The Other Boleyn Girl Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The only thing that could come between these sisters... is a kingdom.
Two sisters divided for the love for a king.
In an age where a woman's destiny was determined by her father, one sister followed the rules. The other defied them.
What if you could have everything you ever wanted? What if all you had to do was betray the sister you loved?
They were the closest of sisters, until the most powerful man in the world made them rivals.
Do mesmo sangue, o mesmo amor. O destino decide. (Brazil)
A sumptuous and sensual tale of intrigue, romance and betrayal set against the backdrop of a defining moment in European history: two beautiful sisters, Anne and Mary Boleyn, driven by their family's blind ambition, compete for the love of the handsome and passionate King Henry VIII.
| Natalie Portman | Anne Boleyn |
| Scarlett Johansson | Mary Boleyn |
| Eric Bana | Henry Tudor |
| Jim Sturgess | George Boleyn |
| Mark Rylance | Sir Thomas Boleyn |
| Kristin Scott Thomas | Lady Elizabeth Boleyn |
| David Morrissey | Thomas Howard - Duke of Norfolk |
| Benedict Cumberbatch | William Carey |
| Oliver Coleman | Henry Percy |
| Ana Torrent | Katherine of Aragon |
| Eddie Redmayne | William Stafford |
| Tom Cox | Rider |
| Michael Smiley | Physician |
| Montserrat Roig de Puig | Lady in Waiting |
| Juno Temple | Jane Parker |
| Justin Chadwick |
6.90 out of 10 (6766 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Book Translation Dissapointment
posted on 29 Aug 2009 To begin with, let me say that I am a huge fan of Phillipa Gregory's. I read my paperback copy so many times that pages almost fell out. But after watching this movie I almost started hating the novel. Yes I understand that Hollywood has many difficulties in translating book to film, but this was basically a failure. So many literary AND historical inaccuracies it was laughable.
The mother was shown as too sympathetic and the father extremely weak, Mary and Anne became enemies much too quickly, Mary was married too late, and Stafford?! They should never have brought him into the movie so early; it ruins his future relationships and role with Mary. A major dislike for me was Mary's great reluctance to leave the country for court-mainly this was bad because in the book she BEGAN at court-as well, her loving the King came up really suddenly, she sleeps with him twice and BOOM! "Anne, I love him," a little fast even for this movie. And WHERE did William Carey go to?! Just "disappeared" and Mary starts leaning toward Stafford. Implausible, yet no one seemed to notice. But I felt pity for the character of Anne during her virtual rape by the King-that was NEVER even insinuated in by any historians. And George Boleyn, for a character with such a pivotal role in the story, he had very little screen time, though Jim Sturgess did a fine job.
Also, the basic premise of the story-two sisters' rivalry for a King's love and standing in court-is twisted by having Anne try to catch the King first, and getting him injured. Anne was shown as having an extraordinary amount of power over even her family, especially too much sway over her uncle. The debate over sending Queen Katherine away was cut too short, as was the furor over divorce. Showing Mary in the countryside and Anne in France would have also been nice touches.
I truly admired Katherine of Aragon's character-very regal and formidable and her quoted lines from the novel- and how the failed Henry Percy marriage was shown. Also, Mary's lying in and both sisters' birthing scenes were very adequately stifling and scary. This could definitely be shown as an "anti-teen pregnancy movie." Anne's coronation was suitably gaudy and brought to film well as did the people's ill reception of her as queen. Another well-done accuracy was Jane Boleyn's betrayal; almost all sources agree she began the family's downfall. But when the King decided to forgo Mary completely just to have the HOPE of getting with Anne I became utterly disgusted with the movie and could barely finish it. This is saying a lot for me since Scarlett Johannsen and Natalie Portman are two of my favorite actresses.
So maybe the author approved of the novel being dissected and stripped apart by this movie's portrayal, I as a fan, truly dislike this movie adaptation. I was all set to enjoy and revel in seeing some of my favorite characters and storylines brought to life, but this time Hollywood failed me.
Great actresses - not real history
posted on 24 Aug 2009Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman are great in this movie. The opposition of temperament between the 2 sisters is well played by these two gorgeous actresses. The atmosphere of the royal court is also well described.However, don't expect from this movie to see a reconstitution of these historical events that changed the destiny of England (the separation with the Catholic church). The movie is full of historical inaccuracies.But, even if not historical, the story is dramatically intense and seems real.Forget the real story, see it as a fiction. A story of love, jealousy, power, domination, cruelty, forgiveness. A whirl of violent passions that will leave you breathless and knocked out at the end of movie.
You know what really grinds my gears?
posted on 22 Aug 2009I loved the book by Phillipa Gregory. I was so excited when I heard they were making it into a movie - and with such wonderful actors... well, I can't even begin to describe how disappointed I was.The movie is absolutely nothing like the book. The whole tone of the story is changed! The actors weren't bad. Natalie Portman actually gave a wonderfully commanding performance. But I could not get beyond the comparison of movie vs. book. And the movie was just simply awful. It was extremely boring at times and left out parts of the story - like what happened with Mary's husband? I know from the book that he died of illness, but that was never addressed in the movie.Bottom line: this movie should not even share the same title as the book. If you read the book you will be disappointed in the movie.
Loads of sex on pretty sets
posted on 21 Aug 2009Well, yes, the actors, sets, costumes and cinematography are very pretty, but the film bored me to tears. Showtime's Tudors moves along better and keeps the watcher more involved, with plenty of sexy stuff to boot. Other than a boatload of historical inaccuracies, the funniest thing about the movie was that they spoke American English. A dudd in my book...
Watchable...
posted on 19 Aug 2009I watched this with very little expectation it would be good. It is sad how Henry's wives were treated and truthfully I didn't expect a lot from this film. I was pleasantly surprised that I found it mostly watchable.
This is about Mary, Anne's pretty but sweet sister and how she is forced into adultery with the king to bail out her awful family. Anne resents her for it and takes revenge in various nasty ways. Eventually the two girls patch their differences and we all know what happens next.
I found this to be a watchable film. The costumes were pretty, and the acting fairly boilerplate. I probably wouldn't watch it again, but it was worth a look
2 stars.
A horrible adaptation of a beautiful book
posted on 18 Aug 2009I just wanted to say that if you read the book and LIKED or LOVED it, you will not like this movie. I was so excited to see it. I actually went to the 4:15 today (the day it came out). Right from the beginning I was disappointed. They completely disrespect Philippa Gregory's work of art. Also, the movie tries to make you feel sorry for Anne - - one of the biggest villains in the story. And finally, I was very annoyed that the movie did not explore Mary's relationship with William Stafford. That was the element of the book that brought me the most joy and Hollywood killed Mary's only happiness, in my opinion.However, Jim Sturgess was lovely, as always. Scarlett and Natalie were beautiful but neither were amazing...Eric Bana was eh.I'm one who watches movies until she knows every line. As it was, I wish I hadn't even seen this once.
Another BBC Epic?
posted on 16 Aug 2009My girlfriend insisted we watch this last night. Since I've subjected her to quite a few dubious movies, I couldn't resist. Or should I have?THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL was not a terrible film. And I couldn't complain about it being unrealistic - although I do question some of the historical conclusions drawn by the book and script authors - but I can complain that it wasn't all that exciting. What you've got here, my friends, is another in the BBC's endless series of historic dramas. This means it's for fans of great locations. Great costumes. Great acting. But endless soap opera sequences. This picture might work great as a mini-series, but as a film it hasn't the guts it needs.Which doesn't mean it's a bad film. Not in the least (and this is something I begrudgingly admit). It's just not my idea of a good time watching historical "figures" air their dirty laundry.I suppose hundreds of years from now they'll be doing the same for the Hilton sisters.
Kept me glued to the screen.
posted on 15 Aug 2009I saw this one in the theater. It seems to be getting some mediocre reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Obviously, there is some historical fact. As most of us know, Ann lost her head over love. How much of the rest is accurate? I have no idea. This is a story about the Boleyn family, King Henry VIII, and surrounding people. It is not about war or anything else. It includes: deception, lies, and the goals of achieving power and wealth by using people. There are also 3 violent scenes that I had to hide my face from (but I am a wee bit sensitive). Still, I very much enjoyed the movie and thought the parts were well played. I heard someone call it a "chick-flick," but I did not see that as accurate. Natalie Portman (from one of the Star Wars movies, as Luke & Leia's mother--and other movies) did a great job as Ann Boleyn.
The story begins with the 3 Boleyn children playing on the grounds of the family's huge English estate, while the father plots of whom he might marry his daughter(s) off to, to secure wealth or power. Next thing you know, the children are all grown up. Ann is the eldest. She has a sister, Mary and a brother. Ann is a pretty girl. She is also very independent and with a fiery disposition. Mary is more plain in appearance, a simple quiet soul. Mary marries a simple young man and they hope to live a quiet life in a small village somewhere. Mary and her husband have no interest in the English Court. Then things change.
The Duke of Norfolk, in the best interests of King Henry VIII of England, decides to help the king out. The Duke is also uncle to the Boleyn children. The Queen has born a daughter and had still-borns trying to bear the king a son. The king and queen are barely speaking at this point, so the well-meaning Duke decides the king needs a girlfriend, who could maybe bear him a son while she's at it. The Uncle and the Boleyn father try to set up the king with Ann, promising her that when the King is done with her, she will be set up with a nice Duke or Earl (maybe the Duke of Earl :-) Then the Boleyn family would be set for life. (Those English estates were often inherited and cost money to maintain.)
Well, as luck would have it, Ann is all ready to enjoy the pleasures of the King's generosity, when the King does a flip and takes an interest in Mary, because of her good nature, honest, kindness, etc. (and Mary is pretty too--just more plain than Ann.) This causes a bit of tension between the girls as the whole Boleyn family moves to Court to, again, enjoy the generosity of the King.
I don't want to tell you any more because then you will know everything I know. Most of you already know what happens to Ann and that is where the movie ends, but I found all the stuff in between pretty interesting. I wanted to get up from my seat for a couple of minutes but could not walk away. By the way, Queen Elizabeth was the daughter of Ann and Henry.
How about the Boleyn father. Nice guy, huh? "Take my daughter and just set me up financially."
Just a side note, but I would not recommend this for your children. Children sometimes see things that invoke fear, project the fears onto people they know, and have fear, nightmares and bad feelings for years.
Who Needs ACCURATE History Anyway? (She asked rhetorically!)
posted on 10 Aug 2009This movie had such potential -- the actual story is very rich and colorful. As opposed to real history, this movie provides much food for fodder; my friend and I had a great pun off for an hour after the movie was over. Admittedly, we got more than a little cheesy with the "cut-up" puns. But, please, this movie is about as accurate as a "news" story on CNN and as easily forgettable as a Clinton memory. Note to the Director: 1) If you can't find a decent actor with red hair ... may I suggest, Loreal 7LA; 2) Read accurate historical information before you make a historical movie; and 3) Blue filter isn't always an affective mood-setter and won't cover poor cinematography.
Star-cast but miscast
posted on 10 Aug 2009Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) has just married off his young daughter Mary (Scarlett Johansson) to a well-off merchant's son. Thomas believes that Mary, although kind and beautiful, is incapable of advancing the Boleyn family standing through a better arrangement to a noble or duke. On the other hand, Thomas believes that daughter Anne (Natalie Portman) is witty enough to charm a duke or earl. As the Queen of England, Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent), is unable to give birth to a male heir, King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) decides to find a mistress. His close friend, Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk (David Morrissey) confides in his brother in law, Thomas Boleyn, about the situation. Thomas Boleyn suggests pushing Anne to seduce the King, allowing her to become Henry VIII's mistress. Anne, not wanting to whore herself, first denounces the idea, but upon learning from the Duke that any mistress of the King would certainly be able to wed a Duke after providing his Majesty with a male heir, decides oblige. Henry VIII visits the Boleyn manor and immediately takes a liking to Anne for her beauty (I mean c'mon. It's Natalie Portman. Who can resist?). Anne accompanies Henry VIII on a hunting trip. During the hunting trip, she rides off into dangerous terrain, and Henry VIII, attracted to her, follows. The King falls off his horse in the terrain and has to be carried back to the manor. The Boleyns realize that Anne ruined their best chance of seducing the King. However, Duke Howard assigns daughter Mary to care for the injured King. Henry VIII is immediately taken by Mary, and after returning to court, requests her presence. The story continues with Anne and Mary's feud for the affection of Henry VIII.The Other Boleyn Girl is a star-cast film that fails to live up to the grandeur of the story of Henry the VIII. Portman, Johansson, and Bana are all beautiful creatures, but their "British" accents do not pay justice to the language. The Other Boleyn Girl relies heavily on costume extravagance, as Anne and Mary have different elegant dresses in each scene. The house-shaped veils worn by Catherine of Aragon and the other court ladies are quite distracting. Not quite the extreme level of the costume and color pounding that the Jet Li movie Hero incorporates, The Other Boleyn girl still fails to draw upon Portman's amazing character progression skills as demonstrated in another star-cast film, Closer, with Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, and Jude Law. In Closer, Portman has a much more pronounced dramatic role. The Other Boleyn Girl is a movie for those who watch movies solely for escapism and don't really care about the true history behind Henry VIII, but for the idealist, movie connoisseurs out there, I recommend watching a better Henry the VIII movie or television show and I DEFINITELY recommend watching Closer and Troy for better performances by Portman and Bana.
Excruciatingly Dull Costume Drama. And did I say dull?
posted on 06 Aug 2009Bana, Johannson, Portman: what a waste of acting talent there is in this dullfest called "The Other Anne Boleyn." The cinematography was muted, washed out, and dull. The music was, if anything, even duller. The dialog seemed straight out of a high school drama class.How dull was it? I fell asleep twice, only to be woken up by a poke on the arm. Man, was it boring.As far as I am concerned, the only positive aspect of the movie comes from stimulating my interest in finding out more about the Boleyn girls. I should have stayed home and read the Wikipedia entries instead of actually going to see a dramatization of their lives in this film.
crap
posted on 27 Jul 2009now i am not a history professor, or even close, but i do watch the Tudors and from my understanding the Tudors is similar to the real history of Henry VIII. But this film was horrible not even close to any historical truth and i was disappointed with the film quality and the actors. it was as if they new it was a terrible film while they were making it. but mostly i am surprised by the IMDb members who voted on this film, i mean a 6.9, seriously usually IMDb members are pretty right on. How do we get two totally different ideas of a time of history that there really isn't that much room for error, i mean if history is written by the winners then the History of Henry VIII should be pretty right on right? anywho, the reality is this film is just crap.
Disappointed...the book was excellent
posted on 27 Jul 2009I made sure I read the novel before I saw the movie and I am very glad I did! The film did not cover most of which was in the novel and was nowhere near as intriguing or exciting. I was so disappointed, the costumes were beautiful but it was such a shame as this could have been a truly wonderful movie if someone had bothered to write a decent script! Scarlett Johanssen and Natalie Portman gave an adequate performance but it wasn't amazing and unfortunately, Eric Bana did not have much of a speaking role at all. Certain important parts were left out, for example, the birth of Mary's firstborn, Catherine, and then some things were just plain made up like the rape scene and the beginning which made no sense at all! I really hope in years to come, a brilliant director gives this another shot and creates a movie that reflects the greatness of the novel.
This movie stunk
posted on 26 Jul 2009I usually like all things that have to do with the Tutors or Anne Boleyn, but this movie didn't cut it.
Most of the characters were miscast for one.
The way the story was told stunk.
I read the book "The Other Boleyn Girl" and enjoyed that, but this movie version was a waste.
Guess after seeing "Anne of the Thousand Days" so many times, I am spoiled. That is the best Henry 8/Anne Boleyn movie ever.
Only reason this movie gets 2 stars is the costumes and scenery were nice to look at.
Not as good as it should have been
posted on 25 Jul 2009This is a lavish production, flawed in two ways; 1. Gratuitous and irritating framing of far too many shots, through doorways, curtains, pillars, horse's tethers, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea, and 2. inadequate performances in some of the leading roles. Natalie Portman as Anne is great, as is David Morrisey as her uncle, and Kristin Scott-Thomas as her mother. However, Scarlett Johansen is far too weak, as is Eric Bana as Henry; I kept thinking of Robert Shaw in "A Man for All Seasons". Winona Ryder probably would have made a better Mary. George Boleyn ended up too much like Del-boy's brother Rodney. However, I did enjoy it, although the TV version was as good. In addition, it paled in comparison with Elizabeth, Elizabeth: The GoldenAge, and Elizabeth I. One other thing; Scarlett's performance does not bode well for Mary, Queen of Scots. She's pretty enough, but does not have the stature that both this Mary and MQoS requires.
Tudor soap opera
posted on 23 Jul 2009Well, I had high hopes for this movie. Sigh. I have NOT read the novel (and am unlikely to, if it is half as bad as the movie). The acting was decent but the script left a LOT to be desired. They tried to fit way too much into a two hour movie. As a result, some major players were left out. Cardinal Wolsey, a MAJOR player in the real story of Anne and Henry, is mentioned once in passing; the main villain in the movie is the Duke of Norfolk.The settings were another problem. Why, oh why, do directors now use cathedrals as settings for palaces ?! It was done in Elizabeth The Golden Age, and again in this movie. Do Tudor manor halls or palaces no longer allow filming? Even Hever Castle was not used ! Oh, and apparently the landscape of Kent has changed drastically since the 16th century, because in the movie, the King travels through either Yorkshire or the Scottish moors to get to Hever. It sure in heck isn't the Kent landscape I remember when I traveled to that castle!The costumes are appalling. Horrid patterns and very fake looking jewels. At one point, the Boleyn girls wear a matching fabric with a very modern looking round scale-like design; Mary's is a gold color, and I swear she reminded me of a goldfish in it !The whole movie is melodramatic and soap-opera-ish. The director took a cue from "Barry Lyndon" and used mostly natural lighting in interior scenes. That is admirable, to an extent, but somehow in this movie it comes off as just too dark rather than atmospheric. The editing is choppy as well.If you want to see a GOOD movie about Anne Boleyn, check out "Anne of the Thousand Days" (which has recently been released on DVD, by the way).
perhaps not historically accurate, but certainly entertaining
posted on 23 Jul 2009Two kinds of objections have appeared to this film: 1. Many inaccuracies with respect to historical facts. 2. The film is not exactly the same as the book.I consider them both irrelevant. 1. The filmmakers aimed not to make a documentary, but a drama. 2. No film can ever be the same as a book.The filmmakers did a good job bringing the novel to the screen. Scarlet Johansson's acting, and more so Natalie Portman's, is brilliant. Their English accent may still not be appropriate, but they do try :) Wonderful costumes! The only blemish is the film's length. In the first half you may be a little bored, but it gets somewhat better towards the end...
Don't lose your head
posted on 29 Aug 2009The stunningly beautiful photography, costuming and production design really set this film apart. To nitpick it to death because it is not perfectly historically accurate is to miss a very interesting look at this particular time and place, where men acted as absolute rulers over their women and their schemes to advance the family's interest were paramount. If that meant commanding your own (married) daughter to sleep with the (married) King of England (who, I'm sure, didn't look remotely like Eric Bana), so be it. That the daughter (who, I'm dead certain, didn't look like the pulse-pounding Scarlett Johansson) would so willingly submit while her nebbish husband stands by in order to further his own position is fascinating. Kind of like the movie, 'Indecent Proposal' in that respect. Scarlett is just wonderful in her role, as is Natalie Portman.
So, if what you want is a pure, unadulterated history lesson, go take a college course. If, however, you don't take it all so seriously and simply want to be entertained -- even though, like 'Titanic', you know how it all will end -- grab the popcorn and this DVD and indulge yourself in a little guilty pleasure.