Die Schwester der Königin

interesting cast. and nothing else. desire to present an old story in easy form. and the strange result. all is childish, nothing convincing, a nice game with facts, legends and parts of truth. and, after so many travels in Tudors world, this is only a joke. not very inspiring. it is not a bad movie but it is far to be more than mediocre. and nobody is guilty. just the ambition to make history with actors in incorrect roles. because Eric Bana is not Henry (not more than ambiguous sketch ) , Natalie Portman is in wrong position and Scarlett Johassen - shadow of good intentions. no nuances, no roots. only a dark story with ridiculous accents. good actors and nice costumes are not enough.not in this case.

Put it this way, if you saw Anne of the Thousand Days, you probably felt sorry for Anne Boleyn. After seeing this film, while you might feel sorry for her - not so much.

The Other Boleyn Girl is a 2008 film starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johannson, Eric Bana, Kristen Scott-Thomas, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, and Benedict Cumberbatch who at this writing is #2 on the IMDb Starmeter, so I'd say his fortunes have changed.

The story fills in what we don't actually know about the Boleyns and tells some of their story, though the writers had to leave out a lot of material.

Nevertheless, this is a great drama, beautifully costumed and filmed, with wonderful acting and, let's face it, two of the most stunning women in films today.

Natalie Portman plays Anne Boleyn, who is more or less pimped out by her father (Mark Rylance) hoping that she can give Henry VIII a son and, in so doing, increase the family's fortunes. It doesn't work out.

Instead, the King takes a fancy to the newly married Mary, Anne's sister, and both the young women are given a position at court. Henry, then married to Catherine of Aragon, then takes Mary as a lover. Mary later gives birth to a son.

Anne secretly marries someone who is betrothed to another, and as a punishment is sent to the court in France. When she returns, she captivates King Henry by refusing to become his mistress while he is still married, driving him to distraction.

He eventually gets the law changed so he can divorce Catherine and marry Anne. By now he is long finished with Mary, barely acknowledging his son.

One of the created scenes in the film occurs when Anne miscarries her child, a boy. She is desperate that Henry not find out and appeals to her brother to sleep with her. He can't do it.

In truth, one of the crimes Anne was charged with was incest, but these allegations were made up. Her brother George was executed because of it, however. In the film, someone sees them together and reports it.

I actually think the writers did an okay job with this story - in historical films one always has to combine events and characters or leave them out.

Natalie Portman is excellent as Anne, rather bratty, seductive, and emotional. Johannson has a less showy role but she's marvelous as well.

Eric Bana is an attractive Henry. The real Henry was a redhead, but the depiction of Henry as slender and attractive is certainly correct for the period in which the story takes place.

The film makes a great deal out of the relationship between Anne and Mary -- Anne is furious when Mary nabs the King, then Mary is furious when Anne makes her big move.

In fact, the two sisters weren't particularly close. And though in the film Anne is the older sister, historians today believe that Mary was the older one.

Mary actually had two children, but there isn't a lot of evidence to support that her second child was actually King Henry's. What isn't mentioned in the film itself is that after Mary's husband (Cumberbatch) died, she married a soldier secretly, a man way beneath her station, and was banished from court, never to return.

Her family also disowned her. Up until then, she was at court; when she was widowed, Anne arranged for her to have a pension and had Mary's second child, a boy, educated.

After Mary's and Anne's parents died, Mary inherited some property and she and her husband lived quietly and happily for the rest of their lives.

Very good film, well worth seeing.

All and all, not a particularly enjoyable film.

This movie sacrifices all that was interesting about the novel in the first place just to squeeze in all the historical aspects. All of the page turning scenes in the book that would have been interesting to see translated to screen (Anne's bloodstained dress, the deformed child, the courtship between Mary and William) were cut.

Fortuanatly, I expected that. With such a long book, I had to expect most of my favourite scenes were going to get the axe.

What I didn't expect was for the narration to change from that of Mary (aka. "The Other Boelyn Girl" for which the book was named) to yet another story about Anne Boelyn. The film started off well, if rather slow, with the story being told from Mary, but it quickly changes gears as the audience is suddenly following Anne's courtship of Henry and Anne's trials, emotions and desperation. Mary is quickly delegated to little more then a secondary role, with many key moments happening while she isn't on screen.

The story of Anne was told well, she was portrayed brilliantly by Portman, and had several fun and emotional moments. But that's just the problem, I've seen that all before. There have been dozens of films, series, and books written from Anne's point of view. If I wanted to see a story about Anne, I would have watched Anne of the Thousand Days or maybe "The Tudors" HBO series. What made this story special was it told the story behind Anne and Henry (and it was mostly fictional which added to the drama).

Unfortunately the movie ignored this, and thus failed to create the same reaction I had towards the book.

Another problem is that of characterisation, I expected that the movie would make the two sisters friends as it creates more drama towards the end as opposed to them being not particularly close like in the book. Same with the enormous changes they made in the personalities of the parents (and honestly, almost every character)I expected it. Many of the characters in the movie were actually more two-dimensional then the callous characters from the book. It wasn't as though this movie was badly acted or written...it was just bad.

The person I was most disappointed about was George (one of my favourites in the book) who was given a woefully small role, although the actor who portrayed him did it brilliantly. Also, The character of William Stafford seemed to be added in as an afterthought which confused the audience who hadn't read the book (the two main questions I heard were "Is that the guy she married in the beginning" or "What happened to the guy she married in the beginning") and left those of us who had read the book wondering why he was portrayed as such a pansy?

And the editing, where to begin. Horrible, the particularly poignant scenes (few and far between as they were) were not given enough time to sink in before the audience was whisked off to another scene. Even having read the source material I was lost, so I can only imagine how it must have been from those new to the story.

The only bright side of this tedious film were the beautiful costumes, but even the bright colours and swirly dresses couldn't distract anyone with more then a 10 second attention span and despite them the movie soon became unbearably boring.

All in all, this movie probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. It was apparent there was too much story to tell in two hours, it had mini-series written all over it. But seeing as it had to be made for the film industry to cash in the the books success, it could have been done a lot better.

If you want a good movie about Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen, rent Anne of the Thousand Days. That was a film that used history to tell a story about real people who had a love to change a nation.

In this version of the eponymous Phillipa Gregory novel, historical inaccuracies abound. Approximately fifteen years are compressed into two hours with no indication time has gone by except for various babies. None of the characters ever change or grow any older. The characters in this movie are completely one-sided. Anne is ambitious. Henry is a womanizer. Mary is simple. No one has any complexities. The sisterly rivalry plays out like an underdeveloped soap opera.

On the other hand, the film is engaging and the costumes lovely. Same with the gorgeous palace settings.

Eye candy it is. Truthful or realistic it isn't.

I think that the main critics done to this film came from those who don't like Natalie or Scarlett. I hope it has nothing to do with the the fact that it is a costum movie - I personally found this film an excellent piece of drama, as well as the book was (I think it's an awesome reading, too!). A perfect cast, a good storyline and a strong screenplay are the main reasons that made "The Other Boleyn Girl" a wonderful screen adaptation - and both Portman and Johansson revealed themselves in one of their best performance ever! I also believe that the choice of casting two of the most brilliant and famous young actresses in Hollywood (perhaps the best ones, right now) was a smart move from the movie producers and - as well as the most fascinating thing about it is the rivalry between the two sisters - let it able to do captivate young people's attention. I really hope this film is going to be a good hit - at least to receive good reviews from the critis...