Not unlike Anne Boleyn herself, the movie version of Philippa Gregory's bestselling novel The Other Boleyn Girl is both greatly ambitious and flawed. It's lovely to look at, yet unsatisfying as a film. In some ways, it seems like a video that will soon be used in history classes as one of the many ways we can view Anne Boleyn's life and death. It's not the grand cinematic experience I'd hoped for as I read the novel for this month's book club.

In this version of Gregory's work, Anne is forced by her family — against her will, at first — to seduce England's King Henry VIII. Henry's queen, Katherine of Aragon, has not been able to produce a male heir to the throne, so Anne's uncle, the Duke of Norfolk — played as the one true villain of the story by David Morrissey — decides Anne should have a boy by Henry, thus allowing the whole family to advance. Yet when Henry suffers a hunting accident and Anne is blamed for it, the Duke makes Anne's sister Mary (Scarlett Johansson) become Henry's mistress. She's, you know, the other Boleyn girl. There's so much else to talk about with this film, so read more.
When Mary becomes pregnant by Henry, Anne is once more pushed in front of Henry to keep him interested in the Boleyn family. Anne enchants the king who quickly forgets all about Mary and becomes desperate to have Anne — no matter what it takes. Having gained the king's worship, Anne withholds herself physically from the king until he promises to divorce Queen Katherine and make Anne his wife. Yet everything goes horribly wrong when Anne does become queen — and then cannot produce a male heir. King Henry grows increasingly impatient and Anne takes desperate measures to try and remain in his good graces. These measures ultimately lead to her demise.
Having recently finished the book, I was distracted by the ways in which the film deviates from Gregory's work. Many of the changes are understandable, seeing as Gregory's novel is quite long and encompasses so many events that couldn't possibly fit into a two-hour film. Yet despite the edits and the rearrangements, the movie still feels cluttered, overwrought and sometimes disjointed. Mary's first husband William Carey, for example, is in the first quarter of the movie but when Mary takes up with the king, he sends William Carey away and we never hear from or see him again. There's zero explanation for whatever happened to this person that Mary is married to, and then randomly William Stafford approaches her with the offer of a country farm. I assume this is a casualty of editing, but it's infuriating to be thought so little of as an audience, like maybe we wouldn't notice.

And then, after all the things left out of the movie, there's the baffling addition of Henry viciously raping Anne when she refuses to marry him until he divorces Katherine. This is not a part of Gregory's novel and the only reason I can think of to include it is for dramatic effect. In this way, it feels like a cheap — and disgusting — move. Personally, I resent being subjected to an awful rape scene because someone figured it would be a great way to keep our attention.
The lush costumes are the most delightful part of the film, as the story is so rushed it's hard to care about anyone or anything — including this "sisterly bond" they consistently try so hard to make seem like the tightest relationship ever. The two women are far closer in the film than they are in the book, probably because it's supposed to make the wedge driven between them that much more devastating. And yet . . . it's hard to care much about either sister. It's not a fault of the acting — I was pretty impressed by both Johansson and Portman, for different reasons — but perhaps of the story's hectic tempo.
Bottom line: Though it has a lovely look to it, I expected more from this movie and was disappointed.
Photos courtesy of Sony




















Marshall Ward
Kookaユ
Vivienne Westwood
I was so looking forward to seeing the movie too. I will still watch it, but reading the review, it seems like the movie will not meet my expectations.
1I feel like I love the Tudors so much (historically inaccurate as it might be) that I can't like this film.
2i knew they would take an awesome book like hers, and add some dumb a$$ crap that made no sense. Henry didnt rape Anne!
3really, that review sums up what i sort of thought the movie would turn out being. like Elizabeth: the golden years, this one looks like something pretty to watch but never really get into, plot-wise. disappointing, indeed.
4Nice review. I haven't read the book, and I wasn't that interested in seeing the movie, but this actually makes me more interested to see it. You do a great job breaking down the difference from book to screen.
5Thanks for the review. I certainly won't be going to see this movie. I LOVED the book and I would want the movie to try to stay as close to the book as possible. I also do not like graphic rape scenes as I think they cheapen movies.
6Oh NO! What a disappointment. The story was interesting and dramatic enough without throwing in a friggin rape scene.
7Ugh I cant believe they added a rape scene. That makes me so angry.
8I haven't read the book or seen the movie and I know its historical fiction but it does seem to be following the actual history to closely. Wasn't Mary a mistress of Henry's before Anne arrived to the court. Also the Boleyn family did not need advancement because they were already aristocrats and her father was a favorite of Henry's. Also we don't know for sure that any of Mary's children were because of Henry although it definitely seems so
...and this is why I don't read historical fictions much because I get to wrapped up in the facts
9*it DOESN'T seem to be following the actual history
10I knew the movie wouldn't be very good. I still kind of want to see it though. I read the script before they finished filming the movie and I'm curious if they still kept Henry's line "I was a fool to pick Anne instead of you Mary" or something. I doubt that Henry VII who had eight wives would say it.
11I thought that the rape was disgusting...also when she almost slept with her brother, in the book it was only implied!!! All the sex scenes were much more...detailed than the book and completely unnecessary.
12Henry VIII and he had 6 wives
13divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived!
Loved the review, Buzz. I expected the movie to be flawed, but still want to see it. tdamji: Your comments about Elizabeth are spot on; I just finished watching it on DVD and was disappointed, (but did enjoy the costumes and set designs). I'll probably feel the same about this film. Glad to hear that Johansson and Portman hold their own, despite the flaws in the writing and editing.
14They definitely rushed the whole thing. It seemed like they took the book, plucked out a few key notes, spread them out, colored in the rest, and still sped it up x1000.
I was disappointed in how they failed to even mention Carey's death or Katherine's death. Also, the lack of mention of George's sexuality bothered me. It was a big part of the book, and he, Francis Weston, and the other men in Anne's "circle" played a big part in her trial and the charges brought against her.
I knew the movie would differ from the book, but not this much. They zapped the emotion out of a lot of things by rushing through relationships and totally skipping Catherine. Was she born at all?
I still enjoyed it for what is was, though. The performances were decent. Jim Sturgess as George was my favorite. I totally sympathized with him, all the way to his death. Anne's death scene was terrifying and well done, IMO.
Bottom line: I prefer the book, but the movie wasn't terrible, as some other reviewers have claimed. It's not merely "bodice-ripping". Like I said under the book club post, they could have done the book more justice with a mini-series. It's ridiculous to try to cram a 660+ page book full of detail in a movie that clocks in at just under 2 hours.
15Oh, and I love how Paul Marshall (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Lola Quincey (Juno Temple) from Atonement were in this.
Danny Harman (Alfie Allen) made a quick appearance too. Jane Parker and William Carey should've had a little scandal themselves.
16disappointing...
17i still see them as two little girls playing dress up; therefore can't take this movie seriously.
18Dang it, I had such high hopes for the movie. I loved the book so much.
19I read the book mmonths ago and I absolutely loved it. It saddens me that they did not do the book justice with this film. And Henry raping Anne? Please tell me this isn't true. Why on earth would the filmmakers think the audience is so ignorant and dumb? Is that really how low we've sunk as a society that we need a rape scene to hold our attention?? Good lord. I don't know if I want to see this, as I don't want my love on the book to be tainted.
20And I agree with jillz, I love The Tudors so much and I don't know if this movie can measure up to the show.
21I shall be sticking to the books; the film version just seems like it would be a let-down... (aside from the amazing costumes, but I doubt they'll show the film on mute
)
22Oh no! I can't stand (or stomach) rape scenes, like at ALL, they give me nightmares. I really wanted to see this as well-thank you so much for the advance warning.
23I'll still check this out. I know I'm the minority but I can't stand the Tudors, something about the girl playing Anne, just Grates on my nerves. I'll go into this movie with no expectations, that usually helps me to not be dissapointed!
24i wish i had read the book before i saw the movie. i left feeling like the imagery was great, most of the acting was great, but the story and editing lacked something.
25ouch! what a harsh review.
I've read AND seen the movie...the *rape* sceen is like 15 seconds and all in all, IT'S JUST A MOVIE!!...it'S HOLLYWOOD! of course it's going to leave out like 90% of the book....don't they all?
if anyone wants to watch a friggin documentary then check out the history channel. or stick to books.
I LIKED THE MOVIE, BY THE WAY! I liked everything about it.
26I read the book when it first came out and fell in love with Phillipa Gregory's writing. She does her research and really brings the period and people to life. Needless to say I couldn't wait for the film. Well, it's been two hours since I left the theater and I'm still fuming! I've also apologized to my husband incessantly for making him sit through it. The film deviated so often from the book that it was almost an entirely different story! The book's focus was, as indicated by the title, Mary Boleyn. Those of us who love the book and are Tudor afficionados know Anne's story. Why the director chose to make her the focus of the film, and not Mary is beyond me. I'm not going to list all of the film's flaws, there are too many. The only saving grace were the costumes. Gorgeous. But, that's not enough to redeem a film. I hope that Phillipa Gregory thinks twice about letting Hollywood touch her work for any reason. To those who haven't scene it, but loved the book, please save your money!
27I really enjoyed this movie! I never read the book before though, and i usually hate movies that began as books because the always seem to be missing so much. Except harry potter- but thats another story.
I'm not a big queen/king/ history buff. Anything related to these topics bores me to death.. but I went with my sis to watch and i didn't have to resort to eating the whole snack bar to stay awake. plus i LOVE natalie portman.
anyway, i guess if you don't expect anything from the film its not as bad...
28one more thing.. the rape scene to me felt more like ...they wanted to give us a visual image before she asks her sister how Henry was with her... sometimes directors underestimate the audience's intelligence and i felt that they were trying to make it clear that he was "softer" with Mary
again. i liked the movie.
29Saw it yesterday and while I liked the acting, costumes and yes Anne's death scene was haunting, but overall it did feel rushed and like something I would have seen in my 10th grade history class.
30I have to agree with Buzz's review. The film was disjointed and rushed, leaving gaping holes in the story. Natalie Portman and Eric Bana did well with their performances but Scarlet seemed out of her depths here. Every time she was supposed to be distressed, upset or horrified she had the exact same expression on her face. It was like she hit the switch to her "shocked" expression. The costumes were beautiful though, which made the film more interesting to watch. If you go into this not needing any semblance of history and watch it simply as a work of fiction you will probably enjoy most of it. For anyone who read the book, like my sister, or who knows the history you will be very annoyed with the inconsistencies.
31I read the novel with Buzz's book club, and loved it. I was counting the days until the movie, but I did want to check the reviews before I rushed to the theater. Sure enough they were disappointing, and thanks to this review, now I know why.
What a shame someone couldn't make a good movie out of this novel!
32I actually liked this movie a lot...but I haven't read the book yet. I definitely plan to read it after seeing the movie, but I have always found if I read a book and watch a movie based on the book afterwards, I am always disappointed. Its puzzling why the rape scene would be added, as you say "for dramatic effect". Maybe it was supposed to be symbolic of something more...I don't know.
33Well I watched this movie recently and loved it. I personally beleive that the rape scene was added to signify the change in Anne and Henry's relationship.
Her witholding sex from him gave her a power over him that led Henry to act in ways he normally would not. In the film he repeatedly told Anne he did not want to....
1) divorce his wife Katharine because she was a good woman
2) Part with the catholic church/pope
But yet he did these things anyway because of Anne's hold over him. The rape scene to me signifies Henry's descension in character because of Anne. The rape was Henry's way of saying I am thoroughly ashamed of what i have done. The rape also provides a reason for the sudden distance between them after the marraige and then her beheading.....
34I really enjoy the book, so I'm hoping the film measures up to it.. We shall see!
35sunlandseagirl — I see what you're saying, and I'm sure there are ways of justifying the rape scene, I just still don't think it was even remotely necessary. There are a variety of ways they could have made Henry humiliate Anne and assert his power over her. They decided to go with the most severe form of humiliation a man can impose on a woman and I honestly just don't think it was necessary to do that.
36I really did not like the rape scene. I was angry that they added it. I also wish they would have shown Henry and Anne getting along in their marriage, because in the book they really had a passionate dynamic, AND it helped to show what an influence she had over his reign.
Also, the film makers made a much bigger deal out of the "brother" issue. In the book, you are given the impression that Henry's desperation for having a male heir drives him to get rid of Anne the only way that he can. In the movie, they made it seem like he truly believed that she had been with her brother, and in that sense the film makers kind of justified his decision to behead her.
37I like Both Boleyn girls Wish I could marry one of them.
38i liked this movie, admittedly i did not read the book and what made me want to see the movie was the historical element and the fact that it features two amazing actresses. The actresses playing the older female roles were great as well... the rape scene was not that horrible and probably not gratuitous, especially compared with many other disturbing scenes in the movie. I think the point of the scene was to show that Anne had become powerless. Since the king had divorced the queen he could do anything he wanted with her (eg divorce her as well or even kill her) without consequences, and that situation was something she didn't anticipate.
39I think it's fascinating that a rape scene can, apparently, be "not that bad." Or, if it's brief, it's totally fine. "Rape's OK as long as it's short." Interesting. I get that they wanted to show that Anne was powerless, but there are other ways of doing that. It was gratuitous. Just because other movies have more gratuitous or more violent scenes doesn't automatically make this scene A-OK. That's some bizarre logic.
40as a non reader of the book i went to the movie with someone who read it. after the lights came up i asked her what she thought about it and she said the she was not disappointment. granted her expectations were not too high.
that being said I thought the movie was fine; i love that period in history. i liked natalie portman's anne. she (anne) is generally not a likable character but i was really surprised how well she (natalie) pulled it off.
one criticism i heard abotu the film is it did not decide what it wanted to be (and i paraphrase) a bodice-ripping drama or a heavy drama with commentary on sexuality and power, etc.
i kinda see that point but still liked the movie
can't believe eric bana used to be
a stand up comic!
41I just saw this movie and I'm surprised no one brought up Jim Sturgess' character George. I think his beheading was the most disturbing and haunting part of the movie.
42I saw this movie last night!! If my sister were ever to do the things that Anne did to Mary!! Oh lordie!! I would never forgive her!!!!! Great Film. Natalie Portman is such a great actress!!! Loved it
43I just saw the movie two nights ago and it was nowhere near as good as the book (and I'm only halfway through). The rape scene was unnecessary and the movie focused too much on Anne rather than Mary. They also left out Mary and Henry's first child, Catherine, and there was no mention of Hever or the fate of Mary's first husband. Queen Katherine & Lady Boleyn (Anne & Mary's mother) were completely different in the movie, and William Stafford was not as handsome as I expected him to be. Other plot points were changed from the book like Mary & Anne are not in the court at the beginning of the movie but at their family's estate, Anne is offered to Henry before Mary, Mary is hardly shown with her kids, and Henry seems to discard Mary much easier in the movie than the novel.
However, I was surprised that the acting & accents were actually pretty good in this movie, which I was not expecting since the 3 leads are not British. The costumes were lavish & beautiful, and I loved Jim Sturgess for the few scenes he was onscreen. George's death was more devastating to me than Anne's. And I have to say that Natalie Portman is not really believable as a "vixen" and I did not like the actress who played Queen Katherine.
44I loved the book but the movie that i longed to see turned out somewhat of a letdown.The important facts of the Boleyn siblings life that were totally demolished were .....
George grew up serving the king, mary was the mistress of henry at the palace where she had always served queen katherine since she was a young child. George made a speech before he died on the scafffold.
He was also a major part of the book and of the girls life whereas in this film he is shown in a few fasts scenes. there were important things that were left out to only be replaced by such as a rape scene.
The actors and actresses were great but the story was cut and pasted randomly and unevenly . YOu feel as if you are trying to catch up with the movie because it skips but when you finally do the whole thing is over.
I can understand why Mrs. Gregory said the movie was a vision all its own.
45you'll find some more ambitious movies on www.ambitne.com
46Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.