could've been a good deal better, but as it stands it's not too disrespectful (not of history, I mean as a movie)

Rating: 6/10 (29 February 2008)

The Other Boleyn Girl's approach to its story of corrupted love and lust and, in the end, the cold search for a male heir to Henry the VIII, might have worked a lot better had the director gone for one of two approaches: either an extremely restrained, Barry Lyndon-esq style with the performances and a tight control of shots and editing, OR a trashy guilty-pleasure kind of style, with an R rating and a look at the historical documents that throws it on its head completely. As it stands it's just... conventional, emotional kind of stuff. It's about as shallow in its own way as an episode of Beverly Hills 90210, and yet has enough really good acting (or at least appearing to be so) to justify its existence in movie theaters as opposed to straight-to-PBS weeknight. If you've seen the trailer, you'll know if this PG-13 material is for you.
Now, taking just from history perspective, one should understand that it's not for purists: there's very little actual politics here, except "No, Henry can't split from the Catholic church (next scene) Henry splits from Catholic church". It's a relationship drama when it comes down to it, between the two Boleyn sisters, Ann (the more famous one, for obvious reasons, played by Natalie Portman) and Mary (the shy and sweet one, and thus the one to produce a male not-so-heir played by Scarlett Johansson), and how they become "involved" with the infamous Tudor. Involved, by means of a pushy uncle and father who through power and influence get Mary to become his mistress and use her for a child which, ironically, can't be used as an heir to the throne. Meanwhile, Ann tempts Henry in the most dastardly way she knows how- reject him, and force him to break certain rules (i.e. divorce) to truly get what he wants. Bad move, it turns out of course.
All of this plays out with sweeping, romantic/period music, great costumes and very good sets, and even the acting from Portman is way above average for this type of pap. She's truly on her way to being one of the best actresses of her time. Johansson, on the other hand, isn't given as much of a character to work with, so her performance doesn't go quite as deep (albeit when asked to do so she is good, weird non-eyebrows and all). Bana, on a whole other hand, has the crap end of the stick: he's so good an actor in other pieces- most notably Munich and, as I've heard but not seen, Chopper- that it's a shame to see him with such a one-dimensional cliché. It almost becomes like a dull running gag where it's more like the Henry Tudor corporation, where we continue to procreate the finest male seed to the next male heir.
If it was more dangerous and seductive ala Dangerous Liasons, it's dramatic ambitions might get more and more interesting. As it stands, it's a good piece for the crowd its meant for: highbrow chick-flick fans, and those who want just a spike of difference between their Masterpiece theater and actual Hollywood product. If you want a great film, look elsewhere, probably much elsewhere.