domino1003 "Henry VIII" is a Cliff Notes version of the story of Henry VIII, King of England. They managed to squeeze a lot of history into a 4 hour miniseries that aired on "Masterpiece Theater," and casts Ray Winstone (Nil By Mouth, The Departed, Sexy Beast, etc)as the monarch. He is a passionate, violent, nasty person when you look on the surface: He dumps his wife Katherine of Aragon (Assumpta Serna)just so he could hook up with Anne Boleyn (Helena Bonham Carter) and have a son with her (He's INCREDIBLY obsessed with having a boy to rule England after he dies). Doing this caused a break with Rome, but this is only the beginning. As he marries over and over again, we watch Henry's moral decay and decadence, the destruction that he causes along the way (The dissolution of the monasteries, the burning of so-called heretics), and his advisers who use the king to claim more power and money (And often with fatal results). Things get incredibly bloody (Like Anne Boleyn's execution), and hearts are broken. This gives the first time viewer who are just getting into the story of Henry VIII, but don't expect to see accuracy in this adaptation. And although the casting is superb (Winstone and Carter spark up the screen beautifully), you get a bit disappointed when they skip over other people (Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr don't get much time compared to the other 4 wives). However, as I said, the performances are incredible. When Katherine of Aragon defies the king by refusing to give into his demands of divorce, it breaks you into goosebumps.You may do better watching "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" with the magnificent Keith Mitchell for a better look inside the Tudor court. Otherwise, as mind junk-food goes, this can satisfy the hunger.

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).

George Parker "Henry VIII" (2003) tells the story of England's King Henry VIII (1491-1547). Ray Winstone is the centerpiece of the film as Henry, a robust and brutal but secretly sensitive King obsessed with siring a male heir to throne. The TV miniseries spends its 4 hour run focused on Henry's involvements with his six wives while dabbling in other benchmarks of his reign and taking liberties where possible for dramatic purposes. Not the best possible historical accounting of the period, this colorful and energetic film does offers some very solid performances and good production value. "Henry VIII" is an enjoyable primer for the not too critical viewer who seeks entertainment value over historical accuracy. (B)

ejj1955 I second most of the comments already made about the historical inaccuracy of this program, but want to add yet another quibble: the scenes that purport to show the dissolution of the monasteries. What a bunch of hooey! I thought I was watching a scene from some movie of the Vikings raiding and pillaging the English coast. What actually happened was that inspectors were sent around and anything of value was methodically stripped and either taken for the royal treasury or sold; the monasteries were then pulled down, bells were melted, etc.; the monks and nuns were given pensions. It's true that servants were turned off without work, causing hardship; it's also true that those who were especially obdurate were tried and executed, but the slashing swords and burning monks fleeing from buildings were complete inventions of the filmmakers. I just don't see the point--fiction is the name for this (not even historical fiction--just fiction).