Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

fidolofido Henry VIII is a fantastic film. Granted, there are several mistakes in it, such as minor historical inaccuracies, some shoddy editing, and leaving the viewer slightly unsatisfied in the second half.However, the acting of Ray Winstone in the role of Henry VIII makes up for the mistakes. He delights the viewer in a Henry that loves, roars, kills, and cries, and his dimensions are limitless. Mr. Winstone plays a young, virile Henry equally as well as his dying, grotesque older Henry. His transition from young to old is gradual and delicate, and yet he shocks the viewer at the king's sudden decay. Each wife, all well cast and all well acted, are real women unstilted by their time period. Helena Bonham Carter's Anne Boleyn and Assumpta Serna's Catherine of Aragon are particular stand-outs, with powerful, multi-dimensional performances. The other wives are not given much spotlight in the film, and in the second half of the mini-series the remaining four wives are cycled through quickly and without as much care as Anne Boleyn's section of the film. At the film's end, we are still rooting for Mr. Winstone's Henry, even after the destruction he has caused in England and to his loved ones. The film's arc and journey give us a Henry VIII who learns from his mistakes, and acknowledges his faults.

Gregory Kudish Henry VIII is a good movie. It shows in details historical facts, and it's very good to see it when you're studying the history of Great Britain. However, I do not recommend this movie for young children. In Fact, it contains blood, and some nudity scenes who may be shocking for them. Although the lengths of the movie, it's very well structured. I could divide the movie in six parts. The first part would be Catherine of Aragon, the second Anne Boleyn, the third Jane Seymour, the fourth Anne of Cleves, the fifth Catherine Howard, and the sixth Catherine Parr. I think it's a very logical division for the number of wives Henry had...

Benoît A. Racine (benoit-3) The facts are XVIth Century but the style is clearly XXIst Century. It can be argued that everything in this miniseries really happened (except for a few fictional subplots) but it is unarguable that the end result is extremely vulgar, from the Cockney accent and body language of the king to the soap-opera techniques of the editing style. In this universe, a birth cannot happen without the camera projecting between the legs of the mother and blood spurting everywhere, courtesans cannot be disgraced without a Nazi style arrest followed by the cries of the tortured. History is a series of excuses for showing body fluids and not mentioning any important or relevant social issues other than sex and violence. It is entertainment for the readers of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids (Mr. Murdoch also owns Granada Television). It follows in the euro-trash tradition of revisionist history as spectacular blood-sport of such recent period films as "Elizabeth", "Le Roi Danse", "Vatel", "La Reine Margot", "L'Affaire du Collier", etc., etc., etc. Ad nauseam... It also made possible a piece of egregious dung like "Gunpowder, Treason & Plot" (2004).

Marian Paroo I can accept inaccuracies and speculations when so many years of history are crammed into a two part mini-series type telling, but Katherine's hair shirt, Anne's stillborn son being born as a result of marital rape, Jane's going into early labor as a result of an argument,and the Catherine (the second one) exposing herself in the tub? Give me a break!The acting was excellent, the costumes and sets beautiful, but it was far too inaccurate and speculative to tolerate.The classic _Six Wives of Henry VII_ certainly wasn't accurate either, but it sure was fun!The 1971 BBC miniseries will always be the definitive one for me.