your Majesty"? Not a term in use then; Henry VIII would have been addressed as "Your Grace." I also noted a radiator in a bedchamber, an asphalt driveway, and a modern tape measure, and a nineteenth century carriage.

Very, very, very curious: the brief glimpses offered of Whitehall, Hampton Court Palace and Greenwich are painstakingly accurate, presented as they appeared in the early sixteenth century. As is Anne Boleyn's signature. Mystifying. Perhaps that also warrants the single star I am forced to give.

If you haven't seen this series in HD, you're missing out. It is the only reason I made it through the entire first season. There is a scene (can't remember the episode) where Catherine of Aragon is sitting outside under some trees. I was absolutely hypnotized by the picture quality. It felt like I could've reached out and plucked a leaf.

While I completely enjoyed the HD experience, I can't say the same for the rest of it. As other reviewers have pointed out, it's just not written very well. I understand dramatic license, and I understand that Showtime can skew a bit raunchier than HBO, but having said that I don't understand why they dumbed down a very good (real life) story, and threw in a bunch of gratuitous and not very convincing sex scenes. I felt embarrassed for the actors, especially JRM.

The costumes were beautiful (totally wrong time period). The scenery was excellent. There were no stand out performances for me. I really like Sam Neill, but he wasn't given enough to do. The most glaring departure from the true story, the one that added NOTHING to the series, was the Margaret Tudor storyline. Another reviewer's already pointed out where it all went wrong, so I'll leave it alone. But really, she kills her sick old husband, then she dies of consumption. And in between we're given no reason to care about poor old Margaret.

Maybe the writers were trying to go for a Sopranos thing, where the characters are reprehensible, but we still care about some of them. They didn't pull it off here. There wasn't one character I cared about. Even Catherine of Aragon, maybe the most sympathetic person of the whole tale, came across as a whiny, desperate has-been.

Overall, I gave the series 2 stars, strictly for the film quality. It really is stunning. For the rest I give it zero. The writers could have produced something intelligent AND sexy, but they took the cheap and dirty way out.

As many other reviewers have stated, this is not a documentary and should bear the statement "any resemblance to individuals living or dead is purely coincidental". Yes, there is a king named Henry VIII, a churchman named Cardinal Woolsey, an embattled queen named Catherine ... etc. Some of the events bear some passing resemblance to history. Very passing resemblance.

One major inaccuracy already pointed out is the sister "Margaret", who is sent off to marry the King of Portugal. In reality, this sister, Mary, was married off to the Louis XII, King of France on 9 Oct 1514, approximately six years prior to the Field of the Cloth of Gold, which was depicted in the show as occurring before "Margaret" set off on her marriage. The "real" Margaret was married off to the King of Scotland in 1503. Of course, since the Field of the Cloth of Gold was between Henry and Francis I, who succeeded Louix XII upon his death in 1515 ... well, this meeting could hardly take place if his sister was actually supposed to marry a man who had died five years prior. Also, her name was probably changed to keep her straight from Mary Boleyn and Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, though I believe they sell their audience short on their ability to keep three different Marys straight.

There are other minor juxtapositions. Henry Fitzroy, the son born to Elizabeth Blount, is depicted as having been born after the Field of the Cloth of Gold (June 1520), but in fact was born almost a year prior (July 1519). Anne Boleyn is shown as returning to England two years later, in 1522, but in the show this occurred nearly immediately after, and prior to Henry being declared Defender of the Faith (which really occurred in 1521). The list goes on and on. It was almost as if the historical facts were put into a hat, shaken vigorously, and then presented in whatever order they were drawn out again.

If you get too hung up on these details, it can set your teeth on edge. In many ways this is a disappointment, since the actual story is so much stranger than fiction could ever come up with that it really needed little to no embellishment.

However, if you forget about the historical details, it's an entertaining, rather lightweight costume drama with many good characterizations. Sam Neill is an amazing Cardinal Woolsey. Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't make a bad young Henry, though if you buy the date of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, he would be about thirty years old, and he comes off as considerably younger than this, even though the actor too is really about thirty himself. Maria Doyle Kennedy brings the proper gravitas to Catherine of Aragon, without falling into the common mis-characterization of her as nothing but a saintly Spaniard with a heavy accent and a heavier rosary; the real Catherine of Aragon had a keen political sense as well and they do a good job of making her something other than a plaster saint. I will be interested to see how Natalie Dormer's Anne Boleyn develops; early in the show she is doing an excellent job of playing the scheming vixen.

Don't expect history. If you want history, read the many excellent biographies written about this period. If you're just looking for something fun, put the history book down, stop looking up dates on Wikipedia, and put the many screwups aside, and just enjoy.

I missed seeing this series when it first aired and bought the DVD with both high hopes and expectations. The best I can say about it is that the DVD as a piece of technology is good. The content is by far the worst piece of pseudo-history garbage since Steve Reeves did the "Last Days of Pompeii". While beautifully photographed virtually everything except the most basic history (ie. its set in England) is consistently wrong. Aside from the technical aspects such as grossly inappropriate costuming at times, the actual events are frequently twisted, mixed up chronologically, and in many important instances totally wrong. The classic example is Margaret's supposed marriage to the King of Portugal and then her death by consumption. Obviously in rice pudding as bad as this there have to be a few raisins of excellence, the portrayals of Wolsey and Catherine were very nicely done (although Catherine had reddish gold hair, not black). Unfortunately, these raisins do not offset the overall fact this is just pudding. What concerns me more is that this drivel will be taken by most as accurate history. History is important for the lessons it can teach about human interaction and reaction. If we learn these lessons from inacurate history we are learning the wrong lessons. In this day and age I suppose it is even possible, God forbid, that this trash might even be used in schools.