|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 150)
|
|
 |
I am a sucker for historical pics. I just love them... well they are well done and well acted, of course! It took me a long time to see this one, mostly because of the cast. I just did not think that Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson could pull it off. I figured that Eric Bana could. Well, I was wrong about Portman and Johansson, as they were surprisingly very good and convincing. Bana was exactly as I expected, spot on for the most part! The story was very well drawn out. For history buffs and fans of The Tudors, don't miss this one. It's a great movie and can lead to some interesting debate about what really happened! I'm giving this one a solid 8/10.
8/10
7.28.2008 -
rimbaud1972@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I loved this movie, I think it was just spectacular!
9/10
6.8.2008 -
mizz_performer@ - age: 13-17
Really good, a piece of history with some juicy bits.
9/10
6.3.2008 -
nursekim@ - age: 26-35
To be honest, before I watched this movie, I was not a fan of historical fiction, but this movie changed my mind. The story of Mary and Anne was very captivating, with twists and turns that were very unexpected. I actually did some research on Anne Boleyn and discovered that many of the events in the movie actually happened, and the movie is, for the most part historically accurate. If you enjoy anything related to the tudors, you will fall in love with this movie with a slightly tragic twist. However, if you know the outcome of the characters before seeing the movie (as I did) it does loose the "shock value". Well acted too.
9/10
6.2.2008 -
happydance11oliver@ - age: 13-17
Don't know what was not to like. Natalie Portman did an excellent performance. Eric Bana played the role like I would expect king Henry to be! Very great. Big history buff.
9/10
4.30.2008 -
bri1081@ - age: 26-35
Definitely read the book as well, both movie and book are amazing!
10/10
4.30.2008 -
k_olson26@ - age: 18-25
Scarlett did well but Natalie Portman was just not believable as the sexy and cunning Anne Boeyln. I read the book before seeing the movie and was a little disapointed how the movie seemed to gloss over the sexy and brutal side seen in the book. It was still good but could have done better with some recasting.
7/10
4.29.2008 -
punkin_pie_alamode@ - age: 18-25
Even if you haven't read the book this movie just doesn't stand on it's own. It was so rushed. The costumes were great and the ladies looked beautiful and Eric Bana made a great looking King but that is it. Save the price of the movie read the book.
3/10
4.18.2008 -
diddyanndee@ - age: 26-35
Fantastic costumes, great casting and the storyline is interesting and captivating, even though based (loosely) on british history! Worth seeing even just for the amazing performance by Natalie Portman (and Eric banner) very dramatic, which is fine with me.
8/10
4.16.2008 -
mccabek06@ - age: 18-25
I was totally impressed with this movie. One of the best I have seen this year so far. Suspense, drama, great acting and you learn some history too. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson were just both spectacular. Excellent movie.
9/10
4.14.2008 -
peterm5555@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Okay... I am a huge history buff and can write with some authority on this subject manner. Firstly, the book the movie is based on is rubbish. In the interest of making the book more "titilating", Philippa Gregory takes every slander and baseless rumour about Anne, which most modern historians have discounted, and present them as fact. The movie at least makes a more balanced version of Anne, so for that I'm grateful, but it rushes through a complicated and fascinating time period and does everything a disservice. The "Great Divorce" of Henry Viii and Katherine of Aragon takes maybe 5-10 minutes of the movie, the real story took place in about 6 years. I think it just tried to tell a story of two sisters when the reality is that Mary's story (the Other Boleyn Girl) is a footnote in history that is barely worth repeating, and Anne's story is easily the more facsinating and ultimately shocking. Eric Bana was wasted at H8 and was only given brooding looks (either lust or anger, take your pick) as "acting" instead of great dialogue. Scarlett Johannsen was basically the Girl with a Pearl Earring again... voluptous, pleasant and accomodating and ultimately a little dull. Natalie Portman was never quite believable as Anne; she played her as innocent, then vindictive and seductive, then terrified. But she never got at the heart of her character, which was perhaps the fault of the screenplay. Genevieve Bujold in "Anne of the Thousand Days" or Dorothy Tutin in "The Six Wives of Henry Viii" have probably done the best versions of Anne, though Natalie Dormer is quite intriguing in the TV series "The Tudors". Check those out over this any day.
5/10
4.13.2008 -
glenn@ - age: 36-49
It is an exciting movie to watch, it keeps you at the edge of your seat. Before entering the movie, I only saw the trailer and nothing more, after the movie I was very interested in finding out more about the characters. It is amazing to see the amount of pressure put on the female characters, and how they handle it all. I would recommend it.
7/10
4.13.2008 -
maroo89@ - age: 18-25
This movie was sooo deliciously betraying!! Oooh I love how evil and seductive roll Natalie plays... its sooo good. I can't wait to own it.
10/10
4.8.2008 -
oohpink_panties@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I'm sure it helped I knew the history and background of the story first but regardless it was very very well done and quite accurate. On the other hand my girlfriend didn't know anything about the history and she loved it as well. Great GREAT film. Perfect cast of sisters.
9/10
4.8.2008 -
hauser@ - age: 18-25
If you have read the book, don't go see the movie. It will disappoint. Movie does not follow the book which was much more interesting, colourful and historically accurate. Portman was great, Johansson predictable, Bana a let down (loved him in Troy and Munich) I wouldn't see it again even on DVD, but will probably read the book again in a couple of years.
6/10
4.7.2008 -
ukgal3@ - age: 36-49
So glad that I didn't miss this wonderful film! Congratulations to the casting director for placing the ideal actors in their perfect parts. If you enjoy history, this film is a real must and it's a riveting story for the rest of us. It's a cruel tale but that's the way it was. Nice, young innocent girls don't get sent to join the royal court only to find themselves used for their reproductive capacity then find themselves cast aside once the coveted heirs are born, right? No, no, not in modern times surely. As with many historic films, there were castles, horses, gorgeous dresses and hairstyles, banquets, courtly dances and Irish Wolfhounds a plenty all aspects of the rich royal reality. Enjoy! I did.
9/10
4.6.2008 -
hajwhitney@ - age: 50+
Awesome~ I love Natalie Portman! She is so strong at the end. Very well acted!
10/10
4.4.2008 -
mustang_girl_84@ - age: 18-25
This movie is a total waste of time. The book was really good, though.
1/10
4.4.2008 -
linda@ - age: 36-49
This could be so much better. The only real reason to see this movie is Jim Sturges (of "Across the Universe" fame), and his role isn't huge. Scarlet Johansson, Eric Bana and Natalie Portman are completely wasted talents. This isn't even a movie to rent on a dull Sunday afternoon. It falls totally flat.
6/10
4.3.2008 -
cenadia,djaballah@ - age: 18-25
Wow! Something different for a change. It's not a movie about history, if you want to see something historic, rent a documentary. This movie shows you the cruel truth about how a king can do whatever he wants and get away with it. In that time, you could just look at a king the wrong way and get killed. Women were treated like things. Anyway, it's a great story about how a family get thrown apart because of a king, specially the two sisters. Great performance by Natalie Portman.
9/10
4.3.2008 -
jennyguignard@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I liked it BUT... its so different from the book!! Even the story line changed a bit... so sad, too bad , it would have been much better. Omg!! The book is good!!!
8/10
4.2.2008 -
zapperj@ - age: 36-49
|
