Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #559 in DVD
• Released on: 2008-06-30
• Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
• Format: PAL
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 111 minutes

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

Synopsis
Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson star as Anne and Mary Boleyn in this adaptation of the bestselling novel by Philippa Gregory. While their story is perhaps one of history's most well known, The Other Boleyn Girl has fun with the facts, creating a lusty, dramatic tale of deception and betrayal. The film begins with the girls' power-hungry uncle (David Morrissey), discovering that King Henry VIII's (Eric Bana) marriage to Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent) is falling apart. Their uncle suggests to their father (Mark Rylance) that he tempt the King into taking Anne (Portman) as his mistress, thus putting the family in the King's favour. But the King has no time for the strong-willed Anne, and instead turns his attentions to her already married, soft-spoken sister Mary. With her eye on the Queen's crown, Anne renews her attempts to seduce the king, driving a wedge between her and her sister.
Bana is a brooding, sexy Henry, and Portman and Johansson both give strong performances as the beautiful and bewitching sisters. While some might quibble over the historical inaccuracies of the film, most will let themselves get lost in the sea of beautiful bodices, and the anticipation of when those bodices might be ripped.

Synopsis
An extraordinary tale of sex, passion and royal intrigue. This is the little-known story of Mary Boleyn who was mistress to King Henry VIII before he married her older sister, Anne. Inspired by Philippa Gregory's novel of the same name, The Other Boleyn Girl is about great families jockeying for position and using their daughters as pawns in a deadly game. Set during one of the most notorious periods in British regal history, it is a powerful narrative and at its heart is the relationship between two rivals - The Boleyn Sisters.

Customer Reviews

Serves me right ....
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.

Could this film get any worse?
I was really looking forward to this film, what with all the hype and the author herself saying how good it was. It sounded like it would be good.

However, despite the fantastic costumes, it was a complete and utter disaster. There are huge gaps in the storyline (my boyfriend had to ask me what was going on, it was that bad) which has been changed anyway.

What happened to Sir William Carey? How did Mary and Stafford fall in love? It didn't build up to anything because it was all so rushed, ti felt like the entire thing took place in a week instead of years like in the book. The characters are so two dimensional that you don't form any kind of connection with them.

All in all a complete let down and I would feel the same way even if I didn't read the book.

A visual treat, shame about everything else
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?