The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Blistering performances.

Starring actor from the recent film 'Hannah' who plays the king in the feature movie titled 'The Other Boleyn Girl'. Recent adventure brought the decades of English husbandry and kingship to it's 'bloody' historical proofs. The Other Boleyn Girl lived to history as about an English King. Even in the days of kings the English led better lives than fourth world countries; hunters with bows and arrows from tribes. The King did not throw javelins or rocks to a distance but behaves like he is the 'Macho Man' from the entire England.

Whilst I think this movie Missed a trick by not casting Keira Knightley as Natalie Portman's sister, this is still an excellent movie featuring brilliant performances from Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric BanaPlot In A Paragraph: Two beautiful sisters, Anne (Portman) and Mary (Johansson) Boleyn, driven by their family's blind ambition, compete for the love of the handsome and passionate King Henry VIII. (Bana)David Morrisey (Walking Dead) Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) and Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables) Kristin Scott Thomas (Four Weddings & A Funeral) are all good in their supporting roles, as is future Amazing Spiderman, Andrew Garfield. However this movie is all about the three leads, and Portman is the best of an excellent bunch, giving what I consider, to be one of the best performances of her career.She gives a brilliant performance as the tragic Anne Boleyn. Her Speech in her final scene is wonderful, and I'm surprised her performance here has not been as praised as much as her Oscar winning turn in "Black Swan"Sadly her career will forever be linked with the Star Wars prequels which seemed to hurt her career, rather than help it. I think she is wonderful, and any movie automatically becomes better when her name is in the cast.

If you forget these are historical figures and just take it as a movie about two sisters competing for a king, it's mildly entertaining, mostly a bodice-ripper with A-list actors and very elaborate costumes. Has pretty much NOTHING to do with the real people other than names, making only a glancing effort at historical accuracy, not just with actual events but with all the little details. I expected to see someone chewing gum. Has very little in common with the book, which at least made an effort at historical accuracy. What I don't understand is this: if you just want to make a movie about two sisters competing for a king, why pretend it's about Henry VIII and the Boleyns? Just call them King Rodney and the Watson sisters or whatever. I felt sorry for the actors. I bet they thought this might be a good movie.

Of course, it is politically correct to nail everything on men in this period of history. It's true some of them had been manipulative, but one cannot reproach Henry for wanting a male heir. One shouldn't forget that these times were dangerous ones, for everybody, men and women alike.No, when I saw the movie, I kept saying to myself : Ann is the perfect slut, using all female weapons, jealous of her sister etc... That such a snake should be beheaded was no Wonder.The question is : is all this historically true, or have the script writers spiced the portray of this lady ? If so, I think Ann deserved what happened to her, considering of course the criteria of this period of history.