IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Freedom060286 This series was very well-written, with careful attention to detail. The cast here perform intelligently, and are perfectly suited to their roles. There is no over-the-top acting, people behave in a realistic manner.Damian Lewis is a very believable Henry VIII, and Mark Rylance is exemplary as Thomas Cromwell. I enjoyed seeing a quality actor like Jonathan Pryce as Cardinal Wolsey, although Wolsey at that time was a few years younger than Pryce. Anton Lesser is very good as a less- than-saintly Thomas More, in contrast to the unrealistically upright character in the 1966 movie A Man For All Seasons. I especially liked the historical accuracy, which has been badly lacking in other versions of the same events. Some of the dialog is word for word from the historical record (for example Thomas More's comment about Martin Luther). Too bad there wasn't a second season to cover Thomas Cromwell's life from May 1536 to his execution in July 1540.

Peter Kettle Riveted by Wolf Hall. No gristly Boleyn decapitation, but a subtle portrait of a French swordsman, sidestepping the blindfolded Queen, who turns her unseeing head to one side before the huge broadsword sweeps it off. It is done without vulgar drama. The hand maidens wipe their bloodied hands clean after placing the body in the coffin. No emptying of arteries, no rolling head, no eyes in close up. Thus are the first two books in this great trilogy masterfully achieved, giving us the quidditas of an age that is almost our own. Complex allusive prose has been properly adapted and not simply eviscerated into a crude bloody caricature of Tudor intrigue (such as the awful 'Elizabeth' a few years ago). It is undeniably brilliant, subtle and all the more moving. You don't need everything underlined. By implication we are presented, in the two books as here, with a nascent modern nation, a step away from the grasp of theocratic Rome, which crept into the heart of Europe and nearly dominated and stultified the progress of secularism. Contemporary statecraft approaches in this wonderful creation by Hilary Mantel. And we all learn something; 'Wriothesley', if that's how it's spelt, is pronounced 'Risley'. So there.

louisejuelc I really like the stories of Henry VIII - most of all because this is such an important piece of British history, so I watched this show with great expectations. But I think this show is way too slow and with sad violins playing all the time it gets boring. It is not all bad, though ... Damien Lewis is perfect as Henry VIII, and I feel he should have been cast as Henry in The Tudors as well :) Mark Rylance is great as sly Cromwell, but I don't like the portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Anne is a stupid bitch in this show, and it does not make sense, why King Henry (and all the other men) would be so enchanted by her.

nava-hemyari I don't know what to say about the acting, because when the dialogues are written in a very dumm way and sort of costumed in the way we speak in 21st century, doesn't really matter how they say it, it'll come out as bad material. The music was really bad. The instrumentations where partly according to the time but the composition style was the typical style of now a days series music. It was as many others might say very slow. There where so many scenes which could have easily been cut off. Some might find the movie great but I reckon it's mostly because this historic event itself (Henry and all his queens and treasons) is very attractive. For another vision at the same historic era and events I recommend "The man for all seasons" (1966).