A tale of two sisters

Rating: 4/10 (3 March 2008)

Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana, a bestselling novel, and an Oscar-nominated screenwriterall these elements should form a brilliant, talented collaboration, but unfortunately the novel is hacked into an incongruent muddle of scenes which are further ruined by the atrocious editing.
It is based on Philippa Gregory's bestselling novel The Other Boleyn Girl, and tells the story of two sisters, Mary (played by Scarlett Johansson) and Anne Boleyn (played by Natalie Portman), who bother vie for King Henry VIII's (played by Eric Bana) affection (if only they knew he was not the one-girl-type). It is a time in England when girls were as their mother lady Elizabeth Boleyn (played by Kirstin Scott Thomas) put it "Traded like cattle for the advancement and pleasure of men." The girl's father (played by Mark Rylance) wants to catch the eye of the King to secure wealth and status by "pimping" his daughter Anne to be the King's mistress. King Henry passes over Anne in favor of the quiet submitting daughter Mary, but once she is pregnant with his illegitimate child, he quickly turns back to Anne who has returned to the court scene with a newfound sensual, seductive confidence. As Henry falls hard for Anne, Mary is quickly swept aside so the stage is set for the inevitable conclusion.
I did read the book and loved it. However I generally enjoy film adaptations no matter how far they stray from the book. Film and book are two completely different types of storytelling, so with that said the reason I did not like this film was not its major detractions from the book, but the incredible dull, emotionless production.
The acting from Natalie Portman, Eric Bana, and Kirstin Scott-Thomas was top-notch, especially Portman's (I am convinced had this been a better production and release date she would probably be garnering nominations). The rest of the cast could not hold up. Scarlet Johansson's acting was cringe-worthy as she never removed the same complacent, angelic expression from her face (she didn't even cry when her sister's head was chopped off!) and spoke in the same tone the entire film.
The production itself was not bad, the sets, costumes, etc. were all quite exquisite. The problem with this film was it had so many good aspects it could not make use of them. The editing, I must point out, was the downfall of this great story. All the scenes were so disjointed and quick that you never had time to get pulled into the story. Helping it along was the frustrating script which had lines spoken so impassively and for the sole purpose to inform the audience what was going on that it was devoid of any eloquence or originality. I felt there were whole sections left out that I knew because I had read the book, but someone new to it would be thoroughly lost.
This is such an unfortunate botching of an intriguing tale, and once again feels like the producers did not know what to do with all the talent they had. It not only is a horrible adaptation, but a very poorly done film that moved through its' material so quickly it lost its' emotional depth on the way. At the end you are left still waiting for it to start, and are so detached you do not even care about the characters whose lives were so horribly ruined. The only reason I would recommend anyone to see this film is to see Natalie Portman's performance which is utterly fascinating to watch as she plays this illustrious historical figure.