ellethekitty 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.

dbdumonteil Visually the movie is a splendor ;the two principals are excellent ,there's no need to add to the praise they have already received;the most difficult part is perhaps that of Ann;She begins as a romantic careless young girl ,who still thinks she can fall in love and marry the man she loves.Little by little,she becomes an ambitious unscrupulous woman;when she realises her fate is sealed ,she transfers her thirst for power to her daughter:the final words are highly prophetic and actually the two apparent losers of Charles Jarrot's two historical movies (Anne in 1970 ,Mary Stuart in 1972) were actually the posthumous winners : Elizabeth The First was one of the greatest sovereigns England had ever had and James Stuart reigned over England and Scottland after her death.

treeline1 King Henry VIII (Richard Burton), frustrated by his wife's inability to give him a male heir, casts his eye on young Anne Boleyn (Genevieve Bujold) and sets about courting her. She is in love with another man, but no matter to the King; he will have his way. Henry woos and finally wins her when he says she will be his Queen.This is a wonderful historical drama about unbridled lust, unlimited power, and a King's consuming need to have a son. Burton is the perfect Henry; with his magnificent voice and stately manner he's terrifying and foolish and truly lord of all he surveys. As Anne, Canadian actress Bujold, in her first Hollywood film, matches Burton's strength and passion. Both actors are eloquent and charismatic and it is a pleasure to watch history unfold and be changed because of this love affair.Elegant homes, castles, and the English countryside make for stunning locations and the Oscar-winning costumes are sumptuous. Heartily recommended.

Hancock_the_Superb King Henry VIII (Richard Burton) is the absolute ruler of England, handsome, athletic, lusty, loved by his people - but unable to produce a son by his wife, Katherine of Aragon (Irene Papas). Henry's wandering eye soon turns to Anne Boleyn (Genevieve Bujold), the daughter of a minor nobleman (Michael Hordern) whose older daughter, Mary (Valerie Gearon), already had a turn as the King's mistress. But Anne is determined not to follow her sister and be discarded, and when Henry's adviser Cardinal Wolsey (Anthony Quayle) breaks up her marriage to Henry Percy (Terence Wilson), Anne is infuriated. Eventually, Anne does fall for Henry - but forces him to marry her. Henry breaks with the Catholic Church and discards Katharine, but no sooner does he marry Ann than their relationship begins to sour. When Anne proves also unable to produce a son, Henry tires of her and enlists his chief minister, Thomas Cromwell (John Colicos) to do away with Anne by any means necessary."Anne of the Thousand Days" is a fine cinematic exploration of one of history's most infamous love affairs. Although featuring its share of flaws, it achieves what it sets out to do. It's an entertaining, intelligent and enjoyable period piece, lavishly mounted, handsomely photographed, and impeccably acted. It is never boring, which is quite an accomplishment in a 145 minute period film.The film gives a stirring portrait of a well-known and well-worn subject. Henry is presented as a capricious beast, given to fits of monstrous rage when roused; when he is unhappy, no one is happy. His attempts to woo Anne are both pathetic and monstrous; the idea of him breaking up Anne's engagement to have her as a plaything is simply disgusting. If we didn't know how the story ended, we might have sympathy for Henry, a spoiled brat unused to rejection and enchanted by a girl he can't have. The charm is quickly worn off by those who are sacrificed along the way - Wolsey, Thomas More (William Squire), Bishop Fisher (Joseph O'Connor), and of course the momentous break with the Catholic Church, a momentous expediency which ultimately serves only to give Henry unlimited authority. How many people must die for Henry's whims? And more than that, a whim he's going to grow tired of in a few years' time? This is the true measure of Henry's evil, his use of human lives as tools for his own personal gain, even when the gain is only temporary.As we all know, it's not going to end well, as Henry's affection for Anne runs rather shallow; she doesn't given him a male child, and he has no further use for her. Discarding his best advisers, he turns to Cromwell, a man lacking in scruples, to dispose of his wife; he moves on to his next conquest, Jane Seymour (Lesley Paterson), without a hint of regret. Richard Burton is well-cast as Henry; beyond the physical resemblance, he handles Bridget Boland and John Hale's muscular dialogue as if he were born speaking it.We are also given an uncommonly sympathetic Anne. Anne is portrayed as a headstrong girl who has the nerve to stand up to the King; an act which, in 16th Century England, was one of uncommon courage. Manipulated by her ambitious relatives into a relationship she doesn't want, denied the love of her fiancée by Henry, she vents her rage towards the King in public. Eventually, seduced by power and worn down by Henry's constant badgering, she does fall for him - but the honeymoon is over before it's even begun; the people openly despise her, the King's advisors distrust her, and worst of all, she can't produce Henry's son. Before long, she finds herself on trial for her life, a victim of her capricious and unsympathetic husband. Genevieve Bujold's performance is fiery and charismatic; I am not an Anne fan by any means, but even I was moved to sympathy during the later sections of the film, as she is targeted by her ungrateful husband for destruction. Bujold is a brilliant Anne: beautiful, passionate, and sympathetic, and she dominates the film every time she's on screen.The movie moves along at a brisk clip for the half, as Henry tries to woo Anne and affect his divorce. The film is filled with witty, intelligent banter between Henry and Anne. The dialogue is reasonably authentic, avoiding the cutesy self-awareness plaguing many other period films (cf. The Lion in Winter), the portrayal of the events accessible and entertaining. This is history for the masses, and as such, it's very well-done.However, after Anne and Henry's wedding, the movie seems to move along too quickly, skimming over many important events and points - most notably Anne's involvement in the reform of the Church, which is barely even mentioned. The film features a powerful climactic meeting between Anne and Henry in the Tower, where Anne tells Henry off in a brilliant speech, but the film is capped off with a clunk when the speech is repeated via narration at the very end (over a shot of young Princess Elizabeth toddling around the courtyard).The film is lavishly mounted, with gorgeous costumes, beautiful cinematography (by Arthur Ibbetson), and a handsome score by Georges Delerue. The movie makes an interesting companion piece to A Man for All Seasons, which it strongly resembles appearance-wise (besides sharing a common subject).The supporting cast is quite good, particularly Anthony Quayle as an unusually sympathetic Wolsey, John Colicos as the shifty fly-on-the-wall Cromwell, and William Squire as a dignified Thomas More. Some performances don't come off too well - Peter Jeffrey is an uncommonly bland Duke of Norfolk, and Irene Papas seems badly miscast as Katherine - but they're in the minority.While not a masterpiece, Anne of the Thousand Days is a very well-made and enjoyable film, a bit of crowd-pleasing historical entertainment.8/10