Reviews

As someone interested in history, I found this movie totally laughable. In fact, it was so bad I could barely laugh. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who require absolute authenticity in a movie just because it is based in history. After all, movies are dramas and dramas require dramatic license. But This script was so awkward, with the most unbelievable and contrived conversations and dialog. For instance, the women on detail doing work on the men's baths are not likely to be discussing penis size casually. The Japanese, who did commit atrocities, were not likely to have burned a woman alive for a small crime. Not because they were unaccustomed to cruelty, but because fuel was scarce. One dimensional characters, unsophisticated plot. In short, this movie had fake dialog, unbelievable premises, and was a waste of time. if you would like to see a good movie about POW life, Try Empire of the Sun. Even Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence had believable moments, despite its convoluted agendas. Everyone voted to give this movie an average of 6.8 stars must have been on the cast.

it is not an easy thing to do Charles Dickens without being tedious, in my opinion. The first few episodes of this are a little bit slow, but once it gets in full swing, it is a great production. The adaptation, the music, the pace, for the most part are excellent. The main exception being Gillian Anderson, who I expected to like, but couldn't. It seems to me that she thinks she is being understated in her stiff, aloof portrayal of lady Dedlock. She succeeds in looking beautiful and being mysterious, but I think it is over-acted. I have never seen someone try so hard to be stoic and restrained, with no appearance of the presence of the emotions that supposedly need to be held back so. It seems to me that stony unsmiling face with a slight pucker of the lips is a default she uses in lieu of any actual acting. I have nothing against her in general, but she has done something similar in both The Fall and x-files, and I think its beginning to be a gimmicky aloofness that doesn't always work. The other characters are superbly cast and well acted.

I would probably rate this between a 6 or a 7, at a 6.6 but since I this site has whole numbers only, I've gone with the 6. I love Tudor history and am interested in the different portrayals of Anne Boleyn. Was she ambitious, deductive, a victim? I enjoyed this portrayal as it seemed to have different nuances to it than many of the others. It is one of the few I have seen where Anne appears, at least for a while, genuinely young, and I mean that not in age so much as her emotional sophistication. They show her going through a progression before she gets to the state that we see her depicted as more often-ambitious and manipulating.

I also enjoyed the costumes and sets, which seemed more authentic than many of the modern productions, with actual castles and landscaping. There were some minor historic errors, such as Mary Tudor being at her mother's death bead, something which I believe Henry denied her in real life. but I am not bothered by such minor dramatic changes.

The main problem with the film was that it was very one dimensional and linear, with very basic writing. That made it seem a bit long, and not long in a good, "epic" kind of way. They didn't elaborate on the historical forces at work or the real emotional complexities of the characters. While I often prefer simple movies to those that are too convoluted, this film presented as just a re-telling of the occurrences. It didn't feel very compelling to me, and given the historical events, it really should have been.

Worth seeing if you enjoy history or costume drama, but not emotionally rich or compelling.

I make my reviews short and sweet, and I only bother because there are too many over-rated movies there. This movie is mediocre, though most of the acting was reasonable, given the unusual situations the characters find themselves in. Anne Hathaway, who I do not particularly like, was reasonably good as a therapist facing some unusual situations. Her love interest, whose name I haven't bothered to look up, was adept at playing a character who is creating those situations for Anne. Really, the only reason I continued with the movie was because I was trying to figure out what was going on with him. it created some curiosity, although, at too slow a pace for me.

It will appeal more those who are intrigued by a mystery (and not a very complicated one), and a reassuring sense of comfort. The major flaws with this movie are first, its pace. If you have a short attention span and need any serious suspense, this is likely to bore you. Secondly, it borrows from another film pretty heavily, making it unoriginal.

I write short and sweet reviews because I am tired of people giving high ratings to terrible movies. This movie won't have that problem. It should have been good. It had a good cast and a great historical event. BUT.... The first half of the movie was terrible, with scenes that did not flow well into one story and seemed disjointed. The end of the movie was somewhat better, tied together properly at least. The acting was mostly very flat. While I have seen both Clooney and Daemon give good performances, these performances had no nuances. It was as if they were hanging out in their every day lives. Neither played a character that seemed very different from the persona that they project as themselves. And While Cate Blanchett actually DID give her character nuances, she was so unpleasant that I didn't care to watch her. I love history, and I don't mind when a movie takes some liberties with it in order to tell present a good drama. However, I learned little about this event, and also was not entertained.