Britain's Bloody Crown (TV Series 2016– ) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
You win or you die: It nails the drama of Wars of the Roses
nanagodzilla-119 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Being a big fan of historical drama, Britain's Bloody Crown nails the drama, the actual game of thrones during those stormy decades. The story telling narrative with new perspectives and drama approach, the stunning cinematic montage, the strong actors and actresses deliver the powerful true stories. It is like watching four mini-movies. That's exactly my cup of tea! The four episodes make audience easily understand the tension, essence of the War of the Roses, why and how it happened that way. The first episode: "The Mad King", is the power struggle between the infamous Margaret of Anjou and the "usurper" Richard of York, grew to a point of no return; the second episode, "The Kingmaker must die": tells Edward IV and Earl of Warwick turned from great allies to bitter enemies. The third episode, "the Princes must die": What happened to Richard III and the Princes of the Tower, is the most controversial cold case of England history. The fourth episode, "A mother's love": brings out the one who really ended the War of the Roses. With more budget, it can be four real movies or TV series.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Blind Leading The Blind
momurr4330 October 2018
I have just watched Episode 3, "The Princes Must Die", and I feel so incensed that I must write this brief review. We see the two young 'Princes in the Tower', Edward and Richard. The older boy, Edward, who was only 12, looks about 16. Dan Jones's narration tells us that rumors were circulating that, among other things, the boys may have been 'drowned in a vat of wine'. ( That was the boys' uncle George, Duke of Clarence.) And we see Richard III at his coronation with short hair and a full beard. Richard had long hair and was clean-shaven. Has nobody involved with this production ever seen any of the surviving contemporary or near-contemporary portraits of Richard III? They've been all over the world ever since his remains were discovered in a car-park here in Leicester. (That was back in 2012. This series was made in 2015.) With enormous effort I resist the temptation to cry "Off with their heads!" But I wish that while the people responsible for this travesty still do have their heads they would open their eyes and use them.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rather incomplete
Sulla-220 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I feel obliged to make several comments about each episode.

Episode 1. No mention of Edmund 2nd son of Richard of York being killed on the same day as his father.

Episode 2. No mention as to what happened to Clarence ( Edward V1's brother) He would have had priority over Richard III if he had lived

Episode 3. No mention that a major suspect for the murder of the two princes was Buckingham. Richard had no need to have them killed. No mention of the fact that Richard married the Kingmaker's daughter.

Episode 4. The evidence is that Henry Tudor was totally surrounded during the battle of Bosworth and did not take place in any fighting.

Every episode mentions that the crown changed hands 7 times in 30 years. It was only 6 times.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
interesting doc w/ terrible costumes
davidmalaimo30 December 2019
Found this doc on youtube. wanted a doc that would give you a jist of the wars of the roses, so this definitely did that. however, the acting and costume designs and cinematography were all pretty terrible and the hosts annoying jacket and V-neck were very distracting. it's like they were trying to make this doc for a bunch of bro's for a little history lesson after the game and a few brewskies
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Seems more of personal opinion than fact, leaving vital clues out, seemingly for bias reasons. Very bias
mrsksnook21 November 2019
There is so much left out of this series. Although I didn't at first dislike it. Not until they continually left out key people who played major parts/factors in the decades of the wars of the roses. When watching the "princes must die" is where my enjoyment of the series really wavered. I didn't like the way Mr. Jones mocked Richard III, rolling his eyes like, "Seriously?!" and continually called him a tyrant and that his reasoning was always ridiculous or his claims and justifications are "paper thin." Truly it wasn't, for it is more clear to anyone that the Duke of Gloucester stayed loyal to his brother king Edward to the end. They also add that, "it's almost certain he (Richard)had them (the Princes) murdered." There isn't any proof of this. And whoever wrote for the show is adamant to get the old age image of Richard back to being the tyrannical horrid usurper that the Tudors painted him to be. Lastly, to say that the one that benefited the most from the princes murders was King Richard is quite false. For in fact it was indeed Buckingham who would. I didn't dislike the show, as I've said but there was so much left out from the beginning of it. Things that are important to some of the key players case.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed