Name Discs
The Other Boleyn Girl
12 Feature

DVD Information

Run time: 1 hour 55 minutes
Rental release: 30 Jun 2008
Main languages: English
Write your own review

Most helpful review The Other Boleyn Girl

  • The Other Boleyn Girl

    Rated - 2.0 stars  
    By SAI81 (360 reviews) from Tonbridge , 04 May 2008

    [Highly rated reviewer]

    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.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (157) Yes |
    •  No (18)

All reviews

(764)
  • Disappointing Film

    Rated - 2.0 stars  
    By DrFeelwell (3 reviews) , 03 Apr 2013
    The film is a disappointment. The book is excellent but the film cuts so many corners and compresses time frames to such an extent that it starts to be annoying.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (0) Yes |
    •  No (0)
  • Great film

    Rated - 4.5 stars  
    By a customer , 25 Oct 2012
    Super film, brilliantly written and wonderfully acted. It really made you feel the potential horrors of living in the royal court during that period.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (0) Yes |
    •  No (0)
  • The Other Boleyn Girl - poor

    Rated - 0.5 stars  
    By cesario (4 reviews) from London , 12 Sep 2012
    This was poor.

    The book was a good read but the film was silly hollywood glamour and not at all authentic.

    It was just poor.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (0) Yes |
    •  No (0)
  • Ugh. Worst film I've seen in years.

    Rated - 0.5 stars  
    By AntonyPaulW (2 reviews) from Witney , 26 Jun 2012
    We thought this was stunningly bad. It looks very pretty - nice costumes and attractive stars - but it's completely vacuous, losing everything that made the book readable and interesting. None of the relationships are explored, none of the political intrigue or complexities emerge, and I imagine that if you haven't actually read the book, you would find it very hard to follow as every aspect of the plot is rushed. Historical bubblegum. And a wasted opportunity, because the book, while it's not a classic, is the basis for a potentially brilliant film. This isn't it.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (0) Yes |
    •  No (1)
  • Infinitely better than The Tudors!

    Rated - 4.0 stars  
    By a customer , 21 May 2012
    On the whole a very watchable film, well acted by all the cast, and I was particularly impressed with Eric Bana as the King. A more sensitive portrayal, not the comic book ogre.

    Yes, large chunks of the period were cut out because the actual time lapse would be around 9 years, much too long for a film, but the essence was retained.

    One should never compare a film with a book, but I thought this was well thought out, beautifully costumed in period, showing the politics and psychology of the times.
    • Was this review helpful to you?
    • (0) Yes |
    •  No (0)
 

Agree or disagree? Write your own review

Please sign in to LOVEFiLM to write your review

Sign in to LOVEFiLM

Not a member yet?

Sign up to start your 30-day FREE trial