Henry VIII

What makes this drama fail is that it is impossible to take seriously as 16th Century England. It has absolutely no feeling of authenticity - the sets are bright and tatty, the costumes (especially what some of the wives were wearing) looked like fairy-tale outfits, and all the way through it has this Hollywood-style cinematic music playing.

The writing is utterly atrocious. The drama simply follows from one wife to the next. It never really delves into any other aspect of Henry's life apart from his relationships with his wives, each of whom is portrayed into a flat, plain stereotype. The drama places undue emphasis on an uprising by Robert Aske, and Sean Bean's ending is so blatantly copied off his fate as Boromir in 'Lord of the Rings' it's embarrassing. Except for the lead, the acting itself is not bad, but the characters sound too modern (very soap-like) and Ray Winstone is beyond belief as Henry VIII.

Ultimately, 'Henry VIII' is not about history in either its style or substance, but is more of a soap-style drama on a par with 'Footballer's Wives'.

Bodice-Ripper Mentality

Henry as played by Ray Winstone is a brawling, bawling, beastly Bluebeard. I realize Henry VIII was a spoiled brat of a king, reigning at the time when being an absolute monarch meant something, but the Tudors were also craftily intelligent. This Henry just appears to be a demanding brute. There is very little attempt to portray his intelligence or his charm. He may have been king (and it's good to be king), but when he wanted to Henry could be charming. It doesn't come through here. The history itself is a bit screwy. Let's call it history lite. There is a bodice-ripper mentality to the writing. Let's get into the hairshirt with Katherine of Aragon or the sex with Anne Boleyn. Let's show brutal war at its most brutal. Yes, war really is horrid and the Renaissance Europe was a cruel place, but the feeling of this piece is not the historical value of violence and sex, but rather for their voyeuristic quality. It's a bit smarmy. The acting was melodramatic, relieved only by good performances by Charles Dance and Sean Bean and their characters die fairly quickly. This was 3 unpleasant hours that I don't want to repeat again. Classic classy British fair, NOT.

I knew that the picture was going to be full of imperfections they minute I saw that they had made Katherine of Aragon a dark-haired, dark-eyed stereotype of what a Spaniard is suppose to look like. Katherine of Aragon, contrary to her previous portrayals, was a pretty, highly intelligent and well-educated young woman with reddish gold hair and blue eyes.

Moreover, she was infinitely more popular with the British people than Henry himself, and the Briitish people loathed Anne Boleyn for being the cause of hurting their beloved " Good Queen Catherine!"

It was believed that only Catherine's abhorence of Civil War prevented a good portion of the people rising up against Henry when he first started divorce proceedings. Assumpta Serna did an excellent job as Catherine, but her character(in my opinion) was given short shrift in comparison with Helena Bonham Carter's Anne Boleyn. Miss Bonham Carter was also too pretty to play Anne Boleyn, who, according to her contemporaries, was sallow-faced, black haired and eyed, and not that attractive in looks. What Anne did possess was a great deal of wit, charm, and ambition. Both she and Catherine were women who demonstrated strength and courage in adversity. What they lacked was the ruthless selfishness of Henry V111 and his monumental self-absorbsation in getting his own way. None of this was adequately portrayed in this series by the actors.

This BBC two-parter tells the story of Henry VIII and casts Ray Winstone in the titular role. Winstone, a much-mocked actor, seems to have a legion of detractors but I found him perfect in this part, playing a surprisingly emotional and unstable monarch.

Given Henry's status as England's most famous king, the story is very familiar but that doesn't stop HENRY VIII from being a highly entertaining interpretation of the story. Of course, the pacing is super-fast seeing as six wives and all manner of political turmoil is compressed into just three hours, but it still has time to get all the important stuff in there.

The budget seems higher than the Hollywood version of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (maybe because money wasn't blown on needless 'star' names) with close attention to detail both in set and costume. The cast is simply excellent - not just in the supporting male characters (Mark Strong and Danny Webb are great bad guys, Charles Dance and Sean Bean are brief and tragic figures, David Suchet makes Wolsey his own) but particularly in the actresses playing Henry's wives.

Of course, Helena Bonham Carter bags the headlining role of Anne Boleyn, and very good she is too. But Emilia Fox (as Jane Seymour) and an impossibly young Emily Blunt (as Catherine Howard) also deserve plaudits for their acting skills. Is this better than the Keith Michell version? No, but I'd say it was equally as good and a fittingly violent interpretation for our times.

Like the film 'Elizabeth' the factual content of this film was very slim. Unlike Elizabeth it had no compensating qualities. It gave virtually no insight to the character of Henry or any of his wives, from the opening scenes where the Duke of Buckingham apparently survived his execution in 1513 to appear as a crusader for Catherine of Aragon 15 years later, to the death bed scene where Henry's family (who were actually celebrating New Year miles away) are clustered round his bed to hear his dying words. Jane gets knocked about and Henry hides round the corner during Anne Boleyn's trial-Complete nonsense! historically, once Henry had decided to lose a wife, he avoided all contact and blamed everyone else for their treatment. What is odd is that the directors chose to invent completely spurious scenes to illustrate Henry's crimes when there were plenty of real incidents which would have provided more than enough spectacle. I appreciate that Henry's court of more than 1000 people, glittering with excessive layers of sumptuous cloth and huge jewels could not be managed on a TV budget- but this Henry spent half his time in empty buildings talking to his echo, something impossible in the Tudor Court where even the King going to the toilet was surrounded by hereditary attendants. So, setting aside accuracy, we are left with the casting of Ray Winstone. Not impossible that Henry might have cracked coarse jokes, had a cockney accent and been free with his hands. Before he became a human boulder, he was also athletic, obsessed with doing all of those sports his father, fearful for the life of the only surviving son, had forbidden. But what happened to the literate defender of the faith? The king who owned dozens of pairs of reading glasses, who played a range of musical instruments and sang every day, who enjoyed disguising and dancing, who spent hours in disputes with intellectuals about faith? This film's Henry was like a soap opera character- a renaissance Dirty Den. Two dimensional and unbelievable. It was the choice to rely on spectacle rather than knowledge, assuming the audience to be dummies, incapable of following a plot, that sank this film. Another film which would not manage a release in cinema and will, I guess, be forgotten!