 "Anne of the Thousand Days" (1969)Directed by Charles JarrottWritten by Bridget Boland (adapted from the play by Maxwell Anderson)Starring: Richard Burton, Genevieve Bujold, Anthony Quayle, Irene Papas, William Squire | Probably my favorite movie about the Tudor period, "Anne of the Thousand Days" is a wonderful adaptation of Maxwell Anderson's play with all the pageantry one expects for such an epic movie. The film was created just before Hollywood went on a Tudor binge of movies set during the period, in fact many of the costumes were reused in later movies. This film was perhaps the first to show a side of Anne Boleyn that had not been shown before - a woman ahead of her time, a mother, a lover (not adulterer). Anne's personality is toned down, she's feisty and ambitious (one of the best lines is when she states power is as seductive as love) and delivers witty lines but her darker side is not shown. There are of course historical inaccuracies (Mary at her mother's deathbed) and perpetuation of historical rumours (like Mary Boleyn having mothered Henry's children) but in all this doesn't detract from the success of the film. Acting is top notch, Bujold and Burton were both nominated for Oscars for their roles as Anne and Henry. In all, a great epic costume drama and it's a shame Hollywood doesn't make them like the used to!
Posted by: Boudica |
At a time when movies were branching out, Anne of A thousand days made its mark on the world as a controversial masterpiece which displayed the Anne Boleyn the world had not yet seen portrayed in movies.
Bujold, The french Canadian beauty, plays the feisty mistress Bullen who's name was changed to the french pronunciation Boleyn. She refused to marry the king and spoke back to him many a time, this only flamed the lustful hard headed King of the realm more so.
The costumes and scenery were grand, and the actors playing the men on the privy council were much more accurate than many dashing young babes you see on our screens today.
The only gripe with the film for me personally was the tower scene, when Anne and Henry were arguing, as this is historically inaccurate as was the trial against Anne and George which saw the king come bursting in calling Smeaton a liar for his confession to bedding his Queen. Aside from a few other light accuracies (Mary at her mothers death bed, Mary Boleyn's children being portrayed as the kings official illegitimates) The movie is a spectacular insight to the Queen that reigned for three years and counted the days alone in the tower "1000" Days.
A must see
Posted by Howardfan
|
I agree it's a must see...Feisty Anne Boleyn, at its best for the time it came out, Genevieve does it well!
Posted by: FMFJRMGRL
|
This movie is probably one of my favorites. I absolutely love Genevieve Bujold. I believe it shows a decent portrayal of the early relationship between Anne and Henry. I don't think she was very taken with him at first and harbored some resentment for the forced breakup between her and Henry Percy. The love affair did grow and she did fall in love.
My only disappointment with the movie was the end....when Anne was walking up to the scaffold, the movie ended. I didn't necessarily expect to see the execution (or want to), but I did want to see Anne give her speech. Felt they let a good opportunity go. I think Bujold would have done an amazing job delivering that speech. But regardless of this, I would recommend it to everyone.
Posted by: offwithherhead
|
Geneviene Bujold is one of my favorite actresses that played Anne Boleyn.She was wonderful.But I would like to see her in the end give the speech that Anne Boleyn gave.My favorite scene is in the tower when Henry visits her.I know that this is historically inaccurate but I loved the whole thing.When she told Henry " Elizabeth shall be a greater queen than any king of yours......My Elizabeth shall be queen and my blood will have been well spent. I recommend it...
Posted by:BoleynGirl | |
 "Elizabeth" (1998)Directed by Shekhar KapturWritten by Michael HurstStarring: Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Christopher Eccleston, Richard Attenborough, Vincent Cassel, Kathy Burke, John Gielgud, James Frain, Daniel Craig, Fanny Ardant |
I loved this movie. For years, whenever I thought of Elizabeth, I always felt Glenda Jackson was the ultimate Elizabeth....that is until I saw Cate Blanchett's portrayal. She is Elizabeth and I love the range she brings to the character.
I think that historically it may have lacked some (but what movie doesn't). I came out of that movie wanting more, so I went out and bought a book. While I was watching it, I was entertained. Have watched it several times and I enjoy it every time.
Posted by: offwithherhead |
Even though this movie came out in 1998, I did not see it until after reading TOBG. It was yet another reason for me to be intrigued about the true Tudor history vs fictional fancy.
Cate Blanchett is amazing in the role, and looks like what I think many imagine Elizabeth would have looked like. The speculation of Robert Dudley being her lover or not is HEAVY in this movie and the meat of it, I'd say. Geoffery Rush plays a fierce Walsingham, and many others lend themselves as mostly villains against the 'portrayed' victim Elizabeth, just trying to rule her country the best she sees fit.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, inaccuracies and all. It's superb in it's acting, costume, and delivery, enough to stand on it's own.
Posted by: Queenmellybee |
Cate Blanchett is the best Elizabeth in my opinion.I have watched the film many times....It's perfect
Posted by:BoleynGirl |
I agree. She is a great actress.
Posted by: princeedwardfan
| |
 "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" (2007)Directed by Shekhar KapturWritten by Michael Hirst and William NicholsonStarring: Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Abbie Cornish, Samantha Morton, Jordi Molla<a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfp09u8g7vI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Extended Trailer</a> |
I went into this movie, knowing that the directors did NOT intend for it to be a 'sequel' to Elizabeth - but with that said, I was thrilled that Elizabeth and Walsingham were being played by the same actors, only aged.
I found this movie to be just as speculating in facts as the last, but slightly more presumptuous. To question a woman's bedfellows is common, but to insinuate that the English were involved in Mary of Guise's death? That was a stretch. The timeline of Mary Stuart's accusation of betrayal + her youthful age in the film are gratingly inaccurate. Maybe my furthered history education has slanted my viewing naivete??
But all that aside, (I was prepared for poetic license) I thought that the acting was excellent, the costume amazing and the overall theme to be better than the first movie - in that it dealt more with Elizabeth's reign and not so much her bed.
A good movie on it's own and a more struggling perspective of the Queen.
Posted by: Queenmellybee |
"Elizabeth the golden age"....One of my favorites.Cate is really good in the movie .I love the music, the dresses ,and the actors!!
Posted by:BoleynGirl |
Cate Blanchett just seems to literally become Elizabeth. This movie seems to be one of the closest to accuracies than many movies. The costumes, men and women alike, are spectacular, and Cecil! I would definitely recommend this movie, doesn't matter if your not interested in Tudor History, this movie will grab your attention and hold it!
Posted by: Maggie-AnneB. |
I think this movie is fantastic. I can't wait to see the last movie of this trilogy on 2017.
Posted by: princeedwardfan
| |
 "A Man For All Seasons" (1966)Directed by Fred ZinnemannWritten by Robert Bolt (adapted from Bolt's play)Starring: Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Orson Wells, Nigel Davenport, Susannah York<a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RZKd1be05Q" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Original Theatrical Trailer</a> |
I thought Robert Shaw's version of HVIII was very tacky. The silly laugh was way too much. The Thomas More version in this film I found rather annoying, it took him so long to speak...Ughh...
This is not, in my opinion, the best version to see..check out below for "A man for all seasons" with Ray Winstone playing HVIII...
Posted by: FMFJRMGRL |
I as well found this movie to be kind of disappointing. Shaw's Henry VIII was over the top - and the outfit (shown on the cover here) was such a tacky inaccurate costume distraction, it subtracted major points for me in itself [even if the scene wasn't long].
I thought that More's character was well played and very pensive, conscientious and true to his ethics. I can understand why HE won an award for the film - but as for the grandiose-ness of the rest of it, I guess it was the best for it's time??
I think that nowadays, film critics standards would be much higher on the costuming, filming, and script levels.
Posted By: Queenmellybee |
Hmmm...This is a tricky one for me. The casting was superb, the acting was superb and the play, as a written piece, was also superb.
What isn`t superb, is whats not included in the piece. Anything negative about More is simply airbrushed out of existence, and anyone watching this, really should bear that in mind, however, it beautifully summarises the dilemma faced by More over the Supremacy. Well worth watching for that a lone.
Elliexox |
|
 "Mary, Queen of Scots" (1971)Directed by Charles JarrottWritten by John HaleStarring: Vanessa Redgrave, Glenda Jackson, Timothy Dalton, Nigel Davenport, Ian Holm, Trevor Howard<a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUzN-UTrw9g" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Original Theatrical Trailer</a> |
This movie in many ways deserves to be seen as a sequel to "Anne of the Thousand Days": same director, producer, even musical composer, completed two years after the Academy Award winning picture. "Mary" of course takes place 23 years after "Anne of the Thousand Days" ends when most of the characters from the film are long dead. The movie opens with Mary in France with her first husband, King Francis II, who is near an untimely death. Mary returns to Scotland to find her mother dead, her illegitimate brother ruling as regent, her country overrun by Protestants, and Elizabeth "the Bastard" as Queen of England. From there the movie covers the years leading up to Mary's imprisonment in England, which is usually more covered in film and books despite her imprisonment lasting 18 years. The film conveys a Mary that is not evil nor angelic but "a woman who is first a woman" rather than Elizabeth "who is first a monarch". Vanessa Redgrave did an excellent job conveying Mary's dual nature and a Queen who was spoiled, pampered, with no clue how to effectively administrate over Scotland without her brother James holding the strings. Glenda Jackson, who also appeared in "Elizabeth R", also conveys her Queen's personality, fiery temper, and administrative philosophy. A big plus over this movie over Hepburn's "Mary of Scotland" is that it's filmed on location and in color which makes the sumptuous costumes and sets all the more stunning. While not perfect in terms of historical accuracy (Mary and Elizabeth never met in person, despite it being show in almost every film about them) I certainly recommend this movie.
Posted by: Boudica |
|
 "Shakespeare in Love" (1999)Directed by John MaddenWritten by Tom Stoppard and Marc NormanStarring: Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Geoffrey Rush, Tom Wilkinson, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck, Dame Judi Dench<a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugtbah8kzAI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Original Theatrical Trailer</a> | It's complete and utter fiction, but very entertaining, good acting and humourous in parts, I like Fiennes as Shakespeare, he was also a good Robert Dudley in Elizabeth, but why does he always look as if he's wearing eyeliner? lol, very cute and romantic-until you remember Shakespeare had a wife and 3 children. So no Husband of The Year Award for him, but him and Viola are kind of cute together. -hohumpigsbum
|
|
 "The Other Boleyn Girl" (2008)Directed by Justin ChadwickWritten by Peter Morgan (adapted from the novel by Phillipa Gregory)Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, Eric Bana, Jim Sturgess, Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey, Juno Temple<a class="external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZojhOdphg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Offical Theatrical Trailer</a>For more fan comments see: The Tudors vs. The Other Boleyn Girl | A glossy mix of famous actors and actresses, pretty scenery and handsome kings and courtiers. This movie was supposed to be based on the best selling book by Philippa Greggory, however the differences between the book and the actual movie portraying the book are longer in in accuracy than the film itself.
The movie displays Mary as a sweet doe eyed virgin (played by the hot Scarlett Johansson) who marries Henry Carey then takes the kings eye after Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII have a "Bad" experience whilst out hunting.
From there on the competition for the kings affections begin, with Anne (played by the lovely Natalie Portman) comes out the winner and is declared queen, who indeed gives Henry a baby and future Queen Elizabeth.
The downfall to this movie is not only the fact that Eric Bana does not portray a likely Henry VIII at all, or that Anne is seen as the spiteful witch who takes over Marys place, while she lay with the kings "alleged son" weeping.
The downfall is the terrible outlay and plot which allows these horrible inaccuracies to take place.
Mary Boleyn was not a virgin when she married Will Carey, she had indeed bedded the king Francis of France but alas the Boleyn girls time in France is not even mentioned in the movie and Anne's accused courtiers barely even get so much as a mention before they are sent to die. Henry Percy is mentioned and the only accurate thing about this film would be his presence at the trial against Anne and George.
George Boleyn is barely given any screen time, the book portrayed him as being in love with Francis Weston, this is not in the movie.
There is no mention of William Carey's death nor Mary Boleyn's first daughter Catherine Carey who was said to be her first daughter. The reality of history is not displayed at all in this movie and the worst scenes that even the soft and open minded would be appalled at are as follows:
Henry rapes Anne, supposedly in 1532 before they wed and this is how Elizabeth is conceived
Anne and Henry despise each other from the grand coronation in 1533 which is completely false
Lastly, in a complete rage and writers mishap
Mary Boleyn runs out of court with the newly declared "bastard" child Elizabeth and lives happily ever after at Rochester with her new man William Stafford who is not handsomely or well portrayed at all.
Unless you already know this is not based on fact i would set yourself up for major disappointment
one will find themselves constantly pointing to the screen and saying "that's not right" "when did that ever happen?"
The only thing i can suggest is that you READ the book first so you can understand the differences AND that you do not take this film seriously or as fact.
Other than that
I would say that this was one of the worst films of 2008
If I weren't a Tudor nut and history buff I would still be bored, not entertained and displeased.
Posted by: Howardfan |
The costumes in the movie are beautiful, and the acting is very good. The only thing i Have found wrong with this movie is that Queen Katherine does not sound very 'Spanish' (which could possibly mean that she has been in England long enough to lose her accent).
I would also recommend you read the book first. It starts out differently (an execution when Mary is 12 and already married to William Carey), and it goes into the lives of Mary's children, and her life with William Stafford.
Posted by: Oragami
|
All I can say about this movie is, if you care anything about the real history of the Tudor period, don't see this movie. It will just aggravate you.
Posted by: MsSquirrly
|
This movie was o.k. but yes after seeing and hearing and reading other books you do notice where there were inaccuracies and it does get annoying! I kept saying throughout the movie"it didn't happen like that" ...Eric Bana was easy on the eyes though! He wasnt too bad at depicting HVIII.
Posted by: FMFJRMGRL |
I think this movie is just horrible. I usually don't mind historical inaccuracies as long as the story is entertaining and the actors are really good but this movie is just too much. For example Henry raping Anne or Mary "saving" Elizabeth after Anne's death....The story is completely shallow.They pick up (sometimes confusing) story lines only to drop them a little later and you sit there and ask yourself "hmm that's it?"
I haven't seen many movies about the Tudors yet but I think that Eric Bana is the worst Henry VIII ever. He did a great job in Troy and Munich so I don't know if it is the writers fault or Eric's but his Henry is completely non-credible. He is grim all the time and you see nothing of Henry's vibrant personality.Scarlett Johannsen's and Natalie Portman's acting is OK but I definitely prefer Natalie Dormer and Perdita Weeks as Anne and Mary.
posted by Tinili |
Natalie's Portman performance as Anne Boleyn was very,very good.I loved every scene with her.But I was disappointed because Anne Boleyn in this film is represented as an evil "witch".But still I love Portman.If you want to watch a historically accurate film of the Tudors definitely it's not the best choice..
Posted by:BoleynGirl |
You either like the movie or you hate it. You have to keep in mind, however, that it is based on a book (historical FICTION) that weaves history with fantasy. If you wanted facts, you better stick with biographies and history books. This book is also not focused so much on Anne and Henry but more on Anne's sister Mary Boleyn. This book tells of Mary's story (which there hasn't been too much written on her....or so I have come to find) and how she dealt with life.
Philippa Gregory does do extensive research on all aspects of history and of the characters she writes about, but she is an author (a best selling author) who "loves history. In almost any circumstances I always ask, 'But how did it get like this? How did it start?' These are questions that come naturally..." as quoted by a Q&A session with the author. Also, if you read any of her books, you would also see that she sites all of her resources that she used to create the story.
I think that with the size of the book and all the sub story lines and plots, the film makers did a hell of a job in condensing a fictional story based loosely on history in 2 hours! I think the characters were portrayed in a way that made them more dimensional...I can believe that Anne acted at times the way she was played in this movie. Anne had a mean streak in her (just like I suspect that we all do too) and we all know that Henry could blow hot and cold any given day.
Now I don't want to come off as "I don't care about the history" because I do, I am a history major....but I also know of the creative process....no story or movie is going to be completely and 100% true, that is why we have history books. Again, you either like it or you don't.
posted by: QueensFool83 | |
 "The Virgin Queen" (2005)Directed by Coky GiedroycWritten by Paula MilneStarring: Anne-Marie Duff, Joanne Whalley, Ian Hart, Tom Hardy, Kevin McKid, Emilia Fox, Hans Matheson |
I love the music in the film .Anne Marie Duff is good as Elizabeth the I.It presents the life of Elizabeth till the day of her death.The end was fantastic...watch it and you'll understand why I say this
Posted by:BoleynGirl |
A very good movie about Elizabeth, from her 21st year of life until her death. Anne Marie Duff plays her both as a loving woman and capable ruler. Her relationship with Robert Dudley remains platonic but yet very romantic. Also very nice to see: the growing rivalry between Elizabeth and her cousin Lettice Knollys, Mary Boleyn's granddaughter. Fans of "The Tudors" will also enjoy Hans Matheson as Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, son of Lettice Knollys and favourite of Elizabeth.
Posted by: LadyLizzy
|
|
 "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" (1970) Directed by Noami Capon and John GlenisterWritten by Maurice CowanStarring Keith Michell, Bernard Hepton, Annette Crosbie, Dame Dorthy Tutin, Anne Stallybrass, Elvi Hale, Angela Pleasence, Wolfe Morris, | This is probably the best portrayal of Henry and his wives I've ever seen. Often I've read opponents of "The Tudors" hold this series as the superior adaptation. While it's definitely more true to the history in costumes, casting, and script, I consider comparing it to "the Tudors" like comparing apples and oranges. It was created for a different purpose for a different audience. The miniseries is divided into six 90 minute episodes and produced by the BBC. It's low budget (in one scene the camera pans to show a member of the set crew in modern clothes sitting on top of the wall of the set, oops!) so don't expect fabulous sets. Keith Michell IS Henry and perfectly conveys his mannerisms, his dual nature, and accurate to his appearance at all stages of his life that is shown. So many memorable scenes and lines, and of course wonderful acting from Annette Crosbie, Dame Dorthy Tutin, Bernard Hepton (he looks so much like Cranmer it's scary!), Wolfe Morris and the entire cast. I strongly recommend.
Posted by: Boudica |
This was filmed in the 1970's, so the cinematography is different than we would see in 'our time' (2000's). The acting seems so-so, and the costumes don't seem to fit some of the actors/actresses.
The BBC version of The Other Boleyn girl, however, is just as good as the American version, although it's a bit different in that both Anne and Mary talk directly to the camera.
Posted by: Oragami
|
The BBC version I remember was on in the 70's . It started me to get involved studying the Tudors and reading books about them. I will always be thankful for that show. I love it you all should get a copy and watch it. You will enjoy it
Posted by; Ladyjane |
Comments: This is the first drama I ever saw on Henry and I was spellbound. At just 13 it surprises me that I loved it so much but it had me hooked all the way through. (My Father is a Historian so as a child I rebelled against that, or thought I had lol)
Posted by: AbsintheFairey
| |
 "Henry VIII" (2003)Directed by Pete TravisWritten by Peter MorganStarring: Ray Winstone, Sean Bean, Assumpta Serna, Helena Bonham-Carter, Emila Fox, Pia Girard, Emily Blunt, Clare Holman, David Suchet, Danny Webb, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, Joss Ackland |
This by far is the best version in a movie. In my opinion.
Ray Winstone is so believable as HVIII.
He even looks like what I imagined he would look like and would act like. I can see why women fell for his charm.
All in all this was a great version!
Posted by: FMFJRMGRL |
Comments: I am so glad I was able to find this online and download it. What a fantastic version, I've only watched part 1 but I love it, I will add more when I finish part 2. More recent movies depicting the Tudors should have taken a hint from this movie. The length is appropriate, no way you can tell any of the story of the tudors in its glory in an hour and a half, I'd say three is absolute MINIMUM. Great actors, especially Henry and Katharine of Aragon, very believable on both parts. The actress that plays Anne Boleyn is good but I wasn't very fond of her, which is interesting because this is the first portrayal of her where I didn't love her character and sympathize with her. Natalie Dormer is by far my favorite Anne Boleyn. Looking forward to part 2 and will report back.
Posted by: Amyburr
|
|
 "Young Bess" (1953)Directed by George SidneyWritten by Jan Lustig (adapted from the novel by Margaret Irwin)Starring: Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, Charles Laughton, Kay Walsh | Before Cate Blanchett or Glenda Jackson, there was Jean Simmons in "Young Bess". Adapted from the popular trilogy by Margaret Irwin, the film was also produced at a time in Hollywood that the Elizabethan period was popular. The film doesn't show much of Elizabeth's childhood and is mostly centered on the love triangle between Elizabeth, Thomas Seymour (Stewart Granger), and Catherine Parr (Deborah Kerr). The film makes the relationship between Elizabeth and Seymour as a forbidden romance and more idyllic and innocent than how it actually happened in history. Elizabeth is shown to be much older than her brother Edward, in reality they were only 3 years apart in the movie there was a 13 year difference in the actors' ages. Mary doesn't have a much of a role except to be a wet blanket and her reign is completely skipped over. (the movie ends while Edward is still King and flashes forward to Elizabeth's coronation day) Thomas Seymour's overall portrayal is what really annoys me, it's completely distorted and makes him out to be an innocent, cuddly stud muffin rather than a scheming pervert. Overall, it's completely miss-able.
Posted by: Boudica |
Comments: I love this movie, it' very funny and the actors were ( a lot of them are dead, R.I.P.) great.
Posted by:princeedwardfan |
|
"The Private Life of Henry VIII" (1933) Directed by Alexander Korda Written by Lajos Biro Starring: Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon, Elsa Lancaster, Robert Donat, Franklin Dyall | Charles Laughton (Young Bess) takes on another role in a Tudor film, this time he is the king himself Henry VIII in this 1933 classic first full length feature film based around the last four wives of Henry VIII.
The movie is in black and white, and is set in only one palace, Beginning with the stunning Merle Oberon in the tower commenting politely on her small neck, add an over the top french executioner and a lot of un P.C stereotypes and you have a comedy classic lighthearted version of the tyrant and delusional yet affectionate King and the women he led into marriage and other such fates that followed.
The inaccuracies are to be expected in such an old un studied film. Katherine Howard is the centre focus in the movie, and is much older than the late teenager she really was. Katherine also sings to Henry and is introduced to him while Baby Edward was newly born to Jane Seymour which we know is in accurate as Katherine did not enter court until Anne of Cleve's came along. Jane Seymour is not shown much which would upset the seymour fans, no mention of Thomas or Ed Seymour either. Jane simply giggles on her wedding day, then dies in childbirth, which is not shown. Henry holds his son and sadly says "oh sweet Jane" to symbolize that Jane Seymour's time in the film is over.
Anne of Cleve's is portrayed as a flimsy (yet very pretty) loud German who plays cards with the king on his wedding night and they both decide then and there to get a divorce. Simple as that!
After Katherine Howard is seen smitten with Culpepper, accusations fly and Henry is very saddened, however no tower scene, time in syon abby or actual beheadings are shown, the king mourns briefly for his sweet rose without thorn before his "sister" Anne of Cleve's comes in and tells him he needs a wife and a good one this time. She points to the window, where a widowed lady llatimer is looking after Edward and Elizabeth. Kate Parr is seen as bossy and over the top as a mother to the king, not letting him eat this type of food or exert himself too much. It ends with Henry sitting in a chair once his bossy wife had left and sighing "Six wives, and the best is the worst of them all"
The notion in the movie was to depict
Katherine of Aragon (who was not in the film)
As "spiteful" According to Anne of Cleve's in this movie
Anne Boleyn as "Ambitious"
Jane Seymour "stupid"
Anne of Cleve's "a sharp hand at cards" Or something along those lines as Anne of Cleve's and Henry were discussing each queen.
Kathryn Howard as too "young"
And lastly Katherine Parr as someone to look after him and the children.
A good laugh, superbly acted thanks to the very accurate looking Charles Laughton and light.
Not a film to see if you want accuracy but still a rather cute very short look at the life of Henry Tudor
|
Comments: I watched it last night. Charles Laughton's interpretation was excellent, but was the only thing I like in this movie.
Posted by:princeedwardfan |
Comments: Great movie to watch if you'd like a good laugh. Extremely dated in it's 'modern' jargon--"Oh, so this is what they mean by 'chop and change'." Something obviously said in the 1930's. Katherine Howard being an adult as Anne faces the axe a real hoot. However, the costumes, the castles (no longer standing I'm afraid) that the scenes were shot in are fantastic. Just too bad the credits didn't mention where the movie was filmed. But a lot of accuracies in Laughtons performance, Henry did bluster and stomp around the courtyard w/his children. It's believable that he could have spent his wedding night playing cards w/Anne of Cleves, who learned how to play cards to amuse Henry on her way to England. Laughton was Henry VIII to early 20th C audiences as JRM will be to 21st C audiences. I wish it was filmed in colour, or someone had colorized it. (where are you now, Ted?) All in all for a real Tudor fan, a must have for his/her collection, tho dated and grossly inaccurate, still a fun watch. But really look at the scenery in the background.
Posted by: ElizabethTudorRose
|
|
 "Mary of Scotland" (1936)Directed by John FordWritten by Dudley Nicols (adapted from the play by Maxwell Anderson)Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Fredric March, Florence Eldridge, Ian Kieth, Douglas Walton |
|
| "Henry VIII and his Six Wives" (1972) Directed by Waris Hussein Written by Ian Thorne Starring: Keith Michell, Francis Cuka, Charlotte Rampling, Jane Asher, Donald Pleasence, Jenny Bos, Lynne Frederick, Barbara Leigh-Hunt, Brian Blessed, Bernard Hepton, Michael Goodliffe | Keith Mitchell reprises his exceptional role as King Henry VIII in a full length feature movie in color. He was widely accepted as the best depiction of the lustful and brutal King in the 1970BBC series. He again makes his mark as the best acted and portrayed King of England from 1509-1547
This movie is in my opinion one of the best acted films and accurate descriptions of the wives of Henry and the lives that all took second place to the kings demands.
Katherine of Aragon is shown in a more realistic light, played by the lovely Francis Cuka (Mrs Cratchit in SCROOGE the 1970's Version with Albert Finney) who is superb as the once happy Queen of Henry who prays for a son, and fate seems to have smiled upon them as the movie begins with an old Henry on his death bed reminiscing of his first born son Henry who lived but all of 52 days. Henry is young and vibrant, Katherine is happy and contented with her husband who is loved by the people. After the tragic sudden death of the first born son, The two share an intimate argument, shed a few tears and the kings love for his first queen is heavily displayed. A real sad moment for me was seeing little Mary run around the royal gardens while Katherine walks happily toward her, Mary then notices her father and runs to him happily. The king said To Katherine that many sons would follow....
The speech Katherine of Aragon made to Henry at Parliament is also kept accurate. True to form Henry did not allow his sickly daughter to visit her mother.
Anne Boleyn is played by Charlotte Rampling and she is spectacular as the cold yet passionate Anne Boleyn, who refuses to sleep with him when he approaches her at Hever where she is walking two of her dogs whom she loved very much. I liked how there was interaction shown between Anne and Katherine, it was also refreshing to see that Henry Percy was mentioned as well as Mary Boleyn and her past fling, even if these were only in conversation.
Anne graces the court with charm and wit, and covers her sixth nail which is based on rumor, very well. The tribal dance is magnificent and rather intriguing as it gives way to peoples understanding of Anne as a dark crow, or black nan. When she finds out of Henry's locket around Jane Seymour's neck, she indeed rips it off and approaches him. After Elizabeth is born, the marriage is waining and Anne knows she must be with child, a male one in order to save the marriage. The scene where she is laughing hysterically of her position, watching Henry talk to the fair maiden Seymour whilst Anne is said to be with child, is done rather well.
Anne's execution is sadly not shown, nor is her trial which is the downfall of this movie. My guess is that time was a factor and in a two hour film, every wife must be mentioned and given their own synopsis accordingly. Jane Seymour was portrayed very well and i was so pleased when they showed her disgust and sadness at the fate of her fellow catholics who fought in the pilgrimage of grace and were then lied to by the king, they were told they would get off lightly for their crimes but he had no intention of this. Jane also fought with Henry and his passion and sense of humor was displayed throughout the movie as well as during the fight with Jane. Mary is reinstated at court which was refreshing to see, she also had light reddish hair, not dark brown and was portrayed as compliant and sweet, not at all vindictive or rude to Elizabeth, however Elizabeth was only shown near the end when Henry died and while Katherine Parr was entered in the movie as the heavily protestant faithful woman who was indeed in love with Thomas Seymour but she did not act upon this. Katherine Parr was so briefly shown as was Anne of Cleve's and this is what slightly annoyed me.
Anne Cleve's was portrayed rather terribly, as an ugly duckling with yellow teeth and matted hair under her blond wig. Thomas Cromwell was played perfectly by Donald Pleasence and I commend his performance as the "traitor" who was beaten up near the end of his time at council and then sent to die a traitors death.
Reginald pole is not seen nor is Lady Salisbury however she is mentioned during the kings time with the lovely little Kathryn Howard who was played perfectly by the stunningly sweet Lynne Fredericks.
I loved Kathryn Howard's portrayal and only wished there were more.
Lady Rochford was not seen sent to the scaffold, she was crying behind the sweet Howard girl who went to the scaffold gracefully and said the infamous speech. "i die a queen but would rather die Culpeppers wife" "good people pray for me" She also prayed right up until her head was cut off, which is said to be what she did in truth. Francis Derehem is mentioned as being killed but not shown.
Culpepper and Howard are not seen or shown as lovers, just close companions and Kathryn's last plea to Cranmer was heart-filled and very wrenching.
A must see movie for all
9/10
posted by Howardfan
|
Comments: I like this movie, but it's incomprehensible to people who don't know the story of the six wives of Henry VIII because:
-it doesn't tell you what happen to one wife before the subsequent marriage
- Elizabeth appears magically in the last minute of the movie
Keith Michell as Henry VIII is fantastic
Posted by: princeedwardfan
|
|
| "Lady Jane" (1986) Directed by Trevor Nunn Written by David Edgar Starring: Helena Bonham Carter, Cary Elwes, Patrick Stewart, Jane Lapotaire, Joss Ackland, John Wood | "Lady Jane" is one of those movies that capitalizes on one of the most tragic stories of history and cashes in for all it's worth without much care what historical facts get in the way of it's retelling. This film would be completely lost if it weren't for some crucial cast picks. Helena Bonham Carter is so convincing as Lady Jane Grey that it's impossible to think of one without the other. Cary Elwes (before he was Weasley in "Princess Bride") plays a rogue-ish Guildford Dudley, son of the grasping Lord Protector (John Wood) who turns into a romantic heartthrob as well as an alcoholic frat boy. Jane and Guildford are shown as star crossed youth who were forced to treason by their parents and pay the ultimate price despite being guiltless victims. Jane Lapotaire is a typical rendition of Queen Mary I, but at least she is more accurately shown as reluctant to send her teenage cousin to the block, pressured into it by her intense desire to marry and bear children with Prince Philip who will not come to England unless Jane is dead. The script contains other smaller inaccuracies, like Elizabeth being younger than Jane and Edward or Jane minting a new shilling while Queen, but also preserved some basic historical facts about Jane other movies miss. For instance, Jane always preferred to wear black simple dress as was befitting Protestant ladies of rank at the time and was renown across England and beyond for her intellect and learning. Aside from the inadequacies from the script, the acting, sets, and costumes make this film worth seeing at least once.
Posted by: Boudica |
Comments: I think Helena Bonham Carter's interpretation as Lady Jane Grey is perfect. After all, she is a great actress.
I like Warren Saire's interpretation as king Edward, too.
Posted by: princeedwardfan
|
|
| "Nine Days a Queen" (1936) also called "The Tudor Rose" Directed by Robert Stevenson Written by Robert Stevenson and Milles Malleson Starring: Nova Pilbean, Cedric Hardwicke, John Mills, Frank Cellier, Gwen Ffangcon Davies, Desmond Tester | "Nine Days a Queen" isn't the best film about Lady Jane Grey, or any of the Tudors. It's very much a product of the 30's from Nova Pilbeam's bobbed hair and sweet, Shirley Temple smile to the camera, to the laughable special effects. Most of the film contains a thinly veiled moralistic message that would have been better served if it used more subtlety. The movie starts off with a sick Henry VIII in bed telling his council the order of the succession: Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, Jane, and threatening a curse upon any who disrupts that order. Edward in this movie is the most over acted and childish I've ever seen in any movie. Mary's portrayal is about as bad as it usually gets, in this movie she gives no pardon for Jane (which she did historically) and explains to Jane in a self righteous matter that she MUST die. Guildford has the most positive depiction - he's not a drinker but a kind, sweet teen boy who falls in love with Jane and Jane learns to love (much like the movie that came out 50 years later). But the script contains some very memorable lines such as when Jane asks Mary "Why must you build your greatness on the graves of others?" That question could be asked of any Tudor monarch. I prefer watching "Lady Jane" over this one, however.
Posted by: Boudica |
Comments: I like this movie and how Desmond Tester interpreted Edward, but I prefer "Lady Jane".
this movie starts with Henry VIII's death and ends with Lady Jane Grey's one.
Everything happen in one year, instead of seven.
Posted by: princeedwardfan
|
|
Elizabeth R (1971) BBC Directed by: Roderick Graham and Richard Martin; Writing credits: John Hale and Julian Mitchell; ... Starring Glenda Jackson, Ronald Hines, Robert Hardy, John Ruddock, Ian Barritt, Anthony Ainley, Kevin Brennan, Peter Jeffrey, David Strong,Vivian Pickles Filming Locations:<a class="external" href="http://www.imdb.com/List?endings=on&&locations=Parham+Park,+Storrington,+West+Sussex,+England,+UK&&heading=18;with+locations+including;Parham+Park,+Storrington,+West+Sussex,+England,+UK" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Parham Park, Storrington, West Sussex, England, UK</a>
Critics hailed this as the most faithful remake of all Elizabeth Films and Series |
Elizabeth R (The mini series)
After seeing Cate blanchett and anne marie duff play and portray The majestic Virgin Queen, I was convinced that this was as good as it got for elizabeth films and movie portrayals. That was before I saw this amazing classic adaption. Not only does this movie deliver spectacular scenery and costume for the day (early 70's) this 6 part mini series combines every aspect of the young Tudor girl' upbringing and descent to the throne. The relationship between a very authentic looking mary tudor and elizabeth is portrayed in a heart wrenching realistic way and King edwards short time on the throne is great to see including the influence his death has over the kingdom. Mary Queen of scotts (Vivian pickles) is brilliantly acted and shows the scottish queens softer side and just how unaware the ill fated royal was. It becomes clear that both women are pawns in the men who surround them's evil game. The cortiers and princes are portrayed and acted effortlessly. The star and belle of the ball is clearly Glenda Jackson. from her time in the tower, confessing how she was put of marriage at the age of eight after seeing Kathryn howard dragged away from the king to her death, to her marriage proposals and war plans, deep love for her good friend Robert dudely, regret over Mary Queen of Scotts untimely death, and ending with her own death, with no husband or children to inherit the throne, this talented and superb actress has you beleiving every step of the way that there is no substitute. A virgin Queen through and through (unlike the 1998 version would have you beleive)) Gelnda Jackson has every emotion and hardness of Elizabeth brought to life and in my opinion IS and will forever remain the only Elizabeth faitfhully portrayed.
10/10
Review Submitted by:
|
Comments: The one and only production that gives Elizabeth an accurate portrayal of her life and times. Jackson has been the Elizabeth for me for over 30 years. Consistent and consecutive, Jackson portrays Bess as close to the real Bess as possible w/no alterations to the character. Witty and charming, cold and calculating, we see the real Bess in Jackson's performance. The series is historically factual with no historical liberties. Very, very well done! I recommend this to all Tudor lovers. (this is the series I'd love to see re-made w/Blanchette as the lead, only add more history and get rid of the 'endless bowing scenes', ie, when Dudley returns to court after he's been found not guilty of Amy's death. Make it a 12 hr series and we'd definitely capture Bess' entire life w/accuracy!) I can't add anything that howardfan hasn't already said. Kudos!
Posted by: ElizabethTudorRose
|
Another incredible, or should I say credible, depiction of Elizabeth. I became a firm fan of Glenda Jackson because of this. She was brilliant, no ..genius in her handling of the role
Posted by: AbsintheFairey |
Comments:I agree this production is the best that is out there. Don't get me wrong I love Cate Blanchetet as Elizabeth but Jackson is the the best. I love this series and I recommend it to all Tudor Buffs and Fans.
Posted by: Truebloodvamp13 | |
"The twisted tale of Bloody Mary"(2008) Written and direct by:Chris Barnard Starring: Miranda French,Jason Sharo,Lisa Marie Kennedy,Victoria Peiro, Imogen Slaughter. | Comments:I went to the website and watched the trailer I wouldn't recommend this movie. Grant it I didn't watch it but the trailer was enough. It looks incredibly cheesy.
Posted by: Truebloodvamp13 |
Comments: As a huge fan of Mary I, I really looked forward to seeing this movie, hoping that it would be a more positive depiction of her which aside from The Tudors and 2005's, Virgin Queen mini series we haven't seen a lot of. However I was very disappointed. While it is historically accurate, the bad script, acting and costumes typical of a low budget production made this movie a trial to watch.
Posted by: Maryboleynfan |
|
 | How can anyone not have added this yet? As I am truly a 'fan'atic on anything Tudors or Royal, I applaud this 2-part miniseries. (Is that why it's not added, it's HBO and The Tudors is Showtime?)
Not only is it Helen Mirren playing an older Elizabeth, but the historical resemblance is closer to any that I've ever seen...right down to the half-hanging, bowl-burning of traiters scenes. Nothing has shown even her death as well as this.
Bravo Helen!
Posted by: LadyLizzy |
Comments: Overall, a good production, very well played by Mirren. She shows the depth of Elizabeth and her love for Leicester. However, the death-bed scene of Leicester a tad over the top. Otherwise, Mirren captures Bess at her best and worst. Wonderfully performed by Mirren who went on to play Elizabeth II later the same year in The Queen. Also a must see movie! Dramatic license is controlled, but still palatable, tho what show doesn't add that license? Still, a well-done production that basically sticks to facts. Highly recommend it for Bess lovers especially.
Posted by: ElizabethTudorRose
|
|
