Freedom060286 The screen writing for The Other Boleyn Girl was disappointing. It was historically inaccurate and quite different from the book by Philippa Gregory. However, there are some exemplary performances from Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana (although he looks nothing like red-haired Henry VIII), Jim Sturgess, Mark Rylance, Eddie Redmayne, Ana Torrent and Kristin Scott Thomas. An exception is Natalie Portman, who has excelled in other roles, but she was not really the right person to play Anne Boleyn.The cinematography is superb and the costumes are splendid.It would have been better if they'd left out the incest scene. Most historians agree that the accusation of incest against Anne Boleyn was false, it was nothing more than a convenient way for Henry VIII to get rid of her.

Rameshwar IN Reviewed June 2010Though it features fantastic production values and decent acting, it falls quite short of an epic classic it could have been. It is based on real events during the initial phase of Henry VIII's infamous six wives saga. This is a story of ambition, power, ego, jealousy and lust and the makers should have gone all out with an R rated content to induce the grit, drama and madness of the period; Instead it wimps out as an uninvolving paperback thriller. Main problem here is that it does not linger on any important moment as it jumps all over the place in a hurry that leaves us no character to care for. Having said that, it should be appreciated for it's lavish sets and costumes, beautiful locales and all this richness captured in the best camera available today. Natalie Portman delivered a fantastic performance as the wily ambitious Anne Boleyn, a commoner who changed the face of England by making the already married King Henry part with the Roman Church to make way for her. Eric Bana looked apt as King Henry VIII and was especially good with his cold stares and authoritative one line repertoires. Finally it is still an entertaining movie but if you know a bit about the history of this story you cannot ignore the potential that was not utilized.

Filipe Neto This film is based on the love affairs between the English King Henry VIII and his two courtesans, Mary and Anne Boleyn, the second of which would become queen, though for a short period. Directed by Justin Chadwick, was written by Peter Morgan and has the participation of Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana.This film has its origin not on historical facts but on a historical novel by Philippa Gregory, slightly inspired by historical facts. So, this movie does not portray what really happened. An historical novel is not a history book and, unfortunately for the movie, this novel is bad, openly subverts the facts and omits some historical personalities that were crucial for this events. Basically, she almost rewrote history and Justin Chadwick obediently swallowed all the straw the book had without bothering to examine their veracity.In fact, while this film portrays Mary Boleyn as a very serious girl, the truth is that she had a very bad reputation and maybe have had lots of lovers, in the French and English courts. As the Boleyn family machinations seem to be true, probably didn't have involved Anne because she fell in love with Henry Percy, heir to the duchy of Northumberland. Who probably also fell in love was the king, but we know that Anne rejected his advances. Thinking about it, we can almost hear Anne saying "no, no way. Only after the wedding, I am a family girl".Returning to the film, and knowing now that the script is bad because it had a poor start (everything that is born crooked, later or never straightens), we can say that Eric Bana disappointed in the role of the English king: besides he not seem very inspired or comfortable with his character, Bana starred in a stupid violation scene. Henry VIII was a famous gentleman, a seducer, he didn't need to humiliate himself violating a girl, no matter what. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson look good in the roles of the Boleyn girls and, judging by the portraits, they must be very similar to what the real girls were.The most interesting thins in this film are the sets, the costumes and the visual effects. The scenarios are many, usually English cathedrals and palaces from that time. The costumes have been carefully designed to portray the historical period faithfully, radically contrasting with the script.

Rebecca Robinson I have read the book version of this movie at least 8 times, as I really enjoy reading about the Tudor period. I have waited a long time to watch this film and finally managed to, lets just say I am very disappointed. The film has cut out many of the main storyline's found in the book. 1. Mary's relationship with Catherine of Aragon.2. Mary had a daughter first, not a son straight away as implied.3. The illness that drained Anne and killed Mary's husband William.4. The summers Mary spent at Hever with her children...and so on.These storyline's seemed important to me as they built up the character of Mary, we did not get this in the film. Her relationship with William Stafford also appeared out of no- where, they didn't kill off William Carey and I felt this caused some confusion in the film.I was very disappointed in the film portrayal of the book, I will read the book again but the chances of watching this film again are very slim.