Pajiba

I guess I'll be skipping this one. I'll just stay home and watch the BBC's Pride & Prejudice again.

Damn! on the one hand you've got Kristin Scott Thomas but then, you got Portman and Johansen creating what scientists call a "vacuum of talent" that cannot be counteracted by Kritin's awesomeness.

I'm betting there's no girl on girl action either. Bah.

PASSSSSSSSSS...

For my Christmas wish, I want Eric Bana to get a decent part in something. It's been too long since "Munich", and I'm thinking that a part in "Star Trek" isn't going to cut it.

"...and to which I'm therefore programmed to respond with hardened nipples..."

BAM!

Filthiest, review....evar.

it IS a nice dress though....

Oh Natalie, why have you let me down so? And I must say I'm a little disappointed in Eric Bana too, who seemed like so much better a choice for Henry than The Tudors' Jonathon Rhys Meyers. I was so looking forward to a beautifully shot historical piece, even one as campy as The Golden Age. Boo.

I kind of felt this way about the Keira Knightley's Pride & Prejudice. It completely lost all humorous commentary to corny saunters through mist-filled fields at dawn. Ugh.

That was an amazing review. The only word I can use to describe it is "rich" - I felt like my mouth was full as I was reading it, if that makes any sense. You can tell in every word that it's an issue you felt passionate about. Very well done. This was a pleasure to read!

My friend saw this last night and when I asked her how it was, she said, "Eh, not as bad as I thought was going to be." DAMN. When the only reaction you can get out of a costume-mad teenage girl is, "Well, I didn't walk out," you have SERIOUSLY MISHANDLED your subject.

Also, Ranylt, the source material is offensively shitty and makes me want to run to Phillipa Gregory's house and hit in the face with the book repeatedly, screaming, "HOW! DARE! YOU! ANNE BOLEYN WOULD EAT YOU FOR BREAKFAST AND WASH YOU DOWN WITH SOME CARDINAL WOLSEY!"

Well, I have to head for the library, so if I rant, it'll come later. However, anyone who has groused and moaned with me on this topic knows where I stand on this...fiasco.

As I always say, Friends don't let friends adapt Phillipa Gregory novels. Very funny review, I enjoyed the unmitigated rage, and the unabashed snottiness was the feather in the cap. What is your specialty, may I ask?

18th century English literature, especially satire, working-class autobiography, and traditions of folklore/romance. I'm very dull company. --RR

I don't know. Could it be that the reason so many films about this period suck, because the actual period sucks? I mean, there is only so much "oh my, we are so dapper and dainty and regal, but look at us act like horndogs behind closed doors" that you can reproduce before any and all seriousness is destroyed. It isn't terribly exciting after the first shock to the system, and there isn't much else behind it.

The Empty Dress Syndrome is a perfect way to describe it: after you get past all the glamor and glitz, there is nothing worth staying for. In movies, books, or the historical period itself.

Uh, Vermillion, that's patently ridiculous. You can't write of an entire era of human history as "empty," unless you'd also say that there's no point in treating with the modern world in film, either. People are people, no matter what they're wearing.

Kathryn,
I was thinking of my own way to compliment the review, and you outdid anything I could come up with. "Rich" describes it perfectly; I found myself intentionally slowing down my reading just to assure I absorbed every word. Even as a subject I could care less about, Ranylt made it more fascinating than the movie itself will most certainly be. I second your excellent comments.

Too be fair, I've only seen the trailers for this, but I'd be willing to be money that I've seen better Tudor reenactments on the History Channel.

I just don't get Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen. I really like them, and I really want to like the movies they're in, and then they go and pair up to do this to me. Why?

I almost feel bad for Henry VIII and his many merry wives. It's a hell of a soap opera they lived through, and its been totally bastardized by shallow, boring period messes with bad historical inaccuracies and worse accents.

Anyways, great review as always, Ranylt.

Um, that should be 'bet money', not 'be money'. Although, that could be fun too.

Uh, Vermillion, that's patently ridiculous. You can't write of an entire era of human history as "empty," unless you'd also say that there's no point in treating with the modern world in film, either. People are people, no matter what they're wearing.

Smithy, considering the invective around here, the modern world has already been written off. But, to be fair, I am writing off an overused period of Eurocentric history.

There are so many rich and entertaining periods in history, and yet person after person keeps coming back to this same old tired mess. And each interpretation gets worse and worse. There is nothing left. What else could be done with it besides another stale "drama"?

Unless there is suddenly historical evidence that the Tudors fought the Martians, my opinion won't change a damn bit.

I wish someone would up and screenplay 'The Grand Sophy' already. Heyer romances may be action-filled and silly but at least they don't have these pretensions to I R SERIOUS MOVIE that make them so deadly dull to watch.

I kind of felt this way about the Keira Knightley's Pride & Prejudice.

Spent the movie staring at the BBC version sitting on the shelf while shouting at the television "Why are we devoting all this time to the damn ballroom? You've got like nine hours of material to pack into the next sixty minutes! Go! Go!" Sense & Sensibility it was not.

You can't write of an entire era of human history as "empty," unless you'd also say that there's no point in treating with the modern world in film, either.

Well then, we at least need some different stories, as the current well has run dry. I agree with Vermillion, I have zero interest in watching another version of Girl with a Tediously Dull Sexual Tension Pearl Earring ever again, even if the costumes are slightly different.

The best "costume drama' I've ever seen is Pacino's "Looking for Richard" which is more of documentary/indie/something....
Which brings me to Vermillion's point about the whole era, one the PhDs they had interspersed on there commented that these folks were no more than thugs in fancy dress, or words to that effect. I understand it to mean that they were as douchy and classless today's "elites."

i went and saw this yesterday with a friend who loved the book (i haven't read it).
the only goal i had in seeing it was that Jim Sturgess is in it and with my massive crush on him, i thought it would be a "good time" (as i dream Jim would be in person--but that's a different fantasy, oops i mean 'story').

i liked it. i wasn't expecting much, so it was fine. now, i have another friend who wants to see it tonight, and i'm going to go again. normally, this is something i wouldn't see again, but it's not so horrible that i dread doing so. i'm guessing the reviewer has such a personal experience with the subject matter, that if it doesn't live up to her expectations, it's extra annoying....

Nothing LEFT in the period, absolutely, but the way you phrased it made me think you meant there was nothing in it to begin with, which -- there were heads on spikes! Literal heads on actual spikes! But the potential has been sadly squandered. *drop kicks a romance novel*

"I want to dress myself up like Marie-Antoinette and roll around in a froth of petticoats, crush petit-fours in my hands and have a regal temper tantrum..."

Welcome to my weekend.

Didn't Anne Boleyn have eleven fingers? And three breasts? I'm going to take a wild stab-in-the-dark-type guess and say they didn't include that little quirk. Might have been more interesting if they had.

Other than that, sumptuous review of what was always guaranteed to be complete pants.

and when Scarlett Johansson's doughy-moue approach to acting is more convincing than Natalie Portman's Our Town histrionics.

Yes! yes yes yes!

Ranylt, you're kind of really fascinating. I love stodgy academics.

I'm bummed to hear that the movie blew. I enjoyed the book, it was the closest I'd ever come to reading fluff fiction romance novels, so I suppose it would also have to count as a guilty pleasure. I'm disappointed in Natalie Portman, but continue to be a little bit in love with her. It's funny, before this (gloriously written) review I thought that Portman would play Mary while Johanssen would make a far better Anne Boleyn. I don't know why, she just looks fierce, like she'd be willing to step on people to get where she needs. Portman doesn't have as much of the same, um, venom? Ah, who knows. I'll probably just add this to my queue and watch it anyway. I wish it was better though.

I did read this book -- it was perfect summer reading, required little or no actual comprehension and was entertaining. It wasn't great book and had no reason to be a great movie. That said I was hoping for something more. Its very much like The Golden Age, great actors, but nothing for them to work with.

I totally disagree with all who say Scarlett Johanssen would have been a better Anne Boelyn, she lacks substance that Natalie Portman has in spades. Its called acting people, and ScarJo couldn't act her way out of a paper bag.

See, now I have to see it...with a flask! And the intention to get kicked out of the theater for laughing!

Caught Portman and The Mouthbreather on the Today Show promoting this piece of shit film, repeatedly discussing how sexxxy it is, 'cause if you can't say a film is good, at least you know The People will flock to porn.

And I'm totally serious about the flask.

Aw, this makes me sad. I unabashedly throw myself in the sucker-for-period-anything category, and the addition of Natalie Portman usually doesn't hurt. Although, admittedly, I was having trouble picturing her as the queen who literally tore apart an empire. Thanks, Ranylt, for your unbridled rage.

I've never thought Johanssen was a terrible actress. She's not God's gift, or anything; just competent.

It's just that in still photos her facial expression always seems to look, well, cretinous. Scroll up to see an example.

I believe this is a serious professional impediment for the poor girl.

I just CANNOT STAND Natalie Portman. Does anyone else on the planet agree with me? She does the same "acting" for every single movie she's been in... Vapid vapid vapid EMOTIVE EYEBROWS vapid vapid O HAI NOW IT'S TIME TO OPEN MY MOUTH AS WIDE AS POSSIBLE AND "CRY." How I despise that girl and her perfectly motile eyebrows, her perfectly plastered-on perfection.

A costume drama about an overly visited period starring two actresses who can't act worth a shit, and one of them who looks mildly retarded with big tits as her major defining feature, is bad? Wow. I'm completely and utterly shocked.

BSlim, I heartily concur about 'Looking for Richard'. Damn amazing film that. Thank you for reminding me that it's high time I watch it again!

Also, I don't get the Scarlett fascination. She mostly just pouts and stares and bores me to tears. Every expression is the same. I half expect her to drool.

"...Also, I don't get the Scarlett fascination..."

I'll sum it up for you:

She's got big tits.

I don't hate Natalie Portman, but I also think she's hugely overrated. She's astonishingly beautiful in a gamine sort of way, and she has very expressive eyes, but she has a tendency to make poor choices when selecting parts and her performances often don't hold up very well.

Those eyes of hers give her a presence that can be quite captivating and even moving, but when she opens her mouth things start to fall apart. She simply doesn't handle dialogue very well. Sometimes she's very stiff and wooden, and other times she goes so far in the other direction that she ends up more caricature than character. She had a lot of cred from The Professional, and it seems like she's hell-bent on proving that it was mostly undeserved.

Johansson, on the other hand, bugs the pants offa me simply by existing. That asshole expression she's always got on her face makes me want to kick her in the teeth. Also, memo to Scarlett: Boobs are only a talent in a different sort of film industry, honey. For the kind of acting which requires more than flexibility and a lack of gag reflex, they can still be an asset, but should not be your only attribute of note.

Vermillion - I think filmmakers and authors keep coming back to the Tudor period because of all the sex they think everyone must have been having all the time. No matter how old or educated we become, we never seem to lose interest in the sex other people are having (especially naughty, adulterous sex).

BSlim, right I get it. She's got big tits. But as Sarina pointed out, if that's all she's got she's in the wrong industry. This 'acting' thing she's trying on for fun just ain't working for me. Maybe she should just use her ass(ets) the old-fashioned way.

Why's everyone bagging on Scarlett? She's got enormous talents and she's taking the brave step of branching out into what will surely be a terrific career in music! Her album of Tom Waits covers hits the shelves on May 20th! If anybody can do justice to the music of Tom Waits, it's Scarlett Johanson!

Wait.

What?

(Tremulously lifting pre-loaded revolver to right temple, slowly pulling back the hammer. Index finger begins to squeeze trigger.)

Fuck.

I wonder how romantic people would consider the period it they reeeeeally thought about it. All that clothing, no Protex, no Degree Clinical Strength, riding horses all day, lack of running water AND toilet paper. All these folks STANK, rotten teeth, venereal diseases up the ass, I've read that Henry VIII was so diseased that his stench was unbearable.

Pure. Sex.

Vermillion - I think filmmakers and authors keep coming back to the Tudor period because of all the sex they think everyone must have been having all the time. No matter how old or educated we become, we never seem to lose interest in the sex other people are having (especially naughty, adulterous sex).

And that makes it even sadder, Kolby my dear. That the concept is so basic, and yet is still routinely screwed up. It doesn't help that (as so many folks here snidely point out) the cast and crew on this were such bad matches to the material.

Besides, if you think too much about it, you start realizing that this was a time of few toiletries, little knowledge of human biology and hygiene, and lots of horses with their own body functions. Instant mood killer to me.

As far as the headlining females, well, it's another check in their pockets and I simply don't have room in my hate chamber to place them there. And thanks to their globbing all over each other in the press, I get the naughty innuendo that was lacking in the movie. So they get paid, I get to imagine them doing very naughty things, and I don't have to see a crappy movie to do it. Hooray!

We now continue with the scheduled Portman/Johanssen bitching, already in progress

Poor Scarlett Jo, stars in the superb Lost in Translation, then a few years later in The Black Dahlia, and now this. I wish she were as good as she was at 17.

It's sad to see this turn out to be so dull. Portman looked like she was having fun in the clips I saw of the movie!

Good to know my initial thoughts on the movie were correct. The trailer looked horrible. And ScarJo seems to be wavering back and forth with me, because I really like her in things like Ghost World, but I thought Lost in Translation was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

Also, who the hell is on the side bar, glaring at me? Is that the Grimace in trouble for molesting the Hamburglar?

I once saw a movie called Xcalibur, and later Xcalibur 2. Not strictly based on the same period, but the concept (30 seconds of dialogue, then everyone has an orgy) was essentially the same. Plus I'm willing to bet that it was better made.

Also, is it just me, or are Natalie Portman and Keira Knightely the same person? I think whoever she is she invented the other persona so she could release more movies.

On Natalie Portman: Beautiful Girls was a nice little film in which she (as a mere young 'un)completely stole the show despite being up against a fully developed Mira Sorvino and Uma Thurman (which I still can't see as beautiful, no matter how hard I try.) There just seemed to be so much potential. But, as far as I can see, she's never lived up to it. Damn disappoinment.

Keith Michell is Henry VIII, and no hulk is going to tell me he isn't. Robert Shaw also filled the codpiece. Bana, though talented, doesn't have the charisma.

Speaking of fake Henrys, here's a favourite quote from Rhys Meyers: "Who's to say my interpretation isn't what Henry was really like?"

Oh, I don't know, Jonathan. Historians? Readers? People who were alive at the time and knew him?

"...and Uma Thurman (which I still can't see as beautiful, no matter how hard I try.).."

Damned right, I've been trying to make people realize "she" is a doode for yeeeaaars!

Okay, so Scarlett Johansen has big tits. Lindsay Lohan has big tits. So what? I have bigger tits than either one of them, I just don't have an agent. They are not a big deal and they do not qualify anyone to play a potential queen.

BTW, are we going to have to start doing a shot anytime a commenter threatens suicide?

Suzy Q! You mean I'm not alone?!? Aside from Leon/The Professional and V for Vendetta, she just seems to be sleepwalking thru most of her roles. Yeah, she's pretty and smart, but aside from that... I just don't get the appeal.

Fantastic review, Ranylt.

I'm a HUGE sucker for historical dramas, (being a history buff and a shamelessly dorky Shakespeare-lover) and I've been pining for a good film about Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn. It was some down and dirty, intriguing stuff, I tell you!

(And yes, she DID have six fingers on one hand, as well as a large, unsightly mole she kept covered with a choker necklace of some sort at all times.)

And then they go and cast Ms. Portman and ScarJo in a silly, romance-novel version of the story, relying on pretty people in pretty clothes sexin' it up to intrigue people. GAAAAH! It's like watching Hamlet performed by the cast of Semipro in nice costumes. Arrgghh. Vitriol rising....rising...

And THEN they wonder why folks like Vermillion find this period boring. (Never mind all the horrid, "It's British/Period so it must be elegant and emotionally sterile" treatments Shakespeare and other period pieces often get. Makes me want to stab people with a poisoned rapier.)

Wow. No more commenting after hitting the Jameson's for me. :-(

I tried to read the review, but I kind of did it on fast forward, which is how I imagine I would watch the movie. It looks so boring and overdone (the movie not the review). I just don't have th strength to put forth a full effort for this. I'm not even sure I will bother with Season 2 of "Jonathan Rhys Meyers Shirtless on Showtime" Plus, the review and comments are starting to sound like the same reaction we all have to the new TV season announcements of "Another NY Lawyer show? Why?" Not a knock on you or your review Ranylt, it is just me giving up on this topic for a while.

Unless there is suddenly historical evidence that the Tudors fought the Martians, my opinion won't change a damn bit
Would they be played by Scarlett or Natalie?

Ranylt - What's your opinion of "Slings & Arrows?" Was it popular in the Great White North? I am blasting through it on Netflix - season 1 last week, 2 waiting for me to watch tonight/tomorrow. I love it.

I humbly admit I haven't seen it yet, but I might have to add it to Netflix--thanks for the reminder. --RR

Oh it could be worse. Ever seen the "Hamlet" with Maximillian Schell and Ricardo Montalban dubbing Claudius? A bit torpid.

Yeah, I think Natalie pretty much nailed the knowing, wiseass girl who calls all your shit but ultimately wants to help you in "Beautiful Girls", along with her pretty but unnerving smile. I'm not the only one who said "wow, she's great! Can we get this kinda girl in legal form, please??" Nothing's been as affecting since. I don't have strong opinions on either woman either way. I like some movies they're in and don't see others, but they don't draw or repel (and I do sometimes wonder about the violence in others, particularly towards Johansson, but...whatever).

Doesn't "Dangerous Liaisons" already own this anyway?

I wonder when's someone gonna get it over with and make a damn Diana Gabaldon movie. Up to HERE with the historical Scottish romance I've had it!

twig is my hero for mentioning "The Grand Sophy." Heyer would be such great movie material; but after reading Ranylt's review and considering the danger inherent in letting Hollywood get ahold of books (good or bad), I'll just let Sophy live in my imagination.

I assumed the review would be something along these lines, just because of the trailer. Sadly, I have to see it anyway. Period films are my weakness. Even if they suck, I have to see them.

"...then a few years later in The Black Dahlia..."

Bah! I loathed that film! It moved slower than pond water! It took me 5 whole tries to get through it, and even then...bah!

Inevitably, this film will be nominated for a costume design Oscar. The Academy spooges all over Elizabethan costume design as if on any given weekend you can't find hundreds of Ren Faire geeks across America sporting the same shit.

Hollywood royally goofs up even the craziest of periods of history. Take the Restoration; a wild, debauched period in English aristocracy. The blue-bloods returned to England after a Puritanical exile and did their best to flip the ousted Puritans the bird with a most nefarious court. There have been three movies that I can think of in recent years to take place during that time.

Restoration: Blah. Meg Ryan. Blah.
Stage Beauty: Rupert Everett as Charles II was the movie's only saving grace. Spotty at best in its accuracy.
The Libertine: I've not seen this one because of mixed reviews. But Johnny Depp as my favorite Restoration poet, John Wilmont, seems promising.

Anyway, my point is that the monkeys at the typewriters down Hollywood way can, no matter how exciting or interesting a period of history, still manage to horribly botch it up for the screen. Seems as though they either crank up the histrionics or water down the historical realities to somehow make it palatable for mass consumption.

Yep, Hollywood done tumbled off the ha-ha.

Pity.

Oh, The Libertine! I can understand the mixed reviews you've gotten. During various points of the movie I switched from loving it to hating it.

This review confuses me. Honestly? Most of the costumes would be laughed out of a Ren fair, so I'm not sure why the reviewer is talking them up. And then there's the coronation scene; it....showed Natalie Portman wearing the crown and furs while sitting. It's not quite a close-up, but close. What was so ludicrous?

I'm beginning to wonder if the reviewer actually watched the film. Don't get me wrong; it's all soap. I just don't get her talking up the costumes, which were pretty poorly made from the look of them, and then laughing of the coronation scene which is actually the least dramatic I've ever seen.

I'm honestly stunned that anyone might expect a costume drama centered on Mary Boleyn to be a serious, in-depth examination of that era. Obviously this film was going to be complete BS from the get go. I actually had to stand in line and listen to a bunch of tweeners discuss how poor Mary had her thunder stolen by evil Anne.

As for me? Um, I'm incapable of not appreciating a film that has the good sense to put Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Kristin Scott Thomas in corsets.

I'm incapable of not appreciating a film that has the good sense to put Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Kristin Scott Thomas in corsets.

While I appreciate your appreciation, Anna Chancellor will always be the real star of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" in my heart. Why she went and made *another* movie with MacDowell I can only assume was to hurt me. Andie can join the sportscaster here in Atlanta who also *almost* has a Southern accent and just ends up grating like hell on me.

Sure, for long range ogling Scarlett probably wins out of that pair for me, but as I said elsewhere, breasts get really big up close, and I imagine her lips might be overwhelming too.

Fantastic review, Ranylt. Almost makes me want to shell out eight bucks to see this piece of crap so I have an excuse to read your review again.

I'm so sad that there's no good period films lately, and I so totally and utterly agree with Ranylt's review that it's uncanny... What I'm really trying to say is I think I have a girl crush on you. Let's run away together, build a stone cottage in Cornwall and watch The Lion In Winter* over and over whilst we toast marshmallows.

*Wrong period I know, but it's good to mix things up.

Laura, I think a lot of the physical deformities that Anne gets lumbered with are products of gossip and jealousy (kind of like Catherine The Great and her equine lover.)

Alison Weir wrote my favourite account of Anne in her book The Six Wives of Henry VIII - it seems the most balanced to me. From memory the only deformity Weir lumbers Anne with is a huge neck mole. I'm reading her biography of Eleanor Of Aquitaine at the moment, I can't reccomend her enough.

Okay, I'm going to put an end to all of these films right here, with a play.

TUDOR HORNINESS IS NOT A CRIME!

The Not-Ready-For-Schism Players:

H-8's dong
Disgruntled Aristocracy, Clerics
Rampant Filth and Disease

The Love Scene:

The Dirtiest Frigging Bed You'd Never Want to Think About

ACT 1, SCENE 1:

H-8 is lucky that his rapidly-bloating, past middle-aged capon-ass is the king. Otherwise, no one would give two damp shits in a barrel about him, any tendency he may have towards ulcers, or his rotting old wang.

But being king means a steady stream of lovely jublies, who for the most part, are luckily not nearly as brainsome as they are...comely.

H-8's royal endowment was warm for Anne's form. She does have 60% of her teeth. Nice.

LESSON: It is a unique situation for a man to be sexually interested in a woman to whom he is not married.

And he WAS married...to an old bag.

LESSON: Can't secure an empire when your lady's ovaries are old enough to shave.

Anne had a sister who had been a victim of H-8's 'Pump-'n'-Dump' routine.

LESSON: It is a unique situation for a man not to marry his mistress. ALSO SEE: 'AWK-WARD!'

So when it came to wives in the way, Anne wouldn't put out if he didn't get out.

LESSON: Bitches be trippin'.

H-8's wife did not support this.

LESSON: WHO TAUGHT HER HOW TO READ!?!?!?

Didn't matter, because Churchy LaPope would have none of it.

LESSON: Catholics are bossy.

But H-8 was-a-da-freakin'-king.

LESSON: Woot, Woot!

And his allowance was running out.

LESSON: You see, ermine was the Renaissance version of veloor, and it didn't come cheap.

He took the realm's nards in his fist, and twisted the crap out of them, 'cos that's how he rolled.

LESSON: Like a pimp so firmly and deftly takes a whore into his ever-punching fist, so too did H-8 need to teach a bitch 'How we do'.

Several months before making it to the altar, H-8 sexed Anne up so crazy, he 'bout nearly popped her uterus; she was pregnant before the ink on the marriage papers were dry.

LESSON: She trapped him!

Of course, this means there's a 100% chance of a healthy male heir being born, and of that male surviving into adulthood.

LESSON: Mmmmm...hmmmm. Well, that's why they call it is a 'uterus', aren't we blissed out together?

Baby, how many reliquaries should I wear to the bear-baiting tonight?

LESSON: What problem would Jesus have avarice?

New church, new wife, new loot.

LESSON: Clear sailing.

ACT II: SCENE I
*SEVENTEEN MINUTES LATER*

It's all gone to hell!

LESSON: Bitch is a witch!

Bad daughter, bad wife, bad Catholics.

LESSON: BITCH IS A WITCH!

AND she boinks her brother!

LESSON: The Geneva Convention was a long way off.

Oh Anne, Honey-Fraulein! I have a great present for you! Happy 3rd Anniversary!

LESSON: Who doesn't like boat rides?

Oh, beheading's not so bad. You should've heard what he wanted to do!

LESSON: All jokes asides, only bastards would do that to their wives. I guess beheading isn't so bad. Do you think any filmakers will remember that this was a private execution?

Jane, fuck! You stupid little piece of flint! Oh darling wormwood, understand. When I said that I wanted to make you warm, I meant it in a completely different way from Anne. *Can't believe that gutter-snipe had a girl.*

LESSON: If sexual congress has the slightest chance of resulting in female offspring, the succubus responsible should have her repoductives set ablaze and thrown in the Thames.

So, with that knowledge, obviously you're eager to take a ride on the Kingmaker.

LESSON: He's so gross.

I think puerperal fever is a damned fine way to go. Now I won't have to waste the resources and wrist movement on signing her death warrant for some future indignity she would have committed. I hate earwax.

LESSON: Hollywood-ers, read an ever-lovin', vegetable-fuckin' book.

EPILOGUE:

Q: What can we learn from this story?

A: Don't lose your head over a piece of tail.

BESSER, OUT!

Oh Susie Q and ShinyKate! There are others who do not worship the Portman. I feel so refreshed, as if I was walking through misty fields with another overrated - Kiera Knightley.

There WAS a lot of misty field-walking in Pride and Prejudice, wasn't there? ;)

I haven't liked Portman's performances for a long time, but I do like Scarlett Johansson & Eric Bana. I admit to having a soft spot for In Good Company (ducks flying objects) but I still don't want to see this.

I read somewhere that history enthusiasts hate this film anyway because this is a really bogus portrayal on Anne Boleyn; Mary was supposed to be the real skank. I wanted to see Natalie chew up the scenery as a bitch, but I guess it's not happening in this one.

this is a tough crowd. it is one thing to trash portman/johanssen but the criticism leveled at keira knightley should be saved for films in which she appears.
at least portman gave us " beautiful girls " but johanssen has never given an indication that she can act at all. she kills every movie she is in and if she attempted knightley's role in " atonement" RR could have established a worlds record for the use of the word ludicrous in her review.

Both Natalie and Scarlett have demonstrated that they can deliver a good performance when the material is solid and they are guided by a capable director. Natalie has Leon, Beautiful Girls, and V for Vendetta in the plus column; Scarlett has Ghost World, Lost in Translation, and Match Point.

Just some random notes:

- Both Johansson and Portman require a director of vision and quality to get the best out of them. Otherwise, you end up with Portman's Padme in the Star Wars movies or Johansson's "performance" in the Black Dahlia.

- Gotta agree with Vermillion. This time period has been mined bare. BTW, you can throw Rome at the time of Caesar and Antony; World War II and the 1960s in that same boat.

- This kind of "drama" survives when they turn the soap opera settings on high. That means sleazy, slutty, backstabbing and alluring. Failing at that, it's going to be a very dull proposition for the audience.

Chugga-- you are more on the ball about Natalie Portman and Keira Knightly being the same person than you think. Keira played one of Queen Amidala's clone people in Star Wars. They do have VERY similar features.

I'm getting very tired of Hollywood picking on the Tudors. GRANTED, Henry VII was a greedy bastard, Henry VIII was an ogre (read any biography of him later in life), Edward VI was too frail to live long, Mary was - well, Bloody Mary says it all, doesn't it? The best of the dynasty was Elizabeth.

How about a story about Queen Matilda, who was nominated to rule England as its first Queen?

How about the rather depressing and decadent saga of Bao Dai, the last Vietnamese Emperor?

Or Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, the enlightened and progressive 'Excommunicate Crusader?'

Just saying. There's a lot of stories out there.

If you really want to know what people smelled like during this time period I suggest you read The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History by Kathryn Ashenburg. Also, look up the definition (not for the faint of heart) of sootikin. But maybe they all smelled better than this movie?

look up the definition (not for the faint of heart) of sootikin.

I did NOT NEED TO KNOW THAT.

You owe me.

I do mildly resent your suggestion that the film is packaged for first year history undergraduates. As someone who has been in that position the past I can guarantee you that a first year history undergraduate would have a far better idea of the falsity of films like this than you average person off the street.

There has also been the suggestion, if I understood correctly, that Anne would not have been able to read. Anne would have been literate, as she was well educated. She owned and read much, including a Tyndale English New Testament, regardless of what the Catholic church was saying.

A comment on the source material, that is Gregory rather than genuine historical sources: it is a good, fun read but most definitely to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is generally taken as definite that neither of Mary Boleyn's children when Henry VIII's bastards, but the children of her husband. Just as an example of the things presented as historical fact, which are not so.

As a sixteenth century historian, I am always intrigued by the latest Tudor film, but as per the review, this film does look ridiculous.

apologies for the typos:
*in the past
*your average person
*were Henry VIII's bastards
*an example

Jo Besser: That may have been the best post I've ever read on any forum/comment thread/website, anywhere. I applaud you.

It wasn't THAT bad

RR, I agree with Kathryn & Laura so heartily. I loved your review - sumptuous, indeed. It was a dose of tough love. Palpable affection and ball busting all in one.

My main question is why wasn't the cast Portman/Knightley? At least they look like siblings.

And, Jo Mama Besser, fantastic. You have my heart today. I will wish the universe to deliver you a hefty check for your screenplay.

Went to see it last night. The film is really bad. The audience laughed at several high-drama moments that were just too ridiculous. I've read the book, and thought it was a satisfying historical fantasy but the movie seemed to pick all dullest parts to put to screen. My imagination was playing a better version of the movie in my mind while I was still sitting in the theater.

The Tudors is better on screen.

Chugga and Me (ha), I'm so glad I'm not the only one who can't even keep Portman and Knightley straight. I kept thinking Knightley was in V For Vendetta, even after I watched it. Now I remember that Knightley is the one who's always sticking her lips out like a duck, which distracts me to no end in the PoTC movies.

How can anyone confuse Portman and Knightley? You must not have eyes. Knightley has a square face and an idiotic pout, not to mention she's tall and unattractively scrawny.

Rock on, Anna.

Besser, that was wonderful. Way to sum up everything!

Shake, I could have gone awhile without knowing that. Rather gross really. But now I can bring it into use in a paper or conversation - I get into rather odd conversations - and watch the persons face contort as I tell them what it means. Oh the joy that will bring me.

"I'm running out of synonyms for ridiculous"

Ranylt: That may be your best line ever.

As for Tudor drama, perhaps Hollywood could forget about their costumes and little pecadilloes for a while and make something about how they tyranized Ireland and tried to wipe the Irish language and culture off the face of the earth and deported thousands of Irish people as slaves to the new colonies.

Heh, thanks. And I know it would've been been 'frau' in her case, but if German Homer can say 'Honey-Fraulein', I can too.

The ghost of the inspiration for my handle-- the real Mr. Jo 'Mama' Besser, wonders when a historical drama based on SPINAL TAP will happen? I mean, we're far past the point of auto-cannibalism at this point, so it would probably fit right in.

A little late on this, but Jo 'Mama' Besser, that.was.BRILLIANT.

Paddydog: That's a movie I'd pay to see. Hell, that's a movie I'd pay to get made!

Also, look up the definition (not for the faint of heart) of sootikin

Was that really neccessary?

Ranylt - made it through Season 2 last night. Well worth the watch. I humbly admit I haven't seen it yet, but I might have to add it to Netflix--thanks for the reminder. -- Netflix is in Canada also?

Dave, man, I was really hoping you weren't serious about the Scarlett Johanson album of Tom Waits covers. Alas, I see it is true.

*sniff*

Off to drown my sorrows with a flask of bourbon...

You know, I'm not interested in half the movies pajiba reviews. It's the actual reviewing that gives me more entertainment than dreck like The Other Boleyn Girl ever could. Brilliantly done. Hilarious.
I LOL'D.

I'm always amused that Hollywood will take any bog standard flimsy soap plot and try to trick it out in period finery to create a substantial blockbuster. Then you look at 18th and 19th century opera and modern producer folks will do ANYTHING to pull that shit up out of the bewigged, panniered ghetto. Cosi Fan Tutte with hippies? Go for it! Don Giovanni amongst gangsters? Sure thing! La Boheme with a burger joint? Yum! Hell, they've even done Don Pasquale with cowboys and real horses in Colorado. All of these productions got great reviews. Not a corset in the bunch. Fancy olden-time duds won't save a weak story and a great story brought to you by true talent doesn't need them.

LuluJ, can I run away to Cornwall with you and Ranylt? I'm working on a play about Rosamund Clifford and I'm really good at building cottages and planting gardens. Please?

I shall never forget "sootikin," now. Ta for that.

As for Tudor drama, perhaps Hollywood could forget about their costumes and little pecadilloes for a while and make something about how they tyranized Ireland and tried to wipe the Irish language and culture off the face of the earth and deported thousands of Irish people as slaves to the new colonies.

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 2, 2008 1:25 PM

Here, here! Maybe they can start with a film version of Brian Friel's "Translations".

And Scorsese hinted as much In "Gangs of New York" with a brief show of Irish immigrants being conscripted into the Union army immediately upon touching American soil.

It's such odd casting. They look nothing like sisters. And neither carry off the period costumes, as demonstrated in the header picture.

Eric Bana, however, looks spiffing under the - what was it? - "eighty pounds of Renaissance man-fur". This is why it HURTS me that he was bland.

...mouse shaped? Whiskey tango foxtrot!

Here, here! Maybe they can start with a film version of Brian Friel's "Translations".

First time since school I added a play to my Amazon Wish List.

Icky icky icky, shake. Not cool. Why do I check comment threads long after they've been posted? It only brings me grief.

I'll give this one a miss too. Thanks Ranylt for the warnings. I tried reading the Philippa Gregory book but gave it up after the first few pages. BUT if you are looking for good historical fiction about the Tudors, try C.J. Sansom's books about lawyer Matthew Shardlake. The first in the series is "Dissolution" and the fourth one is about to be published this summer. I have my hold on at the library already! C.J. Sansom has a PhD in Tudor History, but that doesn't stop him from writing an entertaining novel which just reeks of the period! And talking of reeking - I don't think I'll ever watch period drama in quite the same way again after learning what a sootikin is. Ble-e-e-ch!

I'm sorry people, it must be mentioned:

Natalie Portman gets a pass-for-life for Closer.

...Aaaaaand I just looked up sootikin.

I don't think anything short of surgery is going to get the disgusted grimace off my face. Ever.

Brian: Actually we have Zip in Canada, which is like Netflix. +2 for sense/communication, -4 for precision, there, on my part.

And Translations is incredible.

LuluJ et al: Cornwall 'n cottages sounds like a trip.

Guess what word my dumb ass went and looked up.

G
A
H
exclamation point.

Enjoy your celebrity Shake, your sootikin shenanigans have earned you a spot on my list. When I rise to power your death shall be, slow...and brutal.

I was SO disappointed by this. I recommend Netflix-ing "Henry VIII" with Ray Winstone, or "Anne of the Thousand Days" with Richard Burton. Both are much, much better movies.

LB - see if you can get your hands on the Aussie film Romulus, My Father - Eric won the best actor award at last years AFI Awards for his portrayl of Romulus. It was directed by the brilliant Richard Roxborough as well.

Ginger - may I suggest finishing the story off with A Man for All Seasons staring Paul Scofield & Robert Shaw.

I must agree with you, Ranylt. You've hit the nail on the head with this excellent review.

I was unfortunate enough to catch this film at a free viewing for Columbia. I laughed through the entire thing. I just laughed and laughed due to its sheer redonkulousness.

And the dialogue was horrendous. Who adapted this? Captain Obvious? They show us, and then they tell us, but then they show us, and then they tell us again. I was waiting for them to recite their on-screen directions. "I must put Henry under my spell. Move left. Place cup on table. Smirk knowingly at malicious intent."

What a waste!

Sootikin took a piece of my brain about ten hours ago that I'll never get back. Of course, I had to land on 'sooterkin' before hitting the desired word. I don't know why, I didn't spell it incorrectly...that one was just weird. God bless the Dutch (so the encyclopedia presumed). History is so gross!

OK, so, I may take a lashing for this, but I read and enjoyed the book. It wasn't great literature, and it definitely took some license with the actual history, but it was a fun read and not as much of a "bodice-ripper" as you would think from the cover and description. It's a great airplane/beach/waiting room book, and the descriptions of the court and of Henry and other notable figures of the time are fun. It's one of those books that I have on my iPod to listen to in the car when I'm driving and can't really pay close attention to anything.

That said, the movie did not even resemble the book in terms of plot. Totally changed everything. Moreover, it was like they took everything that made the book a fun, guilty pleasure and tossed it on the dungheap. Then they took what was left, stuck it in a blender, and poured ketchup on it. The costumes were STUNNING, probably some of the best since the Elizabeth movies, but that was it. That was the only thing I could say about the movie when I came out. Your title nails it, Ranylt. It was an empty dress, and that was it.

Natalie Portman wasn't great. Her acting was so self-conscious and overwrought, and she portrays Anne Boleyn as a weak, incompetent, desperate, and clingy emotional wreck. Scarlett Johannsen was awful--all she did was pout, meekly submit, and ride a horse back and forth across the screen. Boring and lifeless. And Eric Bana was a tyrannical non-entity. Blech. Halfway through the movie, my husband and I just started making fun of everything that happened in whispers.

When we left, he proclaimed the movie "Yuppie stront kak" (literally, in Afrikaans, "Yuppie shit shit"), and for once, I actually agreed with him wholeheartedly.

And yes, Anne Boleyn probably did have 11 fingers and 3 nipples, although some historians (*cough* Alison Weir *cough*) believe that was made up after her execution to support the charge of witchcraft against her, because they were signs of a witch.

Oh, and one more thing (possible SPOILER, although I doubt any of you will care):

WTF was up at the end when they slightly-more-than-implied that Elizabeth was the only heir Henry left? HELLO, Edward VI and Mary I? They might not have been the fondly-remembered monarchs Elizabeth was (not that she was even near perfect), but they ruled before her for a combined 12 years before Elizabeth took the throne! She was even cut out of the succession by Henry after Anne's execution, and here they are acting like she was the only one and the apple of his eye or something?

WTF. [/historical rant]

Mezzomom:

So interested in the fact that you brought this up. Sometimes it works, and sometimes...when it doesn't, oh man. What's heavier than lead? It's a hard line to walk with opera, because it's desperate to bring new viewers, and it doesn't know what to do. No one wants to see anything new, so they put on the oldies, hoping to draw young people by updating them to something more relateable. But part of the point is the spectacle, and a lot of people get disappointed. I don't think it's just stodginess, either.

About three years ago, I saw a production of SIEGFRIED at the Hummingbird (the tickets were free from a grateful harpist to an obliging accompanist), and honestly it's a bloody good thing that they were. Now we're talking about Wagner here, and his whole raison d'etre was the all-encompassing work that would embrace all artistic styles. The successful execution is contingent upon DRAMA. And man, you can tell why he was so emphatic when someone decides they don't want that. There were NO sets except in the second act, and this is an opera pushing five hours. All of the singers were wearing linen pyjamas. I understand that heldentenors need room to expand, but this was just horrible! My friend (the harpist), actually fell asleep during the first act, and she wasn't the only one. Which is such a shame, because those performers were INCREDIBLE. Hummingbird's shitty acoustics didn't help either, but that's neither here nor there.

The Stratford Festival really seems to be struggling with this. They routinely do some wonderful things, but in an effort to shake it up/appeal to younger theatregoers, they do some weird things. Sometimes it works really well, I'm thinking of a production of MEASURE FOR MEASURE that was set in Franco's Spain, yeah it takes place in Vienna, but hell, Colm Feore as Angelo--that works. Other times...I saw a production of MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM that really brought out the stupidity of young kids in love, by dressing them in modern teenage clothes. Hermia was a skank (and terrible actress, why give her such a substantial role in her first season?), Lysander in FILA, Helena (who stole the show) in a too-big Catholic school uniform. It was really funny for the initial shock, but it didn't gel with the fantastical elements. Overall, I did enjoy it though. Whatever.

Sootikin- A small, mouse-shaped deposit formed in the vaginal cleft, usually of poorer women who did not wear undergarments - common until the nineteenth century. A sootikin built up over several weeks, even months, of not washing. It was composed of particles of soot, dirt, sweat, smegma (qv) and vaginal and menstrual discharge. When it reached a certain size and weight, it tended to work loose and drop from under the woman's skirt.

Does anyone ever need to know that?

Where do I know George Boleyn from? I can't put my finger on it....

I could have lived the rest of my life not knowing what sootikin meant. I want some Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind work done.

Eric Bana is smoldering hot, don't get me wrong, but Henry the VIII? Really? More suited for the role than Jonathan Rhys Myers who, though Irish, is at least born on the same freaking continent? Why in the name of all that is holy does Hollywood insist on casting Australian actors in period pieces? Wasn't Russell Crowe's accent in Gladiator enough?

I could have lived the rest of my life not knowing what sootikin meant.

Damn you Google!

Irina, I suppose you thought Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush were awful too?

LuluJ, I don't mind the Australian part, just the Australian accent part.

Didn't Anne Boleyn have eleven fingers? And three breasts

Maybe they did some eery anatomical math: Nat + ScarJo equals three breasts?

Oh! I was wondering what the "mouse-shaped?!" comment was.

Yeah that's oddly specific. Was there an argument first and then a resolution over what it looks like? "....I still say it's a hedgehog".

The Other Boleyn Girl is a complete waste of wimples.

I believe that THAT is RR's best line.

OH! Is that what Sootikin means?

When I looked it up, it said, "Do you mean Sooterkin?"

Sooterkin: A kind of false birth, fabled to be produced by Dutch women from sitting over their stoves; also, an abortion, in a figurative sense; an abortive scheme.

Somehow, both words fit this movie.

OH! Is that what Sootikin means?

When I looked it up, it said, "Do you mean Sooterkin?"

Sooterkin: A kind of false birth, fabled to be produced by Dutch women from sitting over their stoves; also, an abortion, in a figurative sense; an abortive scheme.

Somehow, both words fit this movie.

A theme I'm detecting: Now that Portman doesn't have jailbait appeal, her career has flagged. Interesting. I never thought she was great - beautiful, yes, but not charismatic or riveting or anything like that. We had a thread devoted to a debate between people who loved "Beautiful Girls" and those who thought it was creepy (guess which camp I'm in?), so I won't resurrect that.

Conversely, I don't think ScarJo is all that terrible. Is she tedious and self-absorbed in real life? Sure. I do, however, think she did a nice job in "Lost in Translation" and "Match Point" - both movies I wasn't crazy about (but liked).

Why am I having such a difficult time imagining how a sootikin would develop? Is it because I am hoping against hope that women back then at least wiped once in a while?

Haven't seen this but, even after this review, I do plan to see it. I suspect this film's biggest problem is that we are no longer aghast at the sluttiness of the past. People from the past are not chaste just because they are now dead. This is one of my pet peeves: the past was all roses and Oh These Times We Live in Are So Horrible! Remember how clean and moral it was when we were children? It's crap. We all know that men, women, whatever, were sluts and gay and cross-dressers. And besides, being slutty or gay or cross-dressing isn't even outlandish any more, so who the fuck cares? Sexuality is not a modern concept, hollywood! Is it shocking that Harry would take what he wanted, rape young women, make outrageous political and religous campaigns? Nope. This is what monarchs do (ref: Caligula). Henry the VIII is old news & has been done to death. Literally. Let's move on to a different theme. Let's try...say...Ghengis Kahn. Maybe we can find something shocking there? Probably not.

But you know? I, too, have high hopes for Bana. To be honest, I'm hoping he'll give us a little (what is it called?) McConaughey Moment?

Also, look up the definition (not for the faint of heart) of sootikin

I put it into Yahoo. Pajiba was the 5th search result. Well done.

Kolby: It most likely had something to do with the lack of disposal paper. Wiping may have been reserved for when it was really needed given that one couldn't just discard a piece of linen. I have some more up-to-date experience of working with people who don't have access to plumbing or normal sanitary options and unfortunately, it's not that hard to imagine after all.

I want to dress myself up like Marie-Antoinette and roll around in a froth of petticoats, crush petit-fours in my hands and have a regal temper tantrum..."

I am submitting my RSVP in advance for whatever dinner party you should throw and invite me to, because you, my friend, know how to have a good time.
That's why I liked Marie Antoinette. The dialogue was so boring it sounded like buzzing after four minutes, and you were allowed to enjoy the last four hours of the movie just looking at all the pretty.

18th century English literature, especially satire, working-class autobiography, and traditions of folklore/romance. I'm very dull company. --RR

Au contraire. Sounds like you'd make an excellent bard.

Oh, man... "complete waste of wimples" is my new favorite phrase. I'll be saying that all. day. long.

Samantha T- Well, actually she's only had two generally disliked performances since SW, and TOBG is the strongest performer in theaters right now. I don't think her career has suffered, I just think that - thank god - the skeevier members of her fanbase have either left for greener pastures or gotten therapy. So when you hear praise for her it's more realistic and shit.

Kolby- Yeah, I can't figure out how that would develop in a woman, either. Just... okay, if she really, *really* had to pee, you know? Wouldn't all that gushing knock it loose?

The PBS series "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" is the best in relating the story of the king and his merry wives.
It moves fast, remains true to history and is chock full of intrigue-o-rama.
In other words, not complete shite like the recent offerings. I couldn't get through the first disc of "The Tudors". I kept yelling, "it didn't happen that way!" Ugh. Had to turn it off.

Ah, running through opulent palace hallways dressed in Tudor garb...
The lone rider riding madly into the courtyard with Bad News From Court...
That's why we women still see these films.

And who doesn't giggle at the obligatory Anne Boleyn scene when she arrogantly assumes that SHE will give the King the son he seeks?

Oh, yes, Anne, we all smirk. Your child will be the greatest ruler England has ever known. But nobody said it would be a boy.

I'd love to hear what Simon Schama would say about these films. He'd probably just laugh it off, while David Starkey foamed at the mouth in a sort of apoplectic rage. I'm sure that The Tudors, would've made him perform a SOOTERKIN, what with the entirely sympathetic portrayal of Catherine...and the other stuff.

That mouse-shaped bit reminded me of when Buster Bluth was describing a certain part of his anatomy to the army officer: '...but WITHOUT its shell.'

I don't understand why the rape scene was in there. It was completely baffling on so many levels! If it was meant to show that once again, Mary beats Anne--Mary gets sweet sex--then maybe I understand, but it felt exploitative and, like RR mentions, an excuse to cram another kind of sex in there.

Oh, man... "complete waste of wimples" is my new favorite phrase. I'll be saying that all. day. long.

Posted by: Maleficent at March 3, 2008 3:23 PM

I liked that phrase, too. Unfortunately wimples were out of style by the Tudor era. A wimple is the white cloth that covers the neck and ears and shoulders. (Think nun.) A wimple is not the the part that covers the head.

I also ended up with the definition for Sooterkin, before I found the def. for Sootikin. Both defs seem to fit this movie, however.

Trying to decided which scares me more... an overdeveloped sootikin or Fafner in pajamas.

I never read these kind of books because I always want to know, which bits are definite facts, which bits are plausable but not really known and which bits are random speculation. I think film makers even tend to leave out lots of nice details because we just wouldn't believe them. For example all that sober sensible stonework in churches used to be painted in really bright, even guady, colours. So for something like this, that is not only a bunch of interesting people, but a major part of our history, I'll stick to well written history books. I liked Antonia Frasers one, though as that was about the wives I think she mostly ignored the mistresses.

That's trying to DECIDE. Dammit.

OK, I admit I watched the damn thing today. Mostly because despite all of the bad reviews, IMDB states that Rue McClanahan is in it, and I loves me some Blanche Devereaux. Well, apparently I blinked and missed her. Bah.

And also, for all the commenters posting about ScarJo's biggest draw being her boobs, there is no boobage in the movie. Not from ScarJo, not from NatPort (doesn't work as well does it?) and not from anyone else. The costumes have all of the breastesses squooshed up flat, but not even overflowing, so for anyone looking to see ScarJo's "talent" you are SOL. She does display the short bus riding vacant stare that was perfected in Girl With A Pearl Earring.

Also, with all of the masterful striding about in majestic halls, it astounds me that we didn't have moving sidewalks until the 20th century.

Having been an English history major, I initially picked up P. Gregory's book with trepidation. Yes, she plays a little fast and loose with the historical facts, but I got WHY she did it for the novel's sake. Having read the synopsis of this piece of cinematic tripe, it seems that the director couldn't quite come to grips with the whole point of this sad saga: Mary Boleyn in Henry's eyes was nothing more than a fuck and her sister, Anne, was the stuff of grand passion. I guess the filmmakers couldn't quite visualize why a petite Frenchified brunette would have more allure than a curvy blond with pouty lips, so we have this fake and pointless competition between dueling bedchambers. They've basically reduced this fascinating bit of history to nothing more than a 16th century bitch slap fest. Sigh.

I was really looking forward to this review because I thought someone at Pajiba would be able to draw a comparison between it and the book, and why the book was a relative success when the movie wasn't. For shame, Pajiba! If you're going to write a review of a book that was based on a best selling novel for God's sake, why not let someone write it who's read it?

Maybe 'Nat.Port' doesn't work, but it's a good think that isnt' her real name. I do believe her name is Natalie Hershlag. On second thought, I'd probably want to shy away from people calling me 'Nat the Slag' for all my days too.

"...I'll stick to well written history books. I liked Antonia Frasers one, though as that was about the wives I think she mostly ignored the mistresses."

Actually, you would probably be better off with Ms. Gregory. At least there is some possibility her version could have happened.

Whereas Ms. Fraser...well, did you know that Mary, Queen of Scots was a wise and noble innocent? Or that Charles II and his family were the finest rulers given by Providence to an ungrateful populace?

I'm sure you'll all be relieved to know that SOOTIKIN is not a word. It does not exist in the Oxford English Dictionary, Unabridged. It apparently is a made up word that has gained life on the internet because the make up definition is so disgusting.

That IS a relief!

Especially because Soetkin is a relatively popular girl's name around these parts. I'm glad I can look at these women with a straight face again.

I've been pining for a good film about Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn.

It may not be historically accurate, but that movie is called Anne of the Thousand Days. The costumes are decent. The acting is good. Richard Burton makes a believable Henry - he's almost enough of a bastard. I think I shall see if I can purchase a copy instead of spending money on the most recent Tudor travesty.

When are they going to make a movie about the short, relatively happy life of Geoffrey Plantagenet? No, not the first one, the second one - who died suddenly in Paris at the age of 28.

For the record, I enjoyed Knightley's Pride & Prejudice, it was like a Cliff's Notes version of the A&E version (incidentally, I lusted after Colin Firth - right up until Bridget Jones' Diary, then it all went disastrously wrong).

Brenda Blythyn's Mrs Bennet held her own quite nicely to Alison Steadman's, and I liked the more 'natural' staging. I thought the costumes there were much more realistically portrayed.

And excuse me, but what's wrong with misty fields!? Especially if they have a Matthew McFayden striding through them in jodphurs, tall boots, hunting coat ... undone shirt.... unkempt hair,... 'scuse me I need a moment....

heh, I just realize Misty Fields is a neato porn name.

Reba:

I'd be all over a dramatisation of any aspect of the Plantagenet Dynasty, and the Angevins? Shutup. Although, if they went after those guys, they'd probably pick of the big three:

- Lion Coeur vs. Saladin: This Time it's Occitan!
- Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
- In 1215 at Runymede, do-dah, do-dah...

Between them and the Normans, my juices are sent boiling. Aggressively interesting history! Any directors in the readership?

I'm guessing that happy people aren't interesting. Seems like there are a thousand way to convey sadness, but not so many for happiness.

You've never seen a bio of Felix Mendelssohn. He was a child prodigy and loaded with wealth, was B.F.F (or something) with his older sister, spoke five languages, played for Queen Victoria (who told him that he was her favourite composer), married the girl of his dreams and had five babies with her, had a widely admired painting career, resurrected the music of J.S. Bach, was a noted composer and performer, was friends with all of the glitterati, because he and his sister would hold Sunday afternoon concerts for all of their awesome friends, and one day he dropped of a stroke at age 38.

Does God hate winners? I'm living until 123, baby!

I haven't had the chance to read through all the comments, so my apologies if it's already been mentioned:

but "Barry Lyndon" is THE example of the perfect period piece.

We may be alone in this, but I also find myself judging other period pieces by BL's standard. Nothing has ever captured aristocratic langor so well...or looked more, in parts, like a Corot or Reynolds painting. I feel another retrospective brewing. -RR

Brian- anytime I think "good period film" I immediately think of "A Man for All Seasons."

Sarina and Susie Q, you hit it right on the nail. Portman is soooo overrated. She has no 'real' Shakespeare training (u know, the RADA kind in london it is only 3 hours away from NYC so why not go there and improve her chops?), lucky enough to land a 3 movie Star Wars deal, nominated for being a stripper for Closer (why didn't Julia Roberts, the industry's highest paid actress, get nominated for your role as a prostitute in Pretty Woman?), she LACKS the following acting essentials:

1) Emotional Range
2) Unnatural, looks stiff (definitely not trained in the Meisner technique), appears like she is forcing it out rather than playing naturally
3) CANNOT do the British Accent as well as she can do the southern accent like she demonstrated in other movies (Cold Mountain, Where the Heart Is)
4) No improvisation skills, dialogue ability whatsoever

But she has one asset that HollyJew (sorry Hollywood) loves and that is tits and ass and sexual appeal.
On that regard, she is ranked #1 star power in Hollywood.

She should just stick with modeling and not open her mouth and stop playing historical figures or characters that were played to high acclaim from older or current actresses both UK and US. Playing Anne Boleyn provides the nail in her acting career coffin. Natalie Dormer, a newcomer from the UK, will continue to play Anne Boleyn in Season 2 of Showtime's The Tudors starting March 30 9pmEST/PST. Dormer's performance of Anne Boleyn is unbelievable and she has done her homework and it shows. To those people who think she has the 'potential' of becoming like Julia Roberts or Meryl Streep or even a lesser known British actress like Natalie Dormer, think again. Jodie Foster has a similiar background to Natalie (began her career young, went to Ivy League yet no 3 picture deal that I know of) but she has 2 Oscars under her belt and well deserved. Thank you for your smart comments! Glad to see that there are smart people in this world who can see through the veil of beauty and not just a book by its cover.

OOOMMMGGGGG people!! this movie was really good. I dont no what your deal is or anything. Obviously you dont know good movies. I loved this movie i thought it wuz great! plus your reveiw bored me to death to many big words and stuff, i didnt even feel like finishing it. Your review sucked this movie rocked and thats all basically. Natalies performance deserved an oscar. The execution scene wuz amazing. Id like to see you pull off something like that. Yeah you cant. And scarlett is gorgeous beautiful and a good acress as well. :P

It is reallty good ! I heard many actors came from millionairelove dot com ! I t is not strange that so many poeple like it !

kelsy is so cool cause she skips math