arleenm1740-55-499373 I am still watching the show, but am disappointed in the women who play the Bolyn sisters. I can't believe King Henry would fall in love with women who are, well sorry, but a bit homely. It's a bit slow moving and as I have watched many a show on this subject, can't help but feel it could have been done much better. Do not mind the hand held camera, and low budget, I believe that is always a good idea!

wpc22 Some strong performances, but with some irritating features. The hand-held camera effects - a bit like 'This Life', I felt, with lots of cutting back and forth - and then asides to camera as though Anne and Mary Boleyn were nipping off to the 'Big Brother' Diary room.A more important flaw was the lack of development of the religious or political themes - these were seen as background to purely personal conflicts - and, other than early in the film when the Boleyn family are shown discussing how to maintain influence at court - not the driving force behind events.The 'break with Rome' - for example - is mentioned in passing by Anne in a 'Diary Room' episode as though it is about as significant as next week's BB evictions, rather than as a defining episode in European history.

jeff-slater I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.It could have been so much better.

sydneypatrick Contrary to what the other reviewer here states, this was not meant to be a sweeping vision of history. It was clearly meant as a chamber piece - a chick flick of dark proportions.While this production does not begin to embrace the scope of Anne's criminal nature, or the greater national ramifications that became of her union with Henry VIII, it doesn't aim to. What it does do, however, is paint a poignant portrait of what it was to be a woman in the 16th century, and how ruthless those days in court were.I'm a fan of the novel this is based on and am hugely thrilled by this adaptation. It is bold and striking and the lead performance by Jodhi May is one of the most compelling I have ever seen anywhere. It should certainly act as her calling card to producers everywhere that she is more than ready to make the transition from ingenue to adult role. By this performance, I'd say she made the leap long ago.Jared Harris turns in a dead on performance as the Tudor king who became a tyrant and not the least bit because of his union with Anne Boleyn. The rest in the cast paled in comparison to these two, but that does not mean they turned in poor performances. To the contrary, this was a top notch production I wish greater American audiences could see.The only glitch for me was toward the end when there is video footage of modern day England, tourists at the Tower of London. I don't get it. But I can forgive one small moment in light of the greater ambition and success of this project.Period drama should always be so delicious!