128 of 142 people found the following review helpful
Serves me right ....,
This review is from: The Other Boleyn Girl [DVD] (2008) (DVD)
Yes,well,once again I get my come-uppance for not listening to all you other Amazonians out there who know what you're talking about. Instead I went out and bought this claptrap.
The Tudor/Stuart period has always fascinated me: frankly, you couldn't make up half the stuff that went on. Having loved the book, I really didn't think the movie could be that bad (especially having read an interview in which Philippa Gregory endorsed it. Pipps, what were you thinking of??) so I ignored the advice of the Amazon community and 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, and 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 and laziness, which is bad enough, or they're deliberate, in which case - why bother? The truth is usually far better anyway, and to present fantasy as historical fact is, I think (being po-faced about these things) reprehensible. Heck, we could all have done a better job for a quarter of 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 totally gratuitous Henry/Anne rape scene? What was the scriptwriter on? The events leading up to Anne's arrest, and the appalling way in which she and other innocents (such as Mark Smeaton and Thomas Culpepper,who didn't even rate a mention)were stitched up was completely ignored, and 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? Actually I think he died of fever in reality, but for all the film cared he might as well have fallen down a well. There he was, gone. Seeing as how the book/film is actually 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 and Anne Show. Carry on Henners.
If you really must buy, spend your money instead on the original BBC production (available on Amazon), which is far better (even in that one, though, Anne is played as an impudent young chit rather than the sophisticated, witty, charismatic and well-educated young woman who had been brought up in the French court). Ms. Gregory would have done better to endorse that one.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Aug 2008 04:17:33 BDT
J. M. Perry says:
I couldn't agree with you more. The film was dreadful.
Posted on 22 Aug 2008 20:39:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Aug 2008 20:40:00 BDT
J. C. Fraser says:
I agree that the films historical accuracy was not great. Especially the fact that Mary's husband just dissapears and his death is never mentioned. (I think, in the book at least, Mary's husband died of what was then known as the 'sweating sickness'. so yeh basically a fever.) However i would like to point out that Thomas Culpepper was executed for having an affair with Katherine howard, Annes cousin and Henrys 5th wife. And he was actually guilty. I do agree they should have mentioned mark smeaton and the other two men who were executed along with Anne. Even with the historical inaccuracies i still enjoyed this film. But thats just me and of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm going to take you advice and watch the BBC version, which will hopefully get more of the actual book into it.
Posted on 26 Sep 2008 11:20:20 BDT
S. Williams says:
Posted on 15 Oct 2008 20:30:32 BDT
Ms. Ga Jackson says:
I think the film would have recieved much more criticism had Thomas Culpepper featured, probably due to the fact he was actually Katherine Howard's lover, not Anne Boleyn's. I don't mind a critic but a bit of research beforehand never went amiss.
Posted on 14 Nov 2008 19:25:59 GMT
Ms Walton says:
I am glad that I am not the only one who feels this way about this film. Nail on the head! right here in this review!!!
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Dec 2008 13:45:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Dec 2008 13:46:20 GMT
Dear S. W.
You either read, or watched the film, which? Or were you taking a nap?
Posted on 16 Jan 2009 06:14:18 GMT
Flickering Ember says:
I wish I had read your spot-on review before wasting 2-odd hours of my life watching this dross. I am not currently able to review it as you've basically said everything I want to.
Posted on 8 Apr 2009 23:33:12 BDT
The book is really good. Sadly, this film is a travesty of the book. This review is spot on.
It's not that huge bits of the book are left out, they wrote their own story that has no relation to the book at all and their story is a very pale imitation..
Did the film crew and the editor actually read the book?
Posted on 1 Jul 2009 23:19:37 BDT
I never understand why Hollywood takes a bestseller, changes nearly EVERYTHING when adapting it, and then wonders why people hate it. The book is a bestseller for a REASON.
Posted on 28 Jan 2010 12:12:54 GMT
Linda Thornber says:
agree with you, anne is hardly ever shown how she was, a well groomed lady, who never was unfaithful to henry and the poor souls who died with her due to the king being an absolute tyrant.
tudor history in no way needs any fiction added to it its remarkable as it is.