Armand not a good movie. not a bad film. only new occasion to discover a character, in new nuances and old colors. to remember a period, to search sense to a history page. to compare, create verdict, watch few scenes of fight and gestures of a fat English king. and rediscover Helena Bonham Carter as Anne Boleyn or David Suchet in skin of Wolsey. is it enough ? is it too much ? I do not know. important is fact that nothing is new. acting, atmosphere, cast - all pieces from a well - known cup. crumbs of theater and dramatization of a book, it is just occasion to discover Ray Winstone in Henry clothes. but after Richard Burton, Chris Larkin,Keith Mitchell,Jared Harris or young Rhys Meyers , his act is pretty good for a TV production. but not more.

Leofwine_draca This BBC two-parter tells the story of Henry VIII and casts Ray Winstone in the titular role. Winstone, a much-mocked actor, seems to have a legion of detractors but I found him perfect in this part, playing a surprisingly emotional and unstable monarch.Given Henry's status as England's most famous king, the story is very familiar but that doesn't stop HENRY VIII from being a highly entertaining interpretation of the story. Of course, the pacing is super-fast seeing as six wives and all manner of political turmoil is compressed into just three hours, but it still has time to get all the important stuff in there.The budget seems higher than the Hollywood version of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (maybe because money wasn't blown on needless 'star' names) with close attention to detail both in set and costume. The cast is simply excellent - not just in the supporting male characters (Mark Strong and Danny Webb are great bad guys, Charles Dance and Sean Bean are brief and tragic figures, David Suchet makes Wolsey his own) but particularly in the actresses playing Henry's wives.Of course, Helena Bonham Carter bags the headlining role of Anne Boleyn, and very good she is too. But Emilia Fox (as Jane Seymour) and an impossibly young Emily Blunt (as Catherine Howard) also deserve plaudits for their acting skills. Is this better than the Keith Michell version? No, but I'd say it was equally as good and a fittingly violent interpretation for our times.

Michael O'Keefe He was loathed, loved, feared, respected and definitely left his mark in history. This is a lavish production dramatizing the life and 38-year reign of no doubt the very influential King Henry VIII(Ray Winstone). This shrewed and ruthless ruler was obsessively determined to sire a male heir. His wife, Catherine of Argon(Assumpta Sema)failed after numerous tries. Henry would take a mistress, Anne Boleyn(Helena Bonham Carter), who cleverly demanded marriage before having a child. She failed to provide a male child, so Henry had her placed in the Tower of London before she was beheaded. The harsh ruler grew restless with age and would have many slaughtered in a religious gesture; growing impatient and untrusting he would use beheading as his favorite means of dealing with out-of-favor wives and allies accused of treason. Some disturbing images in this 200 plus minute dramatization. Photographed beautifully. Winestone is very impressive; but I personally believe Miss Bonam Carter steals the show. The very strong cast also features: David Suchet, Sean Bean, Emilia Fox, Charles Dance, Emily Blunt, Michael Maloney, Joseph Morgan and Lara Belmont.

rose-249 I was a little uninterested in the idea that this film was a "waste of time". I found Peter Morgan's script to be finely executed. I think that many educated women would appreciate the dynamism of Anne Boleyn's predicament - blamed for producing "wrong" children only minutes after the births. The scene in which she is tried and condemned is streamlined so that issues of court corruption are obvious. At the same time, we are presented with a pathetically cornered Henry whose great desire is to legitimize his dynasty through the birth of a male heir. The production relies on the previous knowledge of its audience, so that when a little and perplexed Elizabeth acknowledges her mother's departure, the audience is presented with the ironic portrayal of a girl who is necessarily going to grow up fast. This is a postmodern take on the role of some women caught up in male power-play. Having said that, the film is not anti-male. The representation of the historically chronicled Thomas Cranmer, for instance, is very subtle. When asked by Henry why Anne did not accept an alternative to execution, Cranmer points out that Anne found it "unnecessary" to confess to charges of adultery. Those of us who have already seen the Burton/Bujold "Anne of a Thousand Days" or the Keith Michell "Henry VIII" or the many other representations of an intriguing Tudor court, will see the political understatement as well as human exploration in this production.