7/10
Reasonably good history but too much material for one movie as well as an odd view of the life of this complex king.
21 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
You should probably know that I was a world history teacher, so I tend to look at historical films differently from the average person. I love a good historical film but I am also very unforgiving of a sloppy film or one that gets its facts wrong. Keep this in mind when you read this review.

Compared to the average 1930s historical film, this one is pretty good and pretty accurate. Aside from a few mistakes here and there (such as showing Anne Boleyn being publicly executed), the spirit of the film is pretty accurate to Henry in his later years. However, it shows an odd view of his life--completely bypassing his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (it said she was a good woman so her life was omitted--but she also was married to Henry the longest--and this would take up at least two movies to discuss well) as well as only giving the briefest glimpse of Boleyn just as she was being executed--but nothing more. So it skips a lot--and only shows a small glimpse of Henry's life (about a six year period). BUT, and this is important, there is STILL way too much material for this film. You see, during this time, Henry had five different marriages--and each is treated almost like a Cliff Notes version of the marriage.

So, despite its limitations, is it entertaining? Well, perhaps. If you like historical period pieces and don't mind the sketchy nature of the film, it's fine viewing. The acting is very good--and Charles Laughton was in fine form. And the film looks beautiful. As for the script, it's pretty good--with some nice sparkling dialog.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed