If you want a good movie about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn this is not the one to watch. In this version Hollywood takes the usual liberties with British history and it is full of inaccuracies, which is surprising considering it is co produced by BBC films. The problem is fifteen years of history are compressed into two hours but there is nothing to indicate this. The last 30 minutes especially feel rushed in order to get all the facts in. I wouldn’t say I hated it, my feelings were more of indifference. The story is interesting, the performances reasonable but there was little emotion and because of some bad editing and lack of direction it comes across as a TV melodrama.
This Hollywood version of Philippa Gregory's already inaccurate source novel about Mary Boleyn and her more famous sister Anne manages to be even less faithful to history – usually for no good reason. For instance, it positions Anne as the older sister and invents scenes to effect this.
Of the acting performances, the only ones with any subtlety are Scartlett Johansson as Mary and Mark Rylance as the ambitious but weak father of the sisters. Natalie Portman is one-dimensional as Anne, and as for Eric Bana as Henry VIII – well, he is very tall, as Henry himself was.
The 12 certificate is well-deserved – the film is notably prudish when it comes to sex. This is no 'Tudors' romp.
The costuming and locations etc are all very well done, as one would expect with this budget, except when we move away from court. Mary several times rides unaccompanied through countryside which looks more like the Scottish Highlands than Kent, and when naughty Anne is summoned back from exile in France she inexplicably lands on a beach. Gorgeous photography, but they did have harbours in 16th century England – though that would have cost more, I suppose.
The 2003 BBC version, made with a much lower budget, is better though no masterpiece.