Critics and history fanatics need to get off their high horse...

Rating: 7/10 (9 March 2008)

Although I wasn't completely captivated by the film, I think it is fair to say that the Phillippa Gregory deserves some credit for bringing the attention off of Elizabeth I for once, and focusing on another monarch for a change. In this case, it wasn't even about the monarch because even though Henry VIII was always present, he was fairly insignificant. Yes, this movie favors women and is very one sided in that sense, but that is the perspective that it chooses to show, and viewers should accept that. I feel that many people are way too critical of this film. It is the authors and/or filmmakers privilege to make the film from what ever perspective they choose and with whatever historical inaccuracies they want. I am seeing that many are criticizing the factual errors and I think that they need to realize that this is historical *FICTION*, it is NOT the authors or directors obligation to educate the audiences. Besides, many of the historical facts surrounding the plot of the film are unclear to historians themselves, so why shouldn't Gregory fill in the blanks whichever way she chooses? For example, even historians don't know who the older Boleyn was, (Mary or Anne), even though there is some evidence to Anne's seniority, which is why the author chose to present it that way.
I will have to admit that much of my motivation to see the film stemmed from reading bad reviews because generally I thought the film would receive a positive response. I did have some complaints... As I stated earlier, I didn't necessarily like the fact that the King's role was insignificant, but I was even more disheartened by Eric Bana's lacking performance. Do not misunderstand, I am a huge fan of Eric Bana, and I feel that he has much potential as an actor; he is the type of actor who forces compassion from the viewer when you watch him on screen. However this time around, I had no such feelings, in fact, I couldn't wait for a scene with him to be over. Ultimately, I feel that if someone else were cast in his place, I would've had a different outlook on the King's role and presence.
During the film, I started to form an opinion on the acting of all the women in the film and I am certainly glad that I didn't set it in stone. Starting with the less obvious characters, I think that Kristin Scott Thomas was a perfect choice for Lady Boleyn, definitely worthy of recognition. I disagree with those that felt that Natalie Portman was the star actress because I think that Scarlett Johansson is the real star of this film. I feel that Portman had a good performance, her acting is not believable in the beginning, but I am certainly convinced towards the end. With that, however, she was still replaceable; Scarlett Johansson on the other hand, is not. She embodies the role of Mary Boleyn and I cannot imagine any other actress in that role. Another actor that is starting to shine, Jim Sturgess is really starting to show his talent, although he still has a long way to go to even be considered in the same caliber that British actors are held to.
Overall, I felt that the film is worthy of more positive recognition and viewers should be more open to overlooking the "questionable" ways filmmakers choose to interpret history especially if the genre is historical fiction.