There was no movie review last week, because I decided I needed to finish The Chaos Crystal more than I needed to go to the movies.

So, this week it was off to dinner at Oscars and to see The Other Boleyn Girl with Secondborn, Evil Ella and The Princess. Lots of castles and horses and pretty costumes, but historically, I believe the correct technical term to describe this film is WACOS (What A Crock Of Shit).

Here's the review...

There are two ways to look at this film, one as a historical record of the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn, the other as an entertaining soap-opera set in pre-Elizabethan England, where it’s always fun to have a romantic romp because of the fabulous castles, the corsets and the fact that you can behead your enemies.

If you don’t intend to demand your money back at the end, take the latter option. That way you’ll go home happy.

So, if I’m reviewing the soap-opera set in pre-Elizabethan England, this is an excellently acted, entertaining film (with lots of pretty costumes) about two sisters who, mostly through the manipulation of their male relatives, end up changing the course of history.

Natalie Portman is wonderful as the ambitious Anne, prepared to go to almost any lengths to secure the hand of the King (Eric Bana) who apparently has nothing better to do all day than go hunting and pursue pretty girls. Scarlet Johnansson is Anne’s younger sister, Mary (she was actually the older sister, but we’re not mentioning historical inaccuracies in this bit), who gives Henry a bastard son, which he subsequently denies in order to secure Anne’s affection. Anne’s plans come unstuck when she fails to produce a son of her own and goes to extreme lengths to remedy the situation, which eventually see her beheaded for incest and treason.

But here’s the rub… this film purports to be historical. It’s not. It’s not even close, with possible exception of getting the names right. The 15-year period in history it covers (in a matter on months) was a watershed moment in the history of the western world, which this film reduces to little more than a melodramatic soapie. Bana’s Henry is a shallow, easily-manipulated womaniser with nothing more on his mind than getting a son. The break of England from the Church of Rome is apparently something Anne thought up one rainy afternoon while plotting to become queen. The politics of the time, the influence of Cardinal Wolseley (Cardinal who?) doesn’t exist in the film, nor the effect on England and the problems Henry’s break from Rome caused. All of this fascinating historical detail is cast aside in favour of much more interesting (not to mention unsubstantiated and ridiculous) scenes such as Henry raping Anne the first time he beds her, because he’s sick of waiting.

I wouldn’t mind movies like this if they gave the characters made up names and didn’t present this gumpf (albeit highly entertaining gumpf) as historical fact. So, if I were marking this movie as a history essay, I would give it an F. As a fun way to spend a couple of hours watching a costume drama, I’d give it an A. 

And while on the topic of history, what irked me more than anything, was the closing scene of the film, a mirror image of the opening scene of children playing in a field, where we a treated to a long and drawn out text teaser that reveals… ta da!… who’d have guessed… Anne’s only daughter grows up to be… Elizabeth I!

Do audiences who go to films about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (in which they have a daughter and name her Elizabeth) really need to have it pointed out to them that she grew up to become… Queen Elizabeth? Just asking.

Was this made for the American market? Therein lies the answer to your last question.

So when are they making your books into a movie?

Never, hopefully...

Although I've always thought a Japanese Anime version might be cool:)

I dont know..I think the Second Sons trilogy could be made into a fabulous political fantasy move trilogy... Also --One of my best friends is a complete Tudor period nut and shereads the books...she was quite upset by the movie too...it wasnt just inacurate to history but also to the historical fiction it was based on apperently...

My mom's a history nut, too, especially of English history, specifically during the time of Tudor England. So, I have had a lot of history lectures from my dear mom. She told me that it wasn't going to be historically accurate (which I suspected myself, but wasn't completely sure of the facts), therefore I didn't go to see it. I despise soap operas anyway.

Gah!... I think the problem I will have is that if they couldn't get the history right, then they probably didn't get the fashion right either....

and both of those facts will rub my medieval re-enactator alto ego up the worng way entirely and I won't enjoy the film...

*sigh*

Mary the younger sister! Bah did they think we wouldn't notice?