The Other Boleyn Girl

The Other Boleyn Girl

SAI81 from Tonbridge [Highly rated reviewer] , 04/05/2008

Justin Chadwick’s adaptation of Philippa Gregory’s bestselling novel about Anne (Portman) and Mary (Johansson) Boleyn and their competition for the affections of King Henry VIII (Bana) features more ACTING than all the other films I’ve seen this week put together.

It becomes a two hour parade of performances so jaw droppingly substandard that it really is a challenge to say who is worst. Chadwick seems particularly unable to control his American stars (indeed these performances suggest that he was intimidated by the job). Portman is truly awful, struggling with her accent and delivering a performance of such boundless, overplayed, malevolence, such overstated ‘subtext’ that it’s just laughable. Johansson, wisely, doesn’t try to come up to Portman’s level of campy overacting, but it really would have been nice if she’d done something, anything really. Her performance is barely alive enough to rate the description one note and one suspects that if Mary had instead been played by a plank wearing a Scarlett Johansson mask the film would have been more or less the same.

Eric Bana doesn’t have much to do as Henry, but he makes sure we know he’s there by doing it all LOUDLY. He’s got two gears, shouty and brooding. Not for an instant do you believe him as a monarch, or indeed as anyone but Eric Bana in tights. As bad as the three individual performances are their combination is deadly. Everyone’s doing their own little thing and there’s no connection, no chemistry, between any of them. The sex scenes generate all the heat of a freezer in the arctic and there’s absolutely no sense of the sexual longing for Anne, which makes Henry tear England apart so he can have her. Without that the film falls apart, ending up devoid of feeling or indeed any reason to care about anything or anyone on screen.

The supporting cast are little help. Mark Rylance, a fine actor, is irritating as the fey Thomas Boleyn, but it’s probably David Morissey who wins the wooden spoon for the worst performance among this selection box of ineptitude. As the Duke of Norfolk Morrisey chews up and spits out all the scenery not already devoured by Natalie Portman in a performance so pantomimic in its evil that you half expect him to end every sentence with ‘muahahaha’ and to grow a moustache specifically so he can twirl it.

It’s just so, so bad.

Director Justin Chadwick comes from TV, having made the BBC’s acclaimed Bleak House series a few years back. It shows in his visuals which, for all the opulence of the costumes, the beauty of the settings and the well realised period detail, look for the most part like a TV show on a big screen. Once in a while though he’ll drop in a shot that screams ‘it’s a MOVIE’, most of them featuring glaringly poor CGI, before then reverting to the stodgy look of the bulk of the film.

The film also happens to have some atrocious editing. On many occasions we’ll see a short scene, sometimes as little as a couple of sentences, and then cut bafflingly quickly to the next thing, leaving the preceding scene seeming unfinished. This happens a lot, and while I’m not very interested in seeing more of this awful film it might have helped to lengthen it, this might plug up some plot holes and show us things that are only referred to in this version.

So, why a 2 star grade rather than a 1? Well, there’s the kernel of a good film here. The central drama is actually interesting and there are things being said about forced marriage and about politics that still feel relevant, sadly they drown in a film, which seems simply to have lacked a director able to control it.

There’s also much to be admired on the production and costume design side of things, which at least makes the film diverting to look at. The main reason, though, is Kristin Scott Thomas. She may be woefully under utilised as Anne and Mary’s mother but the steely performance she gives lights up every scene she’s in, bringing the film stuttering to life for a few brief moments. It’s not enough though; some nice frocks and one strong performance can’t disguise this train wreck for longer than a few seconds.

Read all reviews

Superb period drama...

PaulaWestwood from Ashton-Under-Lyne [Highly rated reviewer] , 24/03/2008

Having not read the book and heard it was excellent, I thought I would give this one a go on the big screen. Among a great cast, Natalie Portman as the ambitious Anne and Scarlett Johannson as the less forthright Boleyn sister Mary play this just about to perfection.. Caught between vying and lying, an ambitious father and pushy uncle, this shows how they were not too unwitting pawns in a game of position, who played a major part in Henry the VIII's reforming of England. Having been the first girl to demand marriage rather than a mere dalliance, this obviously piqued Henry and lead to his 1st divorce and a rift with the Catholic church. Inevitably though Henrys fickle affections and lusts found another home, and the favours bestowed came back to be a curse. This is a story brilliantly told. Definately worth a watch.

Read all reviews

Not true to the story.

helliethepinapple21 from Heathfield , 07/03/2008

I loved this book and was very excited about seeing the film. Howver, I was very saddened as many main plot lines are played down or missed out completely. However, it is worth watching just for the costumes!

Read all reviews

A good story, pity about the cast!

A customer from SW London , 12/03/2008

Obviously this is a novel and as such,is rather liberal in deviating from the facts according to history. I had no problem with that, BUT I do feel this film could have been so much better. I haven't read the novel so I cannot compare it to the film, but I felt the casting choices was one huge flop and that spoiled a potentially good watch! Bana as Henry the 8th was so unconvincing. If I'm not mistaken by the time Henry met Anne Boleyn he was already a huge bellied size of a man: his size being testament to his spiralling whimsies, decadence and excesses. So putting Bana with a washboard stomach was really pointless. The rest of the cast was equally inappropriately cast: despite their fiery acting roles, they never seem to quite own the parts they were playing and so failed to convince me. I quite enjoyed the story, it was alot like watching a really intricate game of chess, except with alot of backstabbing and treacherousness. A recommended watch, nevertheless but don't expect anything fantastic, except of course, for the costumes that were simply beautiful!

Read all reviews

A good story, pity about the cast!

A customer from SW London , 12/03/2008

Obviously this is a novel and as such,is rather liberal in deviating from the facts according to history. I had no problem with that, BUT I do feel this film could have been so much better. I haven't read the novel so I cannot compare it to the film, but I felt the casting choices was one huge flop and that spoiled a potentially good watch! Bana as Henry the 8th was so unconvincing. If I'm not mistaken by the time Henry met Anne Boleyn he was already a huge bellied size of a man: his size being testament to his spiralling whimsies, decadence and excesses. So putting Bana with a washboard stomach was really pointless. The rest of the cast was equally inappropriately cast: despite their fiery acting roles, they never seem to quite own the parts they were playing and so failed to convince me. I quite enjoyed the story, it was alot like watching a really intricate game of chess, except with alot of backstabbing and treacherousness. A recommended watch, nevertheless but don't expect anything fantastic, except of course, for the costumes that were simply beautiful!

Read all highest rated reviews

Visually stunning but lacks depth

A customer from Hornchurch , 19/08/2008

Interesting to see story from the Boleyn side

The film did not have as much depth as I would have liked and the Henry IV is portrayed a bit weak and lenient.

Visually stunning film, costumes, cast etc...def worth watching

Read all highest rated reviews