The Other Boleyn Girl

The Other Boleyn Girl is a compelling film due to the exceptional performances and the splendid costumes. Additionally, there is simply a terrific story told about the relationship of Henry VIII and the two Boleyn sisters, Anne and Mary.

Natalie Portman (Anne) and Scarlett Johansson (Mary) are outstanding as characters engaged in both sibling rivalry and sisterly bonding. In the central relationship of the sisters, the film develops the social roles and imposed limitations on women in Tudor England.

One of the film's most moving character portrayals is the mother of the two Boleyn Sisters. In the heartbreaking performance of Kristin Scott Thomas, Elizabeth Boleyn can only watch helplessly as her daughters become pawns of the greedy men (Thomas Boleyn and the Duke of Norfolk), who use the young women much like pimps in order to line their pockets and further their own advancement at court. Another sterling aspect of the film is the portrayal of Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent), another victim of the men due to the obsessive pursuit of Henry VIII to beget a male heir, leading to his momentous divorce from Katherine and England's break with the church of Rome.

While commentators may point out the omissions of many of the details from the novel by Philippa Gregory, the film is still true to the spirit of the book. It is also a faithful representation of the role of women in Tudor age. The film effectively presents the gender issues from the perspective of many of the remarkable women of the age along with the reminder of the greatest legacy of Anne Boleyn, which was the indirect result of her relationship of Henry VIII. That legacy was the future ruler of England...and also a woman: Elizabeth I.

The Tudors are very chic at the moment. If it isn't "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (awful) or the television series, "The Tudors" (soft-pornographic trash), then it is "The Other Boleyn Girl", the latest film written by the Oscar nominated screenwriter, Peter Morgan. After his work on the Golden Globe winning TV film "Longford" and the Oscar winning (for its lead actors) "The Queen" and "The Last King of Scotland", his scripts must be in demand by actors across the globe. Little wonder then that this film attracts a stellar cast, including Eric Bana, Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. So, why is it that this film, which is filled with great talent and potential, delivers only satisfaction? This was originally slated for release late last year, right in the middle of the awards season. Yet, for some reason, it was moved back. Why this was done is not widely known, but, as the IMDb had the film listed as completed last autumn, I should think that the decision was taken that this film would draw more attention outside of the congested awards season. Watching the film, you are aware of the ambition and lavish costumes that would draw the gaze of Oscar. But the film lacks punch, depth and the power to grip you the whole way through.

That's not to say that it isn't entertaining. Far from it, the film is, for an hour and a quarter, perfectly pleasant, with intrigue, scheming and romance aplenty. A lot of the credit must go to the performances, which range from accomplished to fantastically enjoyable to watch. Natalie Portman is impressive as Anne Boleyn. She ranges from scheming and nasty to genuinely sympathetic. It is her most notable work to date. Scarlett Johansson is fine, but everybody is still waiting for her to realise the potential she showed when she announced herself on the scene in "Lost in Translation" and "The Girl with the Pearl Earring". The supporting cast are a joy to watch. Eric Bana is excellent as Henry VIII, but it is the schemers in the background who provide the best entertainment. David Morrissey is having a lot of fun, whilst Mark Rylance and Kristin Scott Thomas are great as the Boleyn parents.

It is a perfectly bearable watch, but unfulfilling. There's an awful lot crammed into the hour and fifty minutes. As year after year of history is skipped through, the film's focus continually shifts, failing to allow certain characters from gaining appropriate intensity. Henry VIII is not as proactive as he might, or should, be. He is more driven then driving, whilst his first wife, Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent), is given very little time on screen, thus sidelining a character which should be a figure of great interest. But your expectations are dashed mainly because the film reaches its climax with half-an-hour to go, with an emotional pinnacle being reached and never again surpassed. A rape scene, which seems to be the start of the culmination, with so many points of interest going on in it, proves to be the end of it. The last thirty minutes, whilst quite stylish, are drawn out and slow, and end with a final scene that can only be described as cheesy.

It's a shame that this film is nothing more than admirable in places. But it is a good film for this time of year (that springtime lull between the quality of Winter and the bombast entertainment of Summer). It is an entertaining and satisfying way to pass an afternoon, but it won't live long in the memory.

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.

Overall, the movie is entertaining. I thought the acting was good, particularly Scarlett Johansson's. The cinematography and editing leave much to be desired, and the entire movie seems rushed. If you have any knowledge of Tudor history,you will recognize the many inaccuracies, but those did not bother me as much as did the fact that important characters were omitted, undeveloped, or even seemingly forgotten (as in the case of Mary's husband, William Carey).

There ARE very affecting characters and scenes, but I left the theatre wishing for MORE. The fascinating lives of these people simply cannot be dealt with in a movie that lasts less than two hours.

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.