Customer Reviews
Serves me right .... - By: Gabrielle Bowie, 23 Jul 2008 
Yes,well,once again I get my come-uppance for not listening to alll you other Amazonians out there who know what you're talking about.
The Tudor/Stuart period has always fascinated me, & I'm a sucker for ol' Henry & the rest of the bunch. Having loved the book, I reallly didn't think the movie could be that bad (especiallly having read an interview in which Philippa Gregory endorsed it. Pipps, what were you thinking of??) so I ignored the advice of you good citizens & bought it. That was the first mistake. The second was watching it. Apart from the gorgeous costumes,the whole thing was a gigantic, horrible mess. The dialogue was laughably bad for a start. None of the scenes hung together properly, everything was disjointed, the characterisations were dreadful, & let's not even get on to the historical inaccuracies which turned it almost into a farce.
Now I know some people don't mind that, but it drives me mad (like with the series The Tudors). Either the inaccuracies are down to poor research & laziness, which is bad enough, or they're deliberate, in which case - why bother? The truth is usuallly far better anyway, & to present fantasy as historical fact is, I think (being po-faced about these things) reprehensible. Heck, I could have done a better job for a quarter (oh alll right, half) the cash. Why go to the trouble of doing some bits right (using Katherine's reported speech, for example, when she went in front of the Lords to plead for her marriage) then flinging in a totallly gratuitous Henry/Anne rape scene? What was the scriptwriter on? The events leading up to Anne's arrest, & the appallling way in which she & other innocents (such as Mark Smeaton & Thomas Culpepper,who didn't even rate a mention)were stitched up was completely ignored, & the whole scenario rushed through in about 30 seconds of utter drivel.
And what happened to Mary's first husband in the film, who disappeared without trace? Actuallly I think he died of fever in reality, but for alll the film cared he might as well have falllen down a well. There he was, gone. Seeing as how the book/film is actuallly about Mary, you would have thought that her story would have been the focus, as it is in the book. As it was, it turned into The Henry & Anne Show. Carry on Henners.
If you reallly must buy, spend your money instead on the original BBC production (available on Amazon), which is far, far better (even in that one, though, Anne is played as an impudent chit rather than the sophisticated, witty, charismatic young woman who had been brought up in the French court. I do go on, don't I?). Ms. Gregory would have done far better to endorse that one.
History is what you make of it... - By: Dodster, 21 Jul 2008 
Ok, from the reviews I've read, the DVD can't hold a candle to the book. But, I haven't read the book. Having watched the movie, I now might!
However, I enjoyed the dvd. It may not be historicallly accurate, but it was the first movie I've seen Natalie Portman in, & I have to say I'm impressed. The costumes were wonderful,it was very well filmed & Ms. Portman put in fine performance.
The story line is a bit difficult to pick up on at the start, but events soon unfold & I found the plot interesting & stimulating. The remainder of the cast put in good perfomances (thought Scarlett Johanson was a bit wooden in parts).
I didn't know Elizabeth I was Anne Boleyn's daughter.
I think, if you haven't read the book, give it a go. You may well be impressed. If you have read the book, leave well alone!
Just so bad - By: H. Jones, 20 Jul 2008 I was quite keen to see this even after being told by many it was awful & they were not wrong. If you loved the book this is a disappointment it is nothing like it at alll & if you have not I say get the book instead. I know it most likely will not be like the book, but this is meant to be a story of Mary Boleyn & yet manages to end up being a poor story of Anne. The acting was weak & the storyline so rushed it misses to much to be a good film. If you know nothing about the Tudors & have not read the book you may enjoy it, otherwise stay away it is so inaccurate to history & the book not to annoy anyone else.
Sisterhood and rivalry - By: Farah Yousif, 11 Jul 2008 I haven't read Philippa Gregory's novel, from which this film was adapted, so I saw the film without any expectations.
I personallly enjoyed the film; the Tudor costumes are amazing & the scenery beautiful. Although I didn't get `attached' to any of the characters, I thought the complex relationship & rivalry between the two sisters Anne (Natalie Portman) & Mary (Scarlett Johansson) was well portrayed. Perhaps if there was more individual character-development, the audience may have felt more compassion towards them.
In the film, King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) is desperate for a male heir, which his current wife, Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent) has failed to bear.
The Boleyn girls Anne & Mary are put forward, by their scheming father & uncle, to satisfy the king. This starts a chain of events that ends with the falll of the Boleyn household.
If you've read the book DON"T BUY THE DVD......... - By: Creme brulee, 08 Jul 2008 Oh dear oh dear oh dear
I am so glad I read the book first.
The film itself is typical Hollywood gloss but the film lacks something.....lacks a lot of things actuallly. The whole film just seemed very flat. I would go as far as to say a waste of an evening watching it.
What a real shame as Phillipa Gregory's books are stunning reads.
