Not recommended, Historically and literately inaccurate

Rating: 3/10 (7 March 2008)

It's not surprising that those who hate it know quite a bit about the period, or loved the book word for word. In both these areas the film misses. It is barely like the book at all, and of course GROSSLY inaccurate when concerning history. If one of these had been done right the movie might not have been so bad.
Lets start with the choice of actors. I won't even focus on my original issue that none of the leads are British... that's a bit picky I know. I will though ask this one question.. Couldn't you have gotten a lead actor with RED HAIR? Henry being famously red headed... I know it seems nitpicky... but movies that don't care about some obvious small mistakes, tend to also do BIG mistakes... Eric Bana is a good actor. He is, and he's very attractive. I give him that, he's strong and handsome. But as Henry... he falls a little flat. Though that I can blame more on the screenplay and direction. Natalie Portman is good, her accent is good. She plays her Anne Boleyn is strong and a presence on screen. Scarlett Johannsen though.... yeah, I gotta say she doesn't have much acting ability. Most of time on screen is spend staring and looking sad. Granted like Eric Bana, part of this is the screenplay. She's not given much to do... My shining light in this movie is David Morrissey, who is fantastic as the Duke of Norfolk, their Uncle. He's mean, creepy, conniving... Perfect. Kristin Scott Thomas is also good, I couldn't help but feel they made her so likable to make this movie into a feminist stronghold. All the women were poor victims of the men. Sure in history this was mostly true, but in the movie its done in overkill. And the rest of the actors... George was BARELY in it to even be noticed, which is atrocious since he's so important. And William Stafford... I won't get too much into that but the actor playing him was so badly miscast as to be laughable. Granted he's barely on screen 5 minutes so who cares? Then the other issue is the accuracy of the movie. Okay, this is based off a historical fiction novel, so you go in not expecting historical accuracy, which you do NOT get of course. But you don't even get literary accuracy. This bares so little in common with the book as to be laughable, one gets the idea they just named it the Other Boleyn Girl to make money off the tremendous sales for the book. They cut so much out, and change characters personalities and relationships that it makes no sense. One thing I enjoyed in the book was the relationship between Mary and Queen Catherine. It was touching to see a girl who truly loved her Queen ending up betraying her, but ultimately being forgiven. Even naming her daughter after her. In the movie though that is ALL gone, hell they even skip the birth of Mary's daughter. The portrayal of Catherine in the movie is terrible as well, they turn her into a weak women who's victimized by her husband. In the book at least you see a strong woman, who doesn't let people get to her and who truly loves her husband. And you see that in the beginning at least Henry cared about her as well. Its great, and the movie could have done with some of that. Not to mention the movie acting like Mary Boleyn was the FIRST girl Henry had as a mistress... that's as silly as it gets. She wasn't THAT important... Another glaring issue with the movie the lack of Cardinal Wolsey. Really what else do I need to say there? To leave out such an important character... And here's a quirky little issue with the movie... they forgot to kill Mary's first husband, William Carey!! He's in the beginning, and then he's gone. No mention, nothing. Oh well. SMALL forgetful error that...
And acting and accuracy issues aside, the movie didn't make sense for new viewers. They jumped time without letting you know. You're just supposed to assume time had gone by even though everyone looked the same. You see Mary ride off to the country, and two minutes later she's riding back and so much time as gone by... Anne gets exiled to France and comes back minutes later and its been months supposedly... She's been in France for a few months and suddenly she's completely changed and knows everything?? It made no sense. Add that to the fact that the director tried SO hard to make this movie dramatic.... There's a scene where Anne is coming back from France... it reminded me of Pirates of the Caribbean. Or that they kept using dramatic music, or outside shots of clouds moving quickly, or those camera shots from behind things making it look like someones watching secretly.
All in all this was a Hollywood movie gone wrong. Its tough to make a movie based off a fiction book thats based off a period of history. In the end you have to choose which direction you go, you either follow the book or the history. This did neither, and the nail in the coffin was that the movie wasn't even made well enough to make that all not matter. Sure Braveheart was TERRIBLE when it came to history, but you liked watching it. This one ain't so lucky. All it did was make me want to watch the BBC TV version of the Other Boleyn Girl. Supposedly that follows a bit closer.