Diagonaldi Very well executed
Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.
Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Michael O'Keefe He was loathed, loved, feared, respected and definitely left his mark in history. This is a lavish production dramatizing the life and 38-year reign of no doubt the very influential King Henry VIII(Ray Winstone). This shrewed and ruthless ruler was obsessively determined to sire a male heir. His wife, Catherine of Argon(Assumpta Sema)failed after numerous tries. Henry would take a mistress, Anne Boleyn(Helena Bonham Carter), who cleverly demanded marriage before having a child. She failed to provide a male child, so Henry had her placed in the Tower of London before she was beheaded. The harsh ruler grew restless with age and would have many slaughtered in a religious gesture; growing impatient and untrusting he would use beheading as his favorite means of dealing with out-of-favor wives and allies accused of treason. Some disturbing images in this 200 plus minute dramatization. Photographed beautifully. Winestone is very impressive; but I personally believe Miss Bonam Carter steals the show. The very strong cast also features: David Suchet, Sean Bean, Emilia Fox, Charles Dance, Emily Blunt, Michael Maloney, Joseph Morgan and Lara Belmont.
Gregory Kudish Henry VIII is a good movie. It shows in details historical facts, and it's very good to see it when you're studying the history of Great Britain. However, I do not recommend this movie for young children. In Fact, it contains blood, and some nudity scenes who may be shocking for them. Although the lengths of the movie, it's very well structured. I could divide the movie in six parts. The first part would be Catherine of Aragon, the second Anne Boleyn, the third Jane Seymour, the fourth Anne of Cleves, the fifth Catherine Howard, and the sixth Catherine Parr. I think it's a very logical division for the number of wives Henry had...
rose-249 I was a little uninterested in the idea that this film was a "waste of time". I found Peter Morgan's script to be finely executed. I think that many educated women would appreciate the dynamism of Anne Boleyn's predicament - blamed for producing "wrong" children only minutes after the births. The scene in which she is tried and condemned is streamlined so that issues of court corruption are obvious. At the same time, we are presented with a pathetically cornered Henry whose great desire is to legitimize his dynasty through the birth of a male heir. The production relies on the previous knowledge of its audience, so that when a little and perplexed Elizabeth acknowledges her mother's departure, the audience is presented with the ironic portrayal of a girl who is necessarily going to grow up fast. This is a postmodern take on the role of some women caught up in male power-play. Having said that, the film is not anti-male. The representation of the historically chronicled Thomas Cranmer, for instance, is very subtle. When asked by Henry why Anne did not accept an alternative to execution, Cranmer points out that Anne found it "unnecessary" to confess to charges of adultery. Those of us who have already seen the Burton/Bujold "Anne of a Thousand Days" or the Keith Michell "Henry VIII" or the many other representations of an intriguing Tudor court, will see the political understatement as well as human exploration in this production.
ejj1955 I second most of the comments already made about the historical inaccuracy of this program, but want to add yet another quibble: the scenes that purport to show the dissolution of the monasteries. What a bunch of hooey! I thought I was watching a scene from some movie of the Vikings raiding and pillaging the English coast. What actually happened was that inspectors were sent around and anything of value was methodically stripped and either taken for the royal treasury or sold; the monasteries were then pulled down, bells were melted, etc.; the monks and nuns were given pensions. It's true that servants were turned off without work, causing hardship; it's also true that those who were especially obdurate were tried and executed, but the slashing swords and burning monks fleeing from buildings were complete inventions of the filmmakers. I just don't see the point--fiction is the name for this (not even historical fiction--just fiction).
