|
The Other Boleyn Girl [2008] | ![The Other Boleyn Girl [2008]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XbvGQAG0L._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Justin Chadwick
Actors: Natalie Portman, Ana Torrent, David Morrissey, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana
Studio: Universal Pictures UK
Category: DVD
List Price: £19.99
Buy New: £5.80
You Save: £14.19 (71%)
New (14) Used (5) from £5.80
Rating:  36 reviews
Format: Pal
Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
Region: 2
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 111 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5050582550498
ASIN: B00158SZ1M
Theatrical Release Date: 2008
Release Date: June 30, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Condition: All of our items are brand new and take approx 4-6 working days (excluding weekends) from order to delivery. We only deliver to the UK.
| |
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk
A tale of two sisters competing for the same king, The Other Boleyn Girl uses historical facts as window dressing for this work of fiction that is entertaining, if not wholly believable. Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) is the doe-eyed vixen ordered by her power-hungry uncle to bewitch King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Her shy sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) has always been in Anne's shadow; Anne is prettier, more accomplished, and desired by many men. So when the King picks Mary--the "other Boleyn girl"--as his mistress, Anne turns on her sister and schemes to become not only the King's consort, but his new queen. With a pair of American actresses in the lead roles and an Aussie portraying their hunky object of desire, the English accents are all over the place in this period piece with a modern feel. Though the Boleyn girls' mother points out that her "daughters are being traded like cattle for the advancement of men," it is Anne who ultimately throws her slight weight around to bully Henry into doing her bidding. When he begs her to give herself to him, Anne--wearing a Carrie Bradshaw-esque "B" pendant on her neck--counters, "Make me your Queen." Is the audience really supposed to believe that Henry the VIII--the most powerful man in the land--would divorce Catherine of Aragon, separate from the Catholic church, and put England in upheaval simply because Anne refused to sleep with him until he jumped through all her hoops? "I have torn this country apart for you," he hisses at her before finally getting his way. Based on Philippa Gregory's bestselling novel of the same name, The Other Boleyn Girl features an attractive cast and a familiar plot with some icky twists. Kieran McGuigan's cinematography is breathtaking and is as crucial to setting the film's tone as the dialogue. Actually, it fares better: Lines such as "Well? Did he have you?!" sound almost comical. But the sweeping shots of Henry's kingdom and the carefully framed close-ups of Portman and Johansson are breathtaking in their beauty and say what words simply cannot. --Jae-Ha Kim
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Serves me right .... July 23, 2008
Gabrielle Bowie (England)
18 out of 20 found this review helpful
Yes,well,once again I get my come-uppance for not listening to all you other Amazonians out there who know what you're talking about.
The Tudor/Stuart period has always fascinated me, and I'm a sucker for ol' Henry and the rest of the bunch. Having loved the book, I really didn't think the movie could be that bad (especially having read an interview in which Philippa Gregory endorsed it. Pipps, what were you thinking of??) so I ignored the advice of you good citizens and bought it. That was the first mistake. The second was watching it. Apart from the gorgeous costumes,the whole thing was a gigantic, horrible mess. The dialogue was laughably bad for a start. None of the scenes hung together properly, everything was disjointed, the characterisations were dreadful, and let's not even get on to the historical inaccuracies which turned it almost into a farce.
Now I know some people don't mind that, but it drives me mad (like with the series The Tudors). Either the inaccuracies are down to poor research and laziness, which is bad enough, or they're deliberate, in which case - why bother? The truth is usually far better anyway, and to present fantasy as historical fact is, I think (being po-faced about these things) reprehensible. Heck, I could have done a better job for a quarter (oh all right, half) the cash. Why go to the trouble of doing some bits right (using Katherine's reported speech, for example, when she went in front of the Lords to plead for her marriage) then flinging in a totally gratuitous Henry/Anne rape scene? What was the scriptwriter on? The events leading up to Anne's arrest, and the appalling way in which she and other innocents (such as Mark Smeaton and Thomas Culpepper,who didn't even rate a mention)were stitched up was completely ignored, and the whole scenario rushed through in about 30 seconds of utter drivel.
And what happened to Mary's first husband in the film, who disappeared without trace? Actually I think he died of fever in reality, but for all the film cared he might as well have fallen down a well. There he was, gone. Seeing as how the book/film is actually about Mary, you would have thought that her story would have been the focus, as it is in the book. As it was, it turned into The Henry and Anne Show. Carry on Henners.
If you really must buy, spend your money instead on the original BBC production (available on Amazon), which is far, far better (even in that one, though, Anne is played as an impudent chit rather than the sophisticated, witty, charismatic young woman who had been brought up in the French court. I do go on, don't I?). Ms. Gregory would have done far better to endorse that one.
 "I am Henry the eighth I am, Henry the eighth I am, I am"* May 3, 2008
Amanda Richards (ECD, Guyana)
16 out of 25 found this review helpful
Seeing that this movie is from a novel based on historical events, the general gist of the story may not be unfamiliar to most, although the accuracy of some of the content may be debatable.
Short Attention Span Summary (SASS):
1. Henry VIII (Eric Bana) was a handsome, hunky, hunka hunka burnin' love
2. Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) and her sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) were babelicious babes
3. Married Henry didn't have an heir, so he wanted to pick up a spare
4. Sir Thomas Boleyn had tons of ambition and a couple of daughters to spare
5. Henry picks up the wrong one, who might have turned out to be the right one, if not for ....
6. ... the other Boleyn girl
7. Abstinence can make the heart grow fonder but befuddles the brain
8. The lady may have been in waiting, but the King wasn't
9. By George! I think she's done it
10. Off with her head!
Warning to students: Quoting the above in History class may be detrimental to your grades.
More hysterical drama than historical drama, this movie seems more "Desperate Housewives" than period piece, but there's no denying that the costumes and sets are stunning, and the lead actors and actresses simply amazing, despite the lack of the proper accents.
I'm going to vote for the entertainment factor here.
Amanda Richards
(*from the song by Herman's Hermits)
Shudderingly bad in every respect April 12, 2008
Nrhlangman (London)
12 out of 23 found this review helpful
Frankly there is nothing good about this film. The script is stultifying and dumb. Henry VIII torso may set a few heart fluttering in the audience but embarassingly historically inaccurate. The male actors seem weak, almost stupid and definitely naive. As for Scarlet J, the pouting lips that she used to great effect in Girl with a pearl earring remind me more of Goldie Hawn sucking through a straw in the First Wives Club. The only saving grace was K S-T who saved the film from just being an acute embarrassment (except for her clearly un-Tudor costume in her first appearance in the film). I just do not know who or why this film ever got financed let alone how it got to the box office. Please could someone tell the Americans that we really just do not want to watch this sort of drivel, its a patronising slur on UK history/historical novels. There again, maybe the book is appalling as well!
Impressive Hollywood movie, Portman's performance a highlight! May 2, 2008
Aris N. Panagiotopoulos
12 out of 16 found this review helpful
This is an impressive Hollywood movie and by using the word "Hollywood" I mean it's the usual trend of making a visualy great film with impressive costumes,stages, surroundings etc with some big names in the main roles and with a rather weak scenario with historical inaccuracies and gaps.
This movie is visually flawless with excellent costumes with attention to detail, the places that have been chosen for the outside scenes are very good and beautiful and the stages for the inside scenes are also very well done and detailed.
The scenario has gaps in the story and there are some historical inaccuracies although the main story, names and places are correct. This movie is based on a successful novel and unfortunately it's very difficult to add everything in a two hour film so it's lets say a necessary evil that some facts will be left out of the movie. In this film's case although a few gaps are indeed a bit noticeable and they could probably have been worked in a better way in order not to be so obvious, they aren't really so important as the film's purpose and its main story is to show the rivalry of the two sisters as they were battling to win the king's heart, not to show what happened to Mary's first husband or how Ann was spending her time in France! In my opinion the film succeeds in its goal and the rivalry between the two sisters as well as the intrigue at the court and in their family is well documented.
Eric Bana who plays Henry is just average as there are a lot of other actors that could have played the role much more persuasive and it's a pity that his acting doesn't add anything to the film. His acting is weak and without depth, not the sort of performance you expect from someone who tries to portrait a character like Henry's!
Johansson plays Ann's sister Mary and she's good enough and of course beautiful enough but again there are others that could have been much better. Her playing is somewhat weak like Bana's although she has a few interesting moments the credit of which should mostly go to the script than to her acting.
Portman plays Ann and her performance is one of the film's highlights and actually I would say perhaps the main highlight! She's very persuasive in her role, she's cunning, smart, ruthless and desperate when she has to be and she's one of the film's main strengths. The film's last part when Ann is desperate to give Henry a male heir and later she's found guilty of treason and sentensed to death is really touching and she makes you feel sorry for her. And the dresses of the Tudor period are looking great on her as well!
I didn't give the film 5 stars because of the performances of Bana and Johansson which are just good but not exceptional and such historical movies in my opinion requires exceptional performances in order to offer that little extra to the presentation of the various historical characters. Fortunately Portman's performance is really great and this alone worths an extra star on the movie's rating scale.
All in all the movie is well worth watching and it mostly does what it promises, nothing more nothing less.
A visual treat, shame about everything else July 4, 2008
A. Birkett (Midlands, England)
11 out of 13 found this review helpful
Having read the book, I knew the historical accuracy would be shaky as it was based on what is now largely discredited research. When it comes to the film, it's virtually non-existent. Yes, Anne fell in love with Henry Percy (although she didn't marry him), yes Anne was renowned for her wit - the scene where she has a crowd of people laughing around her is probably not far off - and yes, Henry overturned the Catholic church, became head of the Church of England and executed a number of people who didn't support the changes because she wouldn't sleep with him. And errm, oh yes, she did wear a gable hood, ermine and a grey damask dress for her execution.
Visually, the film is fantastic. A few historical inaccuracies in the costumes but the deliniation of class through dress is superb - and accurate - so they're forgiven. Natalie Portman gives an excellent performance. These earned the film one star, without them the headline would have featured the word 'zero'.
The book's strength was that it examined the relationship between the sisters through life's ups and downs. One or the other is always the 'other Boleyn girl'. The film fails to do that - in fact, with the exception of Anne, it fails to develop any characters, let alone explore the relationships between them.
As brain candy, it works well enough. If anyone is looking for a DVD about Anne that's historically accurate then I'd pick the 1970s play about Henry VIII and his six wives starring Keith Michel and Dorothy Tutin. (OK, the sets aren't great and there's been more research into Anne's downfall since which it can't take account of but compared to everything else, it does a good job.) If you're studying her, then Starkey and Ives are the best accounts. Given the soap opera of her life, I find it quite astonishing that film makers struggle with historical accuracy - there's got to be a film out there about the political relationship between Anne and Cromwell, surely?
|
|
|
|
www.ebay.co.uk
Copyright Thalasar Ventures
| |
![The Other Boleyn Girl [2008]](http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/navbar/eBayLogoTM.gif)
