THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL
Directed by: Justin Chadwick
Written by: Peter Morgan
Based on a novel by Phillppa Gregory
Starring: Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana, David Morrissey, Jim Sturgess, Mark Rylance, Kristin Scott Thomas
Distributed by Sony Pictures
Released in the U.K. on Feb, 7th 2008
Review by Matt Holmes
After suffering through the outrageously dramatic and silly Elizabeth: The Golden Age last year, only barely surviving because of the fantastic and powerful performance yet again from Cate Blanchett - I can’t say I was particularly looking forward to watching another tudor melodrama play out the same tired old themes of lust and greed in the 15th century despite the additions of the lovely Natalie Portman and especially my darling Scarlett Johansson.
Though in truth I shouldn’t have worried about this movie being overly dramatic. The Other Boleyn Girl is too weak of a film to really get into and enjoy but also it’s not silly, camp or sexy enough to be entertaining. It’s like on the complete opposite end of the dramatic scale of the Elizabeth movie. It’s so dull, so without style, so clumsily acted and directed, so vacant that I honestly believed I was watching one of those David Starkey historical reenactments.
You know the one’s I mean, with the really hammy acting from faceless names who play out the material so mediocre and without emotion, for the historian to then come out and tell us what the characters were feeling with the mundane signature score playing in the background because the actors just weren’t showing it. That’s essentially what The Other Boleyn Girl is. Such a by the book adaptation that it’s difficult to really take much away from the film that’s worth anything.
Directed by 40 year old British t.v. director Justin Chadwick as his first theatrical film, The Other Boleyn Girl is a film without much merit. It never flows, never feels coherent. Chadwick is not content on staying with characters or getting close to them, he just plods his way through the story like a guy working 9 to 5 who wants to get home as quickly as he can because he doesn’t enjoy his work.
And it’s a real shame because there was a real story here that deserved better. Written by Peter Morgan, one of the best writers of this kind of “non-fiction told in a fictional way” (The Queen, The Last King of Scotland), it’s the tale of the two Boleyn sisters who at one time came the object of affection for the complex and notorious womanizing King Henry VIII (Eric Bana).
You have Mary (Scarlett Johansson), the married girl who just wants to live a quiet life in the countryside with her new husband but is forced into spending time with the King and soon falls for his charm and his abilities as a lover gets pregnant, despite the King already being married to his first wife, Queen Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent), who by the time this film is set is in getting old and whiny.
Then there’s Anne, jealous, spiteful overly ambitious and desperate to be Queen despite knowing that the King has fallen for his sister. She plays the dangerous seducing man-eating game of toying with Henry to get his lust and affection after wrapping him round his little finger, she gets her wishes… including Henry turning his back on the Pope and creating the Church of England, just so he can divorce and she can become Queen - as we are reminded changing the face of England forever.
The first half of the film drearily and without any real sexy scenes that these historical drama’s usually treat us with (see The Tudors for that I guess), we follow the two sisters as they swap bed-sides with the King, who seemingly does nothing put ponder which he wants to bed that night. There’s no running the country in this film, no sense of the real legend of the King, it’s a wonder we didn’t get invaded by the French and over ran.
Whilst Henry thinks over who he wants to bed, the girls weak father Sir. Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) and the Blackadder sniffling uncle Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey, who just doesn’t suit this period of history) don’t really care which one the King ends up with. They will both see them setup for life in the King’s court whomever he choses, though their mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) plays the moral voice of reasoning, questioning their daughters close involvement and dangerous games with the King.
In not so subtle references, several times we have meet being chopped into pieces. Yes, everyone knows where this film is headed and the black clouds that hang over the film are actually literal, giving the film a murky and mundane feel. Like a bad holiday to Blackpool or something.
Eric Bana is sorely mis-cast as the mammoth figure that was Henry VIII. I’ve always held the opinion that Russell Crowe would have made a terrific Henry VIII in a movie someday. A guy of charm, real stature and someone who would terrify but also seduce you with every breathe he speaks, Bana is almost a light version of him.
The Other Boleyn Girl is not bad enough to say it’s crap… it’s just so dull. I often think being dull is the worse crime a film can commit, hence the extremely low score I’ve given the movie. At least Elizabeth: The Golden Age tried, no matter how misguided that film was.
Thanks for visiting us at Obsessed With Film, we update several times a day, so if you haven't done so yet you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. You can also sign up to receive updates via e-mail.
Hmmm…I agree that more could have been shown of the running of the kingdom, however, the story is called “The Other Boleyn Girl”, not “Henry Was Great and Can Run a Kingdom”. I thought the acting was pretty good. I do agree, though, that we should have gotten the chance to become closer to the characters. The only thing that I was even remotely dissatisfied with, in relation to this movie, was your poor review. I think you failed to see the point, which is that the movie was not about Henry. Henry has been done. This movie was about the Boleyns, more specifically, Anne and Mary. Also, I find that I mistrust reviews that aren’t written well. Please learn when to put an apostrophe before an “s”. And please don’t be so hasty in writing and posting your review. You said “his” twice when you meant “hers”.
Comment by Andie | March 9, 2008
Andie,
The film completely fails if Henry is not a larger than life character. I didn’t get a sense of the man. The legend. The charm. The intensity. The aura.
The Boleyns might as well have been fighting over a tin of biscuits, Bana’s performance was so drab and the writing so lazy.
I disagree when you say the movie isn’t about Henry because I think it does become that in the end. The last act is the same old Henry VIII stuff that we see in every adaptation and Scarlett Johansson’s character who presumably is “The Other Boleyn Girl” ends up becoming “Oh yeah, that other cast member”.
“Oh look she can look sad. Wow, she can really ride a horse”.
And it’s unfortunate that your disatisfied with my “poor review”. I’m afraid to say you will have a tougher task finding a reviewer elsewhere who liked this one note melodrama.
Thanks for reading though Andie.
Comment by Matt Holmes | March 10, 2008
I agree with the review, except I’ll go as far as saying the movie was truly crap. It is grossly historically incorrect. There was never any evidence that Henry raped Anne Boleyn, her motto was ‘the most happy’. In fact they were said to be quite happy in the early years of their marriage. Anne probably didn’t sleep with her brother George; in those days incest, adultery and other ‘crimes of God’ used to explain miscarriages and stillbirths. (In reality, Anne probably had Rh negative blood, which means that a woman can give birth to one Rh positive baby (Elizabeth) but she will make anti Rh antibodies against the rest of her babies, making it likely they will die of anaemia before or soon after birth) Queen Katherine probably also had this.
I could go on by saying Mary was older; her first child was a girl (Catherine Carey); Henry and Catherine were likely not even Henry’s (He would have acknowledged them as royal bastards like Bessie Blount’s son, who he later made Duke of Richmond, if they were because he was so eager to prove that he could sire normal, healthy children.
But I guess that’s to be expected with historical dramas, they rarely stick to the facts..but to deviate so far from the truth is very regrettable. I also felt that there wasn’t enough character development, the acting was poor, and the script was poor. I love all three of the leads, but I felt they were horribly miscast. Henry and Anne were together nearly five years when they finally got married and I felt that Eric and Natalie just weren’t convincing as a long term couple who were as supposedly passionate about each other as the real Henry and Anne were.
Oh..and one more thing. Anne and Mary didn’t see each other for the last two years of Anne’s life, Mary was banished after marrying the commoner William Stafford. Anne was executed in the tower green privately, without people cheering and leering. At least though the film showed her being executed by the skilled swordsman Henry ordered from France to make her death less painful.
Another good thing, I loved the costumes!
Comment by Kasey F | March 21, 2008
Can i remind you that the film was based around the book, which did tell you that it was not all based on facts. So yes you are right, the historical view isn’t 100% accurate but it never claimed it was. I think the film could have been better but i don’t think it was terrible. I think people pick at films too much.
I am not having a go at anyone by the way i was just giving a opinion.
Comment by Hannah | April 14, 2008
The acting was awful. Watching Portman and Johnasonn was embarrassing for me, I felt like I was watching two little girls giggle their way through an amateur performance, and I am their age. It was absurd.
Comment by Sandra | April 18, 2008
I felt that the movie was entertaining and a bit disturbing at times. The acting was not bad… It is what you would expect from this cast. The movie left me anxious to discover the validity of the story, which to my surprise is not that far from the facts. Exaggerated yes, but this is Hollywood not freshmen level European History.
Comment by Jason | June 10, 2008