OurChart's Bloggers
Our Favorite Sites
Tips?
thehookup@ourchart.com
The Other Boleyn Girl
March 21, 2008 - 7:17am — Cameron Carnegie
The Other Boleyn Girl
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 1:55 minutes
Release: February 29, 2008
Box Office: $19,153,000
Starring: Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana
Director: Justin Chadwick
That a cinematic interpretation would pale so tragically in the face of Showtime’s impossibly flawless original series The Tudors is indeed a shame.
Here, the photography is benign -- trite even. The music, ineffective at best. The makeup and lighting are unremarkable; the acting barely registers. It has so much else working against it.
And how could that be? Natalie Portman? Scarlett Johansson?
Photo by movies.about.com
The story of Anne and Mary Boleyn lifts a part of history away from the headstrong Anne (Portman) and reminds us that it was Mary (Johannson) that first besotted King Henry VIII and bore him a son. It also reveals how Mary’s virtue (though ultimately not as sexy) never escaped the King, and it was that innate goodness that ultimately saved her own life.
As the gentle, innocent younger sister Mary, Johannson gives us the antithesis of her Match Point chanteuse. Her Mary is the untainted innocent that evaporates King Henry’s emotional guard, transforming him into a gentle and kind lover. Hardly the picture history would offer of a man entitled to bed any woman of his choosing -- with or without decorum.
Portman’s shrewish Anne lacks the ability to inflict the same seductively believable spell Natalie Dorman of Showtime's The Tudors casts over her King. Her body, unfortunately, cannot rise above prepubescence, and any charm Portman had to bring to the film is buried in lackluster dialogue and direction.
The story unfolds as the Boleyn girls’ father and uncle attempt to navigate their own fortunes by prostituting first one sister, then the other. Their mother (played by Kristen Scott Thomas of The English Patient fame) is loathe to prevent any of the anarchy the men inflict on her daughters since she is clearly shackled by the sexism of the day. As the mother, even more compelling is her inability to anticipate the intoxication the headstrong and destructive Anne experiences once she's discovered the power that accompanies her soon-to-be hypnotic effect on the King. She learns too late what a "double-edged sword" (sorry) she wields.
The difference between this and The Tudors is the focus on Mary. She is kind and pure of heart, and has a genuine and reciprocal love with the King. Anne’s jealousy becomes the retaliation that dazzles Henry and eliminates her sister, the King’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, and ultimately the entire Catholic Church. (I mean was this girl even out of her teens?)
Eric Bana (Henry) has never shown himself as a compelling or charismatic actor. He is certainly not an original look or stature. His Henry VIII never rises above simpering and confused. He lacks entitlement. His lovestruck is never palpable and hardly a passion that would change history. For instance, in the scene where he finally consummates his addition to Anne, there is a complete absence of love.
Conversely, The Tudors' Jonathan Rhys Myers’ Henry is thoroughly self-possessed and schooled with the power and benefits of his station. His yearnings and power are one. He never fails to use one to gain the other.
Johansson is always a pleasure, but here… well, yes Virginia, sometimes bad movies happen to good actresses.
And this one is a bad movie.
On the Carnegie Scale of 1-4:
1 = Requiring a comp ticket AND cab fare and 4 = An Instant Carnegie Classic
This is barely a 1.
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 1:55 minutes
Release: February 29, 2008
Box Office: $19,153,000
Starring: Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana
Director: Justin Chadwick
That a cinematic interpretation would pale so tragically in the face of Showtime’s impossibly flawless original series The Tudors is indeed a shame.
Here, the photography is benign -- trite even. The music, ineffective at best. The makeup and lighting are unremarkable; the acting barely registers. It has so much else working against it.
And how could that be? Natalie Portman? Scarlett Johansson?
Photo by movies.about.com
The story of Anne and Mary Boleyn lifts a part of history away from the headstrong Anne (Portman) and reminds us that it was Mary (Johannson) that first besotted King Henry VIII and bore him a son. It also reveals how Mary’s virtue (though ultimately not as sexy) never escaped the King, and it was that innate goodness that ultimately saved her own life.
As the gentle, innocent younger sister Mary, Johannson gives us the antithesis of her Match Point chanteuse. Her Mary is the untainted innocent that evaporates King Henry’s emotional guard, transforming him into a gentle and kind lover. Hardly the picture history would offer of a man entitled to bed any woman of his choosing -- with or without decorum.
Portman’s shrewish Anne lacks the ability to inflict the same seductively believable spell Natalie Dorman of Showtime's The Tudors casts over her King. Her body, unfortunately, cannot rise above prepubescence, and any charm Portman had to bring to the film is buried in lackluster dialogue and direction.
The story unfolds as the Boleyn girls’ father and uncle attempt to navigate their own fortunes by prostituting first one sister, then the other. Their mother (played by Kristen Scott Thomas of The English Patient fame) is loathe to prevent any of the anarchy the men inflict on her daughters since she is clearly shackled by the sexism of the day. As the mother, even more compelling is her inability to anticipate the intoxication the headstrong and destructive Anne experiences once she's discovered the power that accompanies her soon-to-be hypnotic effect on the King. She learns too late what a "double-edged sword" (sorry) she wields.
The difference between this and The Tudors is the focus on Mary. She is kind and pure of heart, and has a genuine and reciprocal love with the King. Anne’s jealousy becomes the retaliation that dazzles Henry and eliminates her sister, the King’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, and ultimately the entire Catholic Church. (I mean was this girl even out of her teens?)
Eric Bana (Henry) has never shown himself as a compelling or charismatic actor. He is certainly not an original look or stature. His Henry VIII never rises above simpering and confused. He lacks entitlement. His lovestruck is never palpable and hardly a passion that would change history. For instance, in the scene where he finally consummates his addition to Anne, there is a complete absence of love.
Conversely, The Tudors' Jonathan Rhys Myers’ Henry is thoroughly self-possessed and schooled with the power and benefits of his station. His yearnings and power are one. He never fails to use one to gain the other.
Johansson is always a pleasure, but here… well, yes Virginia, sometimes bad movies happen to good actresses.
And this one is a bad movie.
On the Carnegie Scale of 1-4:
1 = Requiring a comp ticket AND cab fare and 4 = An Instant Carnegie Classic
This is barely a 1.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Recent comments
- :) ...
- "Don't you think that coming out is one of the BIGGEST supports of our community?" Big-time yes. Others, who fight the fight ...
- Sometimes my labido is high, sometimes its low, all depending on what is going on in my life. But, I do know this. If I've ...
- the double post...
- and, I loved Grace's Haikus... so, pitiful as it is, my Haiku on the state of things at Our Chart... What the frick n' ...
14 Comments
natalie
im in love with natalie portman, and i love scarlet as a performer. so... it was the perfect 2 reasons to see these gorgeus women.
if anyone have contact with natalie, can u pass along the message? that i love her : )
i didn't see the movie, but
i didn't see the movie, but i did see the SNL sketch of the Other, Other Boleyn Girl. Kristin Wiig played Eunice Boleyn beautifully. And by beautifully, I mean awkward and unibrow-y
SNL
I"m sorry I missed it!
The upside
The upside to this interpretation of the story (and isn't that what any visual take on history/herstory is an interpretation?) seems to be in all historical contexts somewhat accurate (as coming from an Oxford trained English and History major of the 15th and 16th centuries). In this film the characters seemed to have no idea what their place was in the greater scheme of history, THIS is accurate. They would not have sat about mulling who held a great part in history or had any idea that their comings and goings would be quite as important as they were in fact. In The Tudors the emphasis on their own knowledge of self importance is at times overdone and somewhat trite. Further, the argument in the above blog seems to show that it is wrong that Anne's character played by the youthful Natalie Portman would be anything but prepubescent. In fact, Anne was at a prepubescent age and the image of the person embodied by Natalie Portman a woman who in real life resembles a teenage girl is on point. As for Johansson's character she seems to be overfed for such a young girl or well above her sister's age. It must be kept in mind that the true waist size of a lady in waiting at that time was somewhere around 14-16 inches. Fainting and a general lack of oxygen and stunted bodies was a sign of great importance! (please note humor and ridiculousness of this) Further, in the movie I seemed to like the way the king was made to be a puppet which was very much how he was in real life, at least according to the stuffy historians...
Though this movie was not the best I have ever seen it shouldn't be knocked against a lackluster showtime series that fails to keep the audiences attention. For one thing the Tudors draws out intricate details of a historical aspect that someone can easily get the answer to by picking up a book or going to Wikipedia. It is the same triviality of spreading the Titanic over a series...it sinks!...she gets beheaded! Overall it is of the same absurd and time sink.
History is what it is.
The King
So you noticed the extreme depiction of the King in each. I've promised myself to find the truest depiction. Wimp or Brut.
I loved the book, the only
I loved the book, the only good thing about this movie was the end.
here. here.
here. here.
awful movie
Being a huge fan of Philippa Gregory's books I can't see how she allowed this film to be made the way it was. It was a very lame love story. For real drama, seduction, love, betrayal, I totally recommend that you read the book. It is an amazing read, you won't want to put it down. All of Gregory's books are amazing; which I think made the movie an even bigger disappointment. Don't waste your money on the movie spend your 8 dollars on the book. And in comparison to The Tudors on Showtime.....Natalie Dormer is a far greater portrayal of Anne in my opinion. And she is also SMOKIN' hot. Hopefully the second season of The Tudors gets better because the season premiere is ZZZZzzzzZZZ's.
The book is 10 x's better, a
The book is 10 x's better, a lot better information and portrays Anne Boleyn a lot better. Although the movie just seemed like one teen soap opera. Natalie Portman's acting never seems to amaze me. Even though Anne Boleyn was more of a tyrant than Portman portrayed.
I agree
I must say... It was a great disappointment. Especially considering the actresses involved. After watching Showtime’s “ The Tudors”, I was expecting a great deal more, not only from all the actors, but from the entire production as well. The Portman / Johannson duet was below all expectations, particularly after “ Closer” and “Match Point”, and Henry was nothing but a pale version of King Henry's strength…
Elle
I'd forgotten about Closer.
I'd forgotten about Closer. Good show. And Johansson was a reason to WATCH Match Point.
i went to see just scarlett
i went to see just scarlett and natalie, the movie in itself is one of those that you can forget excatly the minute in which the closing credits are running.
but it's unfair to compare it to The Tudors.
it's not a good movie, but not THAT DISGUSTING either... i've seen worse stuff.... much worse... :)
lol
h&j
Thanks for the heads up
I thoroughly enjoyed the novel, and the 1 or 2 episodes of the Tudors I've been able to catch at friends' houses. Probably would have been interested in seeing the film. Your review was even more harsh than the one I heard on NPR, and pretty much sealed the deal. Thanks for saving me from the waste of time and money it seems to be.
Tis an honorable duty I am
Tis an honorable duty I am sworn to uphold.