Good, but not perfect.
Since this was filmed mainly in Kent when I was a student there and many of my friends appeared as extras in it, I was always desperate to see this film.

I have one main piece of advice here: if you are a stickler for historical accuracies, please don't buy this film.

Aside from that, I found it rather enjoyable. I have read the book and whilst it doesn't compare, the film is light and entertaining. It's not a particularly serious film, nor is it terribly well acted. But it's definitely enjoyable, which is why I bought it.

If you're not a fan of using the ol' grey matter when being entertained, then try this film out.

NOT the 'Other Boleyn Girl'...
Utter pants - I wanted to give it no stars but wasn't allowed. Poor casting, historically laughable, not based on the book; a very poor Hollywood period costume party gloryfying Anne having her head chopped off. Weird, cost I thought it was called 'The OTHER Boleyn Girl'. Aviod this piece of annoying tripe unless you like looking at Eric Bana and read the book instead or try the BBC version - much better.

Not exactly the Tudors....
I've never read the book that this movie is based on. I was attracted to it for 2 reasons: As a fan of the TV series The Tudors, I've developed a fascination for romantic encounters of the time period. The second reason is I've always been quite intrigued by Eric Bana. He's a very handsome and talented actor, although the movies I've seen him in have always left me feeling underwhelmed. The Hulk was too long and had little to appeal to anyone, and Troy was just a very bland retelling of the Iliad.
Upon seeing this movie, I was actually impressed by Eric Bana's take on Henry VII, even though he only gets a few lines in the entire film, Eric Bana really just portrays the object of the two sisters' desire, and so he is just a rugged and stern figure, charming and powerfully seductive, yet distant and formiddible. Quite a contrast to Jonathan Rhys Meyers' Henry of the TV series, who appears as a reckless youth, constantly blowing hot and cold.
The two sisters, on the other hand, make their relationship with eachother quite clear- loving sisters, yet each noticing and exploiting eachother's weaknesses, which soon turns quite nasty. Its a relationship that we can recognise in these modern times, yet since this is in a different time, we see the effect that sibling rivalry can have when it comes to their elders abusing their status for heir own personal gain.
Scarlet Johanson and Natalie Portman are both beautiful actresses, yet they seem to struggle with the British accent, and it is extremely noticable, and so we don't really get pulled into the drama as much as we'd like as we find ourselves judging the actresses' attempts at perfecting the British accent.
On the other hand, when you watch the Tudors TV series, all of the actors are British, and so they play the parts quite effortlessly. You'd think that Hollywood would have learned from this- why recruit two Americans to play the parts of Anne and Mary Boleyn when there are plenty of natural and talented British actresses already roaming around? I'm sure the "making of" would have explained this to me, except there isn't one. The DVD contains no bonus material. No cast or crew interviews. You are literally only paying for the movie itself and that's it.
Now here's the spoiler, not it's a big shock to anyone who bothered to read history: the movie even states itself as a prequel the Elizabeth movies, starring Cate Blanchet. Now there's one actress who knows how to perfect a foriegn accent. This movie is not exactly comparable to the Elizabeth films, as they are both about conspiracy, while this film is a more down-to-earth kind of period drama. I might seem to display a negative attitude to this film, but I would not say it is bad. I did enjoy watching The Other Boleyn Girl, just not as much as the TV series. Watch this, then watch the finale to season 2 of the Tudors, and tell me which one had you weeping the most.

Makes The Tudors seem like Richard Starkey
A politically correct and laughably twisted version of historical events. The cinematography and acting are pretty good but the characterisations and script come straight from an American soap opera. The men in the story are portrayed as either weak and stupid or downright evil while the women are all strong, principled and honest, launching into feminist sermons at every opportunity. Can you survive two hours of listening to 16th century English aristocrats talking like Charlie's Angels? I did but it was a close thing at times.

disappointing if you are a fan of the book
It's such a shame to see so fantastic a novel degraded on the screen. I doubt whether any of the lead actors have actually read the book as none of them have their characters anywhere near as close as should be.

I read the book recently, got the film for christmas. ADORED the book. Almost fell asleep during the film. As an adaption it is inaccurate, rushed, and I really don't think the acting is any good in the three leads. Natalie Portman - OK (being generous) but still not at all as Anne is depicted in the book. Henry is portrayed as a lively, spoilt, naive, bolshy and moderately cheerful young man in the book, on screen this is not translated at all - Bana (I liked him in Troy) is not doing the role justice, in my opinion, as he acts too sombre, moody and thoughtful. His mannerisms in the book are never seen in the film either - i.e. throwing his had back with a roar of laughter.

Likewise in PG's novel there is a strong sense that all the courtiers live their lives to please the King, would fall flat at his feet if he wished it, yet in the film he just strolls around like the rest of them, no-one really reacts to who he is, or tries to succumb to whichever mood he happens to be in.

For Mary the film was never her story, or told through her eyes as it is in the book. It is all about Anne so the title does not really suffice to compliment it at all, for the film is not about the Other Boleyn Girl...but about Anne Boleyn.

Above all I was disappointed with the portrayal of the character of George Boleyn, their brother. Whilst reading the amazing book I loved his character the most, and was eagerly anticipating his part in the film. As well as his time on screen being incredibly small for so important a character, nothing at all reminded me of the character I so loved in the novel. I never once saw the cheeky, charming "courtier's smile" often described in the book, nor a deep affection between him and Anne that grew and became evermore ovbious to those around him. And where was his lover!!!???? Sir Francis Weston?? There was nothing at all, not a hint, about George's homosexuality. Nor was there a sense of the intimacy in the trio of the three Boleyns, as a result of this George's execution stirred no emotion as it should have done and did so well in the book.

I know it is a cliche to slate a movie that has been adapted from a well known novel...but there really are some fantastic novel adaptions out there which deserve every bit of praise they can get....sadly, this particular film is not one of them. I do not regret having watched it, it was quite interesting to see Anne's story visually, but I think as such a gripping and truly amazing book it had the potential to be made into a similarily astounding movie.

My advice? If you have not read the book, by all means watch the film as you may find it good, if you have read the book, don't fret to watch it, as you'll only be disappointed.

Hide Reviews