Генрих VIII (2003) Online

Like the film 'Elizabeth' the factual content of this film was very slim. Unlike Elizabeth it had no compensating qualities. It gave virtually no insight to the character of Henry or any of his wives, from the opening scenes where the Duke of Buckingham apparently survived his execution in 1513 to appear as a crusader for Catherine of Aragon 15 years later, to the death bed scene where Henry's family (who were actually celebrating New Year miles away) are clustered round his bed to hear his dying words. Jane gets knocked about and Henry hides round the corner during Anne Boleyn's trial-Complete nonsense! historically, once Henry had decided to lose a wife, he avoided all contact and blamed everyone else for their treatment. What is odd is that the directors chose to invent completely spurious scenes to illustrate Henry's crimes when there were plenty of real incidents which would have provided more than enough spectacle. I appreciate that Henry's court of more than 1000 people, glittering with excessive layers of sumptuous cloth and huge jewels could not be managed on a TV budget- but this Henry spent half his time in empty buildings talking to his echo, something impossible in the Tudor Court where even the King going to the toilet was surrounded by hereditary attendants. So, setting aside accuracy, we are left with the casting of Ray Winstone. Not impossible that Henry might have cracked coarse jokes, had a cockney accent and been free with his hands. Before he became a human boulder, he was also athletic, obsessed with doing all of those sports his father, fearful for the life of the only surviving son, had forbidden. But what happened to the literate defender of the faith? The king who owned dozens of pairs of reading glasses, who played a range of musical instruments and sang every day, who enjoyed disguising and dancing, who spent hours in disputes with intellectuals about faith? This film's Henry was like a soap opera character- a renaissance Dirty Den. Two dimensional and unbelievable. It was the choice to rely on spectacle rather than knowledge, assuming the audience to be dummies, incapable of following a plot, that sank this film. Another film which would not manage a release in cinema and will, I guess, be forgotten!

Well this is just another telling of the story of England's most famous monarch, and to be very honest, it was OK, but it's been done better before.

It did have numerous strong points. Firstly, some of the wives came across particularly well. Helena Bonham Carter gave perhaps the best Anne Boleyn to date (it would be a battle with Dame Dorothy Tutin for the title), sticking to what is known about the real woman, whilst still giving a very moving performance. Katherine Parr, however brief her appearance may have been, was another winner in this production, as this is the first time her character has been accurately and well portrayed.

The acting was very good overall, but Ray Winstone stuck out a little as the King. The rest of the cast were in Tudor mode, poshing it up and giving it their all, whilst he stuck to his usual cockney gangster style. However, this aside, he did portray the King well and was the first Henry VIII to date to show any form of remorse or concern following the execution of Anne Boleyn.

However there were short falls. The single biggest problem was that it was all too glamourised - did we really need to see the executioner hold up Anne Boleyn's severed head? Did they really need to alter history and have the Queens beheaded before baying crowds, just for that dramatic effect?

There were also some questionable interpretations of history. The Duke of Norfolk's role in Catherine Howard's downfall has been altered completely here (again, all done for thrills). Some scenes were very badly juxta-posed - to any viewer unfamiliar with the history behind this story, the film would give them the impression Jane Seymour had died after been punched in the face and thrown on the floor by her violent husband.

Just as some wives came across well, the rest came across very badly. Katherine of Aragon, rather than the respected and virtuous woman history paints a picture of, is an incessant whinge here - there's nothing likeable at all in her. Anne of Cleves appears twice, but doesn't utter a word in either scene, so she doesn't come across at all. Jane Seymour was wooden - the portrayal of her arouses no feelings whatsoever.

To summarise, it's all very glitsy and modern. The story is mistold in many key places. The only thing that really makes this worth watching is the star performance from Helena Bonham Carter. If you really want to see this story well told, invest some time and patience in watching the complete 1970 TV series 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII'.

Perhaps, like other dramas suggested by historical characters, this version of the story of 'Henry VIII' should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion since most of the events depicted have very little basis in what we know of the complex Tudor monarch.

Putting this reservation aside, there are plenty of opportunities to enjoy this four-hour drama for what it is, largely an entertainment playing on our prejudices and emotions throughout its depiction and treatment of the six wives. Part One wastes far too much time on the courtship between Henry and Anne Boleyn, and then manages to whizz through the circumstances of her downfall in a matter of minutes. This was a huge mistake in my opinion and makes that part of the story extremely confusing.

Part Two obviously spends time on Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard, but again with a large amount of artistic licence - was Jane really a political meddler and did her husband's violence towards her cause her to go into premature birth? was Catherine really a manipulated slut with no mind of her own? The second section of "Henry VIII" is more gory than Part One, in particular concerning the execution scenes, and I think this aspect probably worked.

In the cast, kudos has to go to Ray Winstone in the lead despite the distraction of his East End accent, particularly for his work in the later part of the story. Of the wives, Assumpta Serna is an excellent Katharine of Aragon, giving the role some dignity; Helena Bonham-Carter is ok as Anne Boleyn but irritates at times - she does better in the scenes where she appears vulnerable than when she is feisty, talking-back Anne; Emilia Fox is good as Jane Seymour; Pia Girard has nothing to do as Anne of Cleves (I don't think she even speaks); Emily Blunt is miscast as Catherine Howard; and Clare Holman is effective as Catherine Parr. Others making an impact include David Suchet as Wolsey, Michael Maloney as Cranmer, Danny Webb as Thomas Cromwell, Dominic Mafham as Anne Boleyn's brother; Joseph Morgan as Thomas Culpepper; and Sean Bean as Robert Ashe.

Perhaps a bit of a misfire but a fascinating one.

Passable but not great rendition based on the life and loves of the famous and lecherous king Henry VIII . A tour de force for Ray Winstone as the robust 16th century ruthless king who loved and killed wives . In 1526 Henry tosses aside his current wife the Spanish Catherine of Aragon played by the Spanish Assumpta Serna. Firstly , Catherine married Arthur , Henry VIII older brother, but Arthur died 6 months later , and Catherine then married Henry . As Henry falls for the young and devastatingly beautiful Anne Boleyn , Helena Bonham Carter . But after the birth of princess Elizabeth , Henry tires of Anne and wishes to marry another, Jane Seymour : Emily Fox . So he decides to rid himself of her presence .Anne was judged and accused of adultery with his brother and four commoners .11 days later Henry married Jane who died 12 days after giving birth to a son , later Edward VI. For political reasons , Henry next selection was Anne of Cleves whom he married by proxy in 154o. She was not to his taste , however , and the marriage was annulled by Parliament 6 months later . Catherine Howard had the misfortune to be Henry' s fifth wife but she was charged with having committed adultery before the marriage. Catherine Parr married and tended the ailing lecher in his last years .Soon after Henry death in 1547 , she married a former lover and died in childbirth.

This is a lavish historical spectacle lustily portraying the life and lovers of notorious British Monarch , and shot in Soap style . Ray Winstone's acting as the amoral and womanizer king garned him awesome reviews .Including outstanding performances by the entire cast , such as Emily Blunt as Catherine Howard , Clare Holman as wife Catherine Parr , David Suchet as Cardinal Wolsey, Danny Webb as Thomas Cromwell , Michael Moloney as Thomas Cranmer , Charles Dance as Duke Buckingham and Sean Bean as the rebel Robert Aske. The series was well directed by Pete Travis . He is a good craftsman who has made a lot of films and TV series as Fearless , Falcon, The Jury , Cold Feet , Omagh , Vantage point and Dredd.

Henry VIII life has been adapted several times, as TV as Cinema , for example : The private life of Henry VIII by Alexander Korda with Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon , Elsa Lanchaster , Robert Donat ; Anne of the thousand days by Charles Jarrot with Richard Burton, Genevieve Bujold , Vanedsa Redgrave ; The other Boleyn girl with Natalie Portman , Scarlett Johansson , Eric Bana , Jim Sturgess . And series as the starred by Keith Mitchell, Charlotte Rampling , directed by Warris Hussein and the successful starred by Jonathan Rhys Meyers produced by Michael Hirst .

I knew that the picture was going to be full of imperfections they minute I saw that they had made Katherine of Aragon a dark-haired, dark-eyed stereotype of what a Spaniard is suppose to look like. Katherine of Aragon, contrary to her previous portrayals, was a pretty, highly intelligent and well-educated young woman with reddish gold hair and blue eyes.

Moreover, she was infinitely more popular with the British people than Henry himself, and the Briitish people loathed Anne Boleyn for being the cause of hurting their beloved " Good Queen Catherine!"

It was believed that only Catherine's abhorence of Civil War prevented a good portion of the people rising up against Henry when he first started divorce proceedings. Assumpta Serna did an excellent job as Catherine, but her character(in my opinion) was given short shrift in comparison with Helena Bonham Carter's Anne Boleyn. Miss Bonham Carter was also too pretty to play Anne Boleyn, who, according to her contemporaries, was sallow-faced, black haired and eyed, and not that attractive in looks. What Anne did possess was a great deal of wit, charm, and ambition. Both she and Catherine were women who demonstrated strength and courage in adversity. What they lacked was the ruthless selfishness of Henry V111 and his monumental self-absorbsation in getting his own way. None of this was adequately portrayed in this series by the actors.

Bodice-Ripper Mentality

Henry as played by Ray Winstone is a brawling, bawling, beastly Bluebeard. I realize Henry VIII was a spoiled brat of a king, reigning at the time when being an absolute monarch meant something, but the Tudors were also craftily intelligent. This Henry just appears to be a demanding brute. There is very little attempt to portray his intelligence or his charm. He may have been king (and it's good to be king), but when he wanted to Henry could be charming. It doesn't come through here. The history itself is a bit screwy. Let's call it history lite. There is a bodice-ripper mentality to the writing. Let's get into the hairshirt with Katherine of Aragon or the sex with Anne Boleyn. Let's show brutal war at its most brutal. Yes, war really is horrid and the Renaissance Europe was a cruel place, but the feeling of this piece is not the historical value of violence and sex, but rather for their voyeuristic quality. It's a bit smarmy. The acting was melodramatic, relieved only by good performances by Charles Dance and Sean Bean and their characters die fairly quickly. This was 3 unpleasant hours that I don't want to repeat again. Classic classy British fair, NOT.

What makes this drama fail is that it is impossible to take seriously as 16th Century England. It has absolutely no feeling of authenticity - the sets are bright and tatty, the costumes (especially what some of the wives were wearing) looked like fairy-tale outfits, and all the way through it has this Hollywood-style cinematic music playing.

The writing is utterly atrocious. The drama simply follows from one wife to the next. It never really delves into any other aspect of Henry's life apart from his relationships with his wives, each of whom is portrayed into a flat, plain stereotype. The drama places undue emphasis on an uprising by Robert Aske, and Sean Bean's ending is so blatantly copied off his fate as Boromir in 'Lord of the Rings' it's embarrassing. Except for the lead, the acting itself is not bad, but the characters sound too modern (very soap-like) and Ray Winstone is beyond belief as Henry VIII.

Ultimately, 'Henry VIII' is not about history in either its style or substance, but is more of a soap-style drama on a par with 'Footballer's Wives'.

Other reviewers have commented on historical inaccuracies in this mini-series; I'd like to comment on the screenplay and its apparent attempt to "modernize" this historical story. Aside from Winstone's Cockney accent (unlikely in a palace-reared king at a time when French was still used widely in the English court), would Henry VIII *really* have said "how come" instead of "why" and would Catherine Howard *really* have said to someone that "it's down to you that I'm here"? I must also note that I've read a lot about this period in English history, and don't actually remember any huge Catholic uprising led by a noble from York (wonderfully played by Sean Bean though the role was); surely such a significant episode would have made a bit of a splash in the many histories of Henry VIII that I've read?

I will say that once I realized how hopelessly anachronistic this version was (about 5 minutes into part 1, shown here in Canada over the last week or so), I just settled back to enjoy the spectacle; and, for the limited, soap-operaish trashy wallow that this mini-series turned out to be, it was quite enjoyable. Some very fine actors hopefully received reasonably hefty paychecks for this, and some of the scenery and effects were very nice to watch. But for anyone interested in real history, this is about on par with the feature film "Elizabeth" of a few years ago, which posited a modernized version of the first English queen of that name that was, historically speaking, simply laughable.

Watch it for the actors; don't watch it for any sense of authenticity.

Absolute Trash

Performances were not bad and I can forgive the "cockney" accent that the King had, but what is unforgiveble is the fact that the writers concentrated so much on the relationships with "six" wives that they gave almost no attention to the things that made the king great. As a result, Henry came off looking like a weak, confused, sex mad monarch who was guilty of more "back stabbing" than anyone since brutus.

For goodness sake, whilst Henry was on the throne, there was a huge war in France, as well as much more civil unrest in England. The catholic/protestant "debate" was only hinted at. The "token" inclusion of Sean Bean was welcome, all be it far too brief and the failure to show the absolute horrors of what atrocities were comitted in the kings name is an injustice to every english man and woman. These were defining times in our history but were passed off as cheap tricks purely to satisfy the kings lust for women.

very disatisfied. 4/10

As an avid researcher of the Tudor age, I was looking forward to this series. I shouldn't have. Instead, I should have treated this as a drinking game - if I spotted an inaccuracy, I'd have a slug of beer. Or vodka, as I learned as the series run along.

No need to list all the inaccuracies, just a few. Catherine of Aragon was in her later years very stocky, about 5ft tall, not so Assumpta Serna. Henry was well over 6ft tall, but when compared to his wives, the actor (although excellent) seems rather of an average height. Mary, Catherine's daughter, was not allowed to stay with her mother during Catherine's last years.

Only Henry's marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves were public - that is to say, there would not have been early morning services with the bridal couples emerging from a chapel to a sprinkling of flower petals as was depicted in the cases of Katherine Howard and Jane Seymour.

Henry was not riding trough woods to Jane Seymour when the cannons of the Tower were blasting after Anne Boleyn's execution, he was having lunch with Jane at nearby Strand.

Thomas, Duke of Norfolk was not a hunky bald-headed doorman dressed in black leather, nor was Aske - there are plenty of portraits of them to prove otherwise (not that I object to seeing the yummy Sean Bean in dark leather ;)).

Ho hum, whatever have I left unmentioned... never mind, this is a splendid series with gorgeous costumes, fine actors and really, a very classy depiction of the era. If only the details...

Oh, and did I mention the fact that Henry most certainly would not have been aggressive towards his beloved Jane during her pregnancy.. but the sequence in the series seems to require some explanation to the delivery of Eddy and the death of Jane.

Pls refer to the excellent biographies by Fraser, Weir et al :)

I can accept inaccuracies and speculations when so many years of history are crammed into a two part mini-series type telling, but Katherine's hair shirt, Anne's stillborn son being born as a result of marital rape, Jane's going into early labor as a result of an argument,and the Catherine (the second one) exposing herself in the tub? Give me a break!

The acting was excellent, the costumes and sets beautiful, but it was far too inaccurate and speculative to tolerate.

The classic _Six Wives of Henry VII_ certainly wasn't accurate either, but it sure was fun!

The 1971 BBC miniseries will always be the definitive one for me.

This production sinks immediately to the lowest common denominator of taste. The slow motion executions, the obligatory wedding night scene complete with subdued lighting through gauze, the extremely annoying and inappropriate music with vocal hooting, dramatic points preceded by the clomp clomp of the bodyguard marching in to the chamber of the next victim, the long gallop over the moors - or the beach, blood spurting onto the onlookers at the execution - and on and on. Not one lingering moment of opportunity to reflect on the enormous significance of Henry's reign. A complete waste of effort. Dumbing us down. Inaccurate, shallow, full of worn out techniques - avoid like the plague.

Good lord - the instant I saw Helena Bonham Carter appear as Anne in the first episode, I thought two things: one, she is definitely looking her "nearly forty" age, and two, she's at least four months pregnant! No one could miss her dress sticking out to *there* even if they tried, despite the voluminous material.

I knew it wasn't my imagination when I found this in her biography:

"Delivered her first child, a boy, Billy Ray, with boyfriend Tim Burton on October 6, 2003"

That would have been just after shooting Henry VIII. I've enjoyed Carter's work over the years, but still - there are a zillion terrific English actresses who could have done (and looked!) the part equally as well.

I second most of the comments already made about the historical inaccuracy of this program, but want to add yet another quibble: the scenes that purport to show the dissolution of the monasteries. What a bunch of hooey! I thought I was watching a scene from some movie of the Vikings raiding and pillaging the English coast. What actually happened was that inspectors were sent around and anything of value was methodically stripped and either taken for the royal treasury or sold; the monasteries were then pulled down, bells were melted, etc.; the monks and nuns were given pensions. It's true that servants were turned off without work, causing hardship; it's also true that those who were especially obdurate were tried and executed, but the slashing swords and burning monks fleeing from buildings were complete inventions of the filmmakers.

I just don't see the point--fiction is the name for this (not even historical fiction--just fiction).

I think this was a great made for TV series, but it was divided into only 2 parts when I felt it could have been a lot longer. It first aired on BBC television in England and then made its way to PBS KCET on Channel 28 here in America. Ray Winstone heads a cast of primarily noted British actors portraying in very modern mood the life and times of Henry the 8th and Tudor England. There is nothing really wrong with the series but I felt that such a panoramic story could have been a lot longer and broken up into several episodes. I felt it was very rushed, especially at the end. His marriages to the 6 women was all done very fast and the film didn't explore his relationship with them or their characters too deeply. The focus seemed to be on Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boylen. One thing viewers have found frustrating is the anachronistic use of language. There are moments when the dialogue gets very modern and loses the formality and Shakespearean style. Also, Ray Winstone speaks in a common vernacular called Cockney, when as a King, he was able to speak lofty English and even Latin. But such inaccuracies are dismissed as we are swept by the intensity of the dramatic material and the way the actors bring it to life.

Anne Boylen was played by Helena Bonham Carter. Her scenes with Ray Winstone are quite dynamic. The actress in the role of Queen Katherine of Aragon is quite powerful, even more so than the bland Helena Bonham, who portrays Anne as a fickle lady who at first didn't want anything to do with Henry but later revels in her position as Queen. Though her innocent looks did effectively portray the wronged queen (I never believed that Anne Boylen did any of the "sins" she was accused falsely of). Above all, this is a vehicle for Ray Winstone as Henry the 8th. His portrayal is laser-sharp and towards the end he does start to look EXACTLY like the overweight, arrogant and cruel king. I wish the series had been longer, like the previously filmed "Forsyte Saga" on Masterpiece Theatre. Also, I wish somehow they had used more popular and famous British actors such as Judi Dench, who has already portrayed royal figures- Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. But the series is gorgeous to look at. Though the ending was very rushed, I like the final words of the narrator that elevates Queen Elizabeth as the only true great result of Henry's troublesome life. Elizabeth was born of Anne Boylen and Henry the 8th. Warning: the film contains adult material including violence and graphic sex. Its suitable for mature audiences only.

The facts are XVIth Century but the style is clearly XXIst Century. It can be argued that everything in this miniseries really happened (except for a few fictional subplots) but it is unarguable that the end result is extremely vulgar, from the Cockney accent and body language of the king to the soap-opera techniques of the editing style. In this universe, a birth cannot happen without the camera projecting between the legs of the mother and blood spurting everywhere, courtesans cannot be disgraced without a Nazi style arrest followed by the cries of the tortured. History is a series of excuses for showing body fluids and not mentioning any important or relevant social issues other than sex and violence. It is entertainment for the readers of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids (Mr. Murdoch also owns Granada Television). It follows in the euro-trash tradition of revisionist history as spectacular blood-sport of such recent period films as "Elizabeth", "Le Roi Danse", "Vatel", "La Reine Margot", "L'Affaire du Collier", etc., etc., etc. Ad nauseam... It also made possible a piece of egregious dung like "Gunpowder, Treason & Plot" (2004).

I love Ray Winstone, but I did not like this TV series/movie. For starters, historical dramas do not create a good atmosphere when the actors have modern haircuts.

The producers were not able to tell this very intense story without relying on heavy handed TV show type of pyrotechnics. It is obvious that they take the audience for fools.

Ray's coarse accent is usually a blessing. But not here.

In fact, almost none of the actors were commanding and compelling to watch.

I could not finish it.

Ray Winstone leads an all-star cast in this tale of male dominance and religious importance. Henry VIII has been on the throne for fifteen years. He and his devoted Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon, (Assumpta Serna) rule a rich and powerful England. But behind the happy smiling faces lie a couple deemed by tragedy. Henry is becoming impatient with his wife of fifteen years; her inability to produce a male heir has him worried. So when he meets the flighty young Anne Boleyn, (played to perfection by Helena Bonham Carter) his determination for a male heir becomes an obsession, convinced Anne will give him the heir he craves, he risks the wrath of his people and his catholic faith, to divorce his catholic Queen, and marry his protestant lover, which once again results with only a daughter. This failure was to cost the young Queen Anne her life, as she was executed on a trumped up charge of treason.

Just as it seems life cant get any better for Henry with the birth of a third child, a healthy son (later Edward VII) with third wife Jane Seymour, (Emilia Fox) tragedy strikes, which was to ultimately lead to the downfall and eventual death of the tyrannical monarch. With an exceptional supporting cast including Mark Strong, Sean Bean, David Suchet, Charles Dance, and the up and coming Emily Blunt as Henrys fifth Queen, Catherine Howard. This tale brings history to life with Henrys determination for a male heir, and the belief that only a male monarch could rule England, without bringing the country to destruction.

So, the British do not in fact always produce above-average period pieces. This version of the Six Wives of Henry VIII (because that was all it was about) was both historically inaccurate in a multitude of details, and produced with some mixture of misguided sensationalism and insufficient professionalism. One is almost tempted to call it a "period drama without drama, period", but that would be unfair. It does have several dramatic situations, although some of them are pure invention (one example being Henry's reaction to the letter telling him about Katherine Howard's infidelity. Here he started screaming immediately, whereas in reality he initially dismissed it as a fabrication).

Ray Winstone certainly looked the part, but that's all the praise I have for him. I like him when he's in his proper element, which is as some braggart thief or thug - he is every inch *not* a king, and some of his lines were so bad that one had to laugh. As for his unkingly cockney accent; well, some people claim that this was close to what he actually spoke, but I am unconvinced. And if it were true, shouldn't all the other characters have had largely the same accent? I felt that little, if anything, was done to make the language and the formulation even remotely authentic.

The sixth wife, Catherine Parr (Lady Latimer), was given rather short thrift here; we didn't see any of her part of the story; the king just died right after their marriage. I guess the production crew were in a hurry.

In fact, much of the crew's investment in this production was almost blatantly half-hearted. The best actors, Helena Bonham-Carter and David Suchet, turned in dull performances, and most of the rest of the main characters did little better. Sean Bean, of course, was good, as he always is, and I will single out Mark Strong for exhibiting a powerful effort also. And Emilia Fox was adequate.

But all in all a disappointingly unimpressive achievement which should have been rather better.

4 out of 10.

Surprisingly, it is good. I understand why some may be baffled as to the choice of the actor in the lead but Ray Winstone is not bad at all. And mind you - I am not a big fan of his. Especially as older Henry he gets better and better. His accent is a bit of an issue sometimes - cockney does not wash with Tudor times but then again, he definitely looks the part and plays Henry well. Pity that the script is written in a very modern, sometimes too casual, way. When fragments of Anne Boleyn and King's letters are read out, the original language of the time works really well. The portrayal of Henry as a tyrannical, tough and selfish man is fairly accurate. Let's not forget that Henry was a cruel and conceited King (despite being an intellectual, which believe me is not a redeeming feature) and left the country ruined. He did reform Church but only to a certain extent, which suited him. Despite this reform he was persecuting protestants. His last wife, Catherine Parr (who was a closet Protestant), was in trouble for being too outspoken about religion and King had her investigated behind her back. She escaped serious danger only by the King casually changing his mind. He created a whole new class of poor people and beggars by dissolving monasteries (only because of the money he wanted off them). Casting thousands of nuns and monks out in the streets, leaving poor people without medical care that was provided by monasteries was a cruel and stupid move. Henry was not a good ruler and this film shows him in the more realistic light. David Suchet gives a fantastic performance as Cardinal Wolsley. So does Sean Bean as a Catholic Northern rebel leading the Pilgrimage of Grace against the King.

I quite liked the newcomer Emily Blunt as Katherine Howard. She really conveys that teenage recklessness, that cost her life in the end. Good film and worth seeing.

This BBC two-parter tells the story of Henry VIII and casts Ray Winstone in the titular role. Winstone, a much-mocked actor, seems to have a legion of detractors but I found him perfect in this part, playing a surprisingly emotional and unstable monarch.

Given Henry's status as England's most famous king, the story is very familiar but that doesn't stop HENRY VIII from being a highly entertaining interpretation of the story. Of course, the pacing is super-fast seeing as six wives and all manner of political turmoil is compressed into just three hours, but it still has time to get all the important stuff in there.

The budget seems higher than the Hollywood version of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (maybe because money wasn't blown on needless 'star' names) with close attention to detail both in set and costume. The cast is simply excellent - not just in the supporting male characters (Mark Strong and Danny Webb are great bad guys, Charles Dance and Sean Bean are brief and tragic figures, David Suchet makes Wolsey his own) but particularly in the actresses playing Henry's wives.

Of course, Helena Bonham Carter bags the headlining role of Anne Boleyn, and very good she is too. But Emilia Fox (as Jane Seymour) and an impossibly young Emily Blunt (as Catherine Howard) also deserve plaudits for their acting skills. Is this better than the Keith Michell version? No, but I'd say it was equally as good and a fittingly violent interpretation for our times.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the producers of this work have taken extreme liberties in the telling of the story, and employed a few outright falsehoods. Nevertheless, if one is able to leave behind expectations for a true-to-the-books account, it is a fun show to watch.

Bad Things: Some of the costumes were not great, but there were also some that were spot-on for the period; the armour was atrocious, and the jousting pretty hokey (coming from someone who's done it before). And I certainly don't think Henry was as pliable and weak-willed as he is made out to be. The dissolution of the monasteries wasn't nearly so bloody and violent (another reviewer correctly described it as looking like a scene out of a viking rape-and-pillage film).

Good Things: I think the acting was superb, especially from the supporting cast: Cranmer, Cromwell, Wolsey, Gardiner, Robert Aske. And speaking of Aske, for all the inaccuracies in the movie it is the only one that has given the Pilgrimage of Grace the incredibly significant role it actually played during Henry's reign; the details of the Pilgrimage are far too complicated to go into here, but even though much of the details were abbreviated or changed, the very fact that the producers gave a nod to this important event went a long way with me. Suffice to say that Henry's rule could have been swamped and swept away by the Pilgrimage, something Henry and his contemporaries were well aware of and was a consideration which guided their domestic policies for many years afterwards. The movie was limited by the length it could be to go into details concerning the 36-year reign of the monarch, and understandably had to 'pick its battles'. As such, it did leave a lot out about the religious crisis and split with Rome, as well as the effects of religious turmoil on the political situation at home and abroad. If they'd had another 4 hours, they could have covered more things to a greater extent, but most folks have trouble sitting through a ninety-minute movie.

Overall, a worth watching but don't expect a history lesson. Besides, we need to worry about anyone who DOES expect a history lesson from a movie...

"Henry VIII" (2003) tells the story of England's King Henry VIII (1491-1547). Ray Winstone is the centerpiece of the film as Henry, a robust and brutal but secretly sensitive King obsessed with siring a male heir to throne. The TV miniseries spends its 4 hour run focused on Henry's involvements with his six wives while dabbling in other benchmarks of his reign and taking liberties where possible for dramatic purposes. Not the best possible historical accounting of the period, this colorful and energetic film does offers some very solid performances and good production value. "Henry VIII" is an enjoyable primer for the not too critical viewer who seeks entertainment value over historical accuracy. (B)

I have always enjoyed this part of history, and to see it acted out in front of me by many talented actors including Ray Winstone, Sean Bean, Helena Bownam Carter and Emilia Fox was 4 hours of unreputed joy. This film gave us a view of the parts of history the text books didn't and gave us a sight of the 'real Henry' and, even more so the other people who contributed to his fascinating life. Everybody, down to the extras in the background carried their roles wonderfully. The music and scenery perfectly complemented the peice. A pleasure to watch.

If anything Henry VIII did have some promising things but it was also hugely problematic too. It is true that historians will despair, and already have done, when watching Henry VIII, because history is so distorted to the point that it feels like it'd been rewritten(speaking as a non-historian but as someone who always showed a great interest in the Tudors). And it doesn't fare a huge amount better as a standalone either. As said previously, it does have good things, the best thing being most of the performances. Of the six wives, Assumpta Serna, Clare Holman and particularly Helena Bonham Carter fared best; Serna's Catherine of Aragon is very dignified, Holman doesn't have a huge amount to do but is very touching as Katherine Parr and Bonham Carter, who has the most screen time of the six wives, makes for a witty, shrewish and sometimes moving Anne Boleyn.

The supporting cast are even better, with powerful but too brief performances from Charles Dance and particularly Sean Bean, David Suchet playing Wolsey as if born to play him and Mark Strong as a menacing Duke of Norfolk. Henry VIII is well-made as well, it is photographed absolutely beautifully and the costumes and settings are colourful and elegant though the portrayal of the court didn't seem as luxurious as one would like. There are a few good lines, almost all of them from Henry VIII(you have got to love his insult of Anne of Cleves likening her to a horse) and there are some charming moments in the music score with a big shout out to the music for Henry and Anne(Boleyn)'s wedding dance.

That's not all to say that all the music works because in the more dramatic moments it did get rather too intrusive. And I did have mixed feelings on Ray Winstone's Henry, him faring much better in the second half than in the first half. As the older Henry Winstone is excellent, in the later parts Henry is very tortured and complex and Winstone does a fine job with that. But for me he fails as the younger Henry, being more cockney Tony Soprano than Henry VIII.

Coming onto the flaws, Henry VIII did feel really rushed, after so much time with Catherine and Anne it literally steamrolls through the other four wives, with the way Anne of Cleves was written here she may not as well existed. Most of the acting was fine, but there are roles that suffered from not being very well-written, of the remaining three wives Emilia Fox's Jane Seymour is rather wooden emotionally, Emily Blunt plays Katherine Howard as too much of a nymphomaniac and Pia Girard is completely wasted as Anne of Cleves. Duke of Norfolk and especially Thomas Cromwell seemed written as stock antagonistic caricatures, though it was much more noticeable in Danny Webb's Cromwell than with Strong; to me Strong showed more demeanour and charisma but Webb seemed out of sorts in one of the weaker portrayals of Cromwell.

The story has some compelling moments but its fatal mistake is focusing so much on the relationships between Henry and his wives and not properly showing what made him so famous(at most any mention of his or his wives' contributions are explored barely) as well as making a lot of the characters one-dimensional. Another let-down was the script, which again had moments but showed soap-opera at its most melodramatic and the subtlety of an axe(pun intended), Henry and Anne's chemistry and dialogue were far wittier in Anne of the Thousand Days. Henry VIII is also needlessly violent, of course any executions unmistakably brutal but Henry VIII goes overkill on the gratuitous factor, particularly badly done were those of the inept executioner and that for Katherine Howard(how Katherine is written in this scene is embarrassing). It also shows Henry VIII as a wife-beater and a rapist which only succeeded in vilifying his character and possibly distorting history more.

Overall, Henry VIII impressed in some areas but it frustrated in other areas as well, didn't hate it but didn't love it either. 5/10 Bethany Cox