Tudor soap opera

Rating: 4/10 (2 March 2008)

Well, I had high hopes for this movie. Sigh. I have NOT read the novel (and am unlikely to, if it is half as bad as the movie). The acting was decent but the script left a LOT to be desired. They tried to fit way too much into a two hour movie. As a result, some major players were left out. Cardinal Wolsey, a MAJOR player in the real story of Anne and Henry, is mentioned once in passing; the main villain in the movie is the Duke of Norfolk.
The settings were another problem. Why, oh why, do directors now use cathedrals as settings for palaces ?! It was done in Elizabeth The Golden Age, and again in this movie. Do Tudor manor halls or palaces no longer allow filming? Even Hever Castle was not used ! Oh, and apparently the landscape of Kent has changed drastically since the 16th century, because in the movie, the King travels through either Yorkshire or the Scottish moors to get to Hever. It sure in heck isn't the Kent landscape I remember when I traveled to that castle!
The costumes are appalling. Horrid patterns and very fake looking jewels. At one point, the Boleyn girls wear a matching fabric with a very modern looking round scale-like design; Mary's is a gold color, and I swear she reminded me of a goldfish in it !
The whole movie is melodramatic and soap-opera-ish. The director took a cue from "Barry Lyndon" and used mostly natural lighting in interior scenes. That is admirable, to an extent, but somehow in this movie it comes off as just too dark rather than atmospheric. The editing is choppy as well.
If you want to see a GOOD movie about Anne Boleyn, check out "Anne of the Thousand Days" (which has recently been released on DVD, by the way).