Henry VIII (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Acceptable retelling about the famous king and his wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn , Jane Seymour , Anna De Cleves , Catherine Howard and Catherina Parr.

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 23 June 2018]

Passable but not great rendition based on the life and loves of the famous and lecherous king Henry VIII . A tour de force for Ray Winstone as the robust 16th century ruthless king who loved and killed wives . In 1526 Henry tosses aside his current wife the Spanish Catherine of Aragon played by the Spanish Assumpta Serna. Firstly , Catherine married Arthur , Henry VIII older brother, but Arthur died 6 months later , and Catherine then married Henry . As Henry falls for the young and devastatingly beautiful Anne Boleyn , Helena Bonham Carter . But after the birth of princess Elizabeth , Henry tires of Anne and wishes to marry another, Jane Seymour : Emily Fox . So he decides to rid himself of her presence .Anne was judged and accused of adultery with his brother and four commoners .11 days later Henry married Jane who died 12 days after giving birth to a son , later Edward VI. For political reasons , Henry next selection was Anne of Cleves whom he married by proxy in 154o. She was not to his taste , however , and the marriage was annulled by Parliament 6 months later . Catherine Howard had the misfortune to be Henry' s fifth wife but she was charged with having committed adultery before the marriage. Catherine Parr married and tended the ailing lecher in his last years .Soon after Henry death in 1547 , she married a former lover and died in childbirth.

This is a lavish historical spectacle lustily portraying the life and lovers of notorious British Monarch , and shot in Soap style . Ray Winstone's acting as the amoral and womanizer king garned him awesome reviews .Including outstanding performances by the entire cast , such as Emily Blunt as Catherine Howard , Clare Holman as wife Catherine Parr , David Suchet as Cardinal Wolsey, Danny Webb as Thomas Cromwell , Michael Moloney as Thomas Cranmer , Charles Dance as Duke Buckingham and Sean Bean as the rebel Robert Aske. The series was well directed by Pete Travis . He is a good craftsman who has made a lot of films and TV series as Fearless , Falcon, The Jury , Cold Feet , Omagh , Vantage point and Dredd.

Henry VIII life has been adapted several times, as TV as Cinema , for example : The private life of Henry VIII by Alexander Korda with Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon , Elsa Lanchaster , Robert Donat ; Anne of the thousand days by Charles Jarrot with Richard Burton, Genevieve Bujold , Vanedsa Redgrave ; The other Boleyn girl with Natalie Portman , Scarlett Johansson , Eric Bana , Jim Sturgess . And series as the starred by Keith Mitchell, Charlotte Rampling , directed by Warris Hussein and the successful starred by Jonathan Rhys Meyers produced by Michael Hirst .

OK if you're an American ;)

[nastassia71 · 7/10 · 12 May 2005]

As an avid researcher of the Tudor age, I was looking forward to this series. I shouldn't have. Instead, I should have treated this as a drinking game - if I spotted an inaccuracy, I'd have a slug of beer. Or vodka, as I learned as the series run along.

No need to list all the inaccuracies, just a few. Catherine of Aragon was in her later years very stocky, about 5ft tall, not so Assumpta Serna. Henry was well over 6ft tall, but when compared to his wives, the actor (although excellent) seems rather of an average height. Mary, Catherine's daughter, was not allowed to stay with her mother during Catherine's last years.

Only Henry's marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves were public - that is to say, there would not have been early morning services with the bridal couples emerging from a chapel to a sprinkling of flower petals as was depicted in the cases of Katherine Howard and Jane Seymour.

Henry was not riding trough woods to Jane Seymour when the cannons of the Tower were blasting after Anne Boleyn's execution, he was having lunch with Jane at nearby Strand.

Thomas, Duke of Norfolk was not a hunky bald-headed doorman dressed in black leather, nor was Aske - there are plenty of portraits of them to prove otherwise (not that I object to seeing the yummy Sean Bean in dark leather ;)).

Ho hum, whatever have I left unmentioned... never mind, this is a splendid series with gorgeous costumes, fine actors and really, a very classy depiction of the era. If only the details...

Oh, and did I mention the fact that Henry most certainly would not have been aggressive towards his beloved Jane during her pregnancy.. but the sequence in the series seems to require some explanation to the delivery of Eddy and the death of Jane.

Pls refer to the excellent biographies by Fraser, Weir et al :)

Quite good actually

[ewa-12 · 6/10 · 3 June 2004]

Surprisingly, it is good. I understand why some may be baffled as to the choice of the actor in the lead but Ray Winstone is not bad at all. And mind you - I am not a big fan of his. Especially as older Henry he gets better and better. His accent is a bit of an issue sometimes - cockney does not wash with Tudor times but then again, he definitely looks the part and plays Henry well. Pity that the script is written in a very modern, sometimes too casual, way. When fragments of Anne Boleyn and King's letters are read out, the original language of the time works really well. The portrayal of Henry as a tyrannical, tough and selfish man is fairly accurate. Let's not forget that Henry was a cruel and conceited King (despite being an intellectual, which believe me is not a redeeming feature) and left the country ruined. He did reform Church but only to a certain extent, which suited him. Despite this reform he was persecuting protestants. His last wife, Catherine Parr (who was a closet Protestant), was in trouble for being too outspoken about religion and King had her investigated behind her back. She escaped serious danger only by the King casually changing his mind. He created a whole new class of poor people and beggars by dissolving monasteries (only because of the money he wanted off them). Casting thousands of nuns and monks out in the streets, leaving poor people without medical care that was provided by monasteries was a cruel and stupid move. Henry was not a good ruler and this film shows him in the more realistic light. David Suchet gives a fantastic performance as Cardinal Wolsley. So does Sean Bean as a Catholic Northern rebel leading the Pilgrimage of Grace against the King.

I quite liked the newcomer Emily Blunt as Katherine Howard. She really conveys that teenage recklessness, that cost her life in the end. Good film and worth seeing.

Not one for historians but fairly good entertainment for Soap fans.

[nickjg · 19 October 2003]

Like the film 'Elizabeth' the factual content of this film was very slim. Unlike Elizabeth it had no compensating qualities. It gave virtually no insight to the character of Henry or any of his wives, from the opening scenes where the Duke of Buckingham apparently survived his execution in 1513 to appear as a crusader for Catherine of Aragon 15 years later, to the death bed scene where Henry's family (who were actually celebrating New Year miles away) are clustered round his bed to hear his dying words. Jane gets knocked about and Henry hides round the corner during Anne Boleyn's trial-Complete nonsense! historically, once Henry had decided to lose a wife, he avoided all contact and blamed everyone else for their treatment. What is odd is that the directors chose to invent completely spurious scenes to illustrate Henry's crimes when there were plenty of real incidents which would have provided more than enough spectacle. I appreciate that Henry's court of more than 1000 people, glittering with excessive layers of sumptuous cloth and huge jewels could not be managed on a TV budget- but this Henry spent half his time in empty buildings talking to his echo, something impossible in the Tudor Court where even the King going to the toilet was surrounded by hereditary attendants. So, setting aside accuracy, we are left with the casting of Ray Winstone. Not impossible that Henry might have cracked coarse jokes, had a cockney accent and been free with his hands. Before he became a human boulder, he was also athletic, obsessed with doing all of those sports his father, fearful for the life of the only surviving son, had forbidden. But what happened to the literate defender of the faith? The king who owned dozens of pairs of reading glasses, who played a range of musical instruments and sang every day, who enjoyed disguising and dancing, who spent hours in disputes with intellectuals about faith? This film's Henry was like a soap opera character- a renaissance Dirty Den. Two dimensional and unbelievable. It was the choice to rely on spectacle rather than knowledge, assuming the audience to be dummies, incapable of following a plot, that sank this film. Another film which would not manage a release in cinema and will, I guess, be forgotten!

Fine Tudor TV with an awesome cast

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 15 January 2012]

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.

Henry The 8th and His Wives...Could Have Been A Longer Series Though

[FloatingOpera7 · 10/10 · 3 February 2005]

I think this was a great made for TV series, but it was divided into only 2 parts when I felt it could have been a lot longer. It first aired on BBC television in England and then made its way to PBS KCET on Channel 28 here in America. Ray Winstone heads a cast of primarily noted British actors portraying in very modern mood the life and times of Henry the 8th and Tudor England. There is nothing really wrong with the series but I felt that such a panoramic story could have been a lot longer and broken up into several episodes. I felt it was very rushed, especially at the end. His marriages to the 6 women was all done very fast and the film didn't explore his relationship with them or their characters too deeply. The focus seemed to be on Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boylen. One thing viewers have found frustrating is the anachronistic use of language. There are moments when the dialogue gets very modern and loses the formality and Shakespearean style. Also, Ray Winstone speaks in a common vernacular called Cockney, when as a King, he was able to speak lofty English and even Latin. But such inaccuracies are dismissed as we are swept by the intensity of the dramatic material and the way the actors bring it to life.

Anne Boylen was played by Helena Bonham Carter. Her scenes with Ray Winstone are quite dynamic. The actress in the role of Queen Katherine of Aragon is quite powerful, even more so than the bland Helena Bonham, who portrays Anne as a fickle lady who at first didn't want anything to do with Henry but later revels in her position as Queen. Though her innocent looks did effectively portray the wronged queen (I never believed that Anne Boylen did any of the "sins" she was accused falsely of). Above all, this is a vehicle for Ray Winstone as Henry the 8th. His portrayal is laser-sharp and towards the end he does start to look EXACTLY like the overweight, arrogant and cruel king. I wish the series had been longer, like the previously filmed "Forsyte Saga" on Masterpiece Theatre. Also, I wish somehow they had used more popular and famous British actors such as Judi Dench, who has already portrayed royal figures- Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. But the series is gorgeous to look at. Though the ending was very rushed, I like the final words of the narrator that elevates Queen Elizabeth as the only true great result of Henry's troublesome life. Elizabeth was born of Anne Boylen and Henry the 8th. Warning: the film contains adult material including violence and graphic sex. Its suitable for mature audiences only.

Loosely-adapted story, but well told

[wgkyle · 6/10 · 30 January 2005]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the producers of this work have taken extreme liberties in the telling of the story, and employed a few outright falsehoods. Nevertheless, if one is able to leave behind expectations for a true-to-the-books account, it is a fun show to watch.

Bad Things: Some of the costumes were not great, but there were also some that were spot-on for the period; the armour was atrocious, and the jousting pretty hokey (coming from someone who's done it before). And I certainly don't think Henry was as pliable and weak-willed as he is made out to be. The dissolution of the monasteries wasn't nearly so bloody and violent (another reviewer correctly described it as looking like a scene out of a viking rape-and-pillage film).

Good Things: I think the acting was superb, especially from the supporting cast: Cranmer, Cromwell, Wolsey, Gardiner, Robert Aske. And speaking of Aske, for all the inaccuracies in the movie it is the only one that has given the Pilgrimage of Grace the incredibly significant role it actually played during Henry's reign; the details of the Pilgrimage are far too complicated to go into here, but even though much of the details were abbreviated or changed, the very fact that the producers gave a nod to this important event went a long way with me. Suffice to say that Henry's rule could have been swamped and swept away by the Pilgrimage, something Henry and his contemporaries were well aware of and was a consideration which guided their domestic policies for many years afterwards. The movie was limited by the length it could be to go into details concerning the 36-year reign of the monarch, and understandably had to 'pick its battles'. As such, it did leave a lot out about the religious crisis and split with Rome, as well as the effects of religious turmoil on the political situation at home and abroad. If they'd had another 4 hours, they could have covered more things to a greater extent, but most folks have trouble sitting through a ninety-minute movie.

Overall, a worth watching but don't expect a history lesson. Besides, we need to worry about anyone who DOES expect a history lesson from a movie...

A Male Dominated Society

[sexy_pisces_gal · 10/10 · 1 July 2005]

Ray Winstone leads an all-star cast in this tale of male dominance and religious importance. Henry VIII has been on the throne for fifteen years. He and his devoted Spanish wife, Catherine of Aragon, (Assumpta Serna) rule a rich and powerful England. But behind the happy smiling faces lie a couple deemed by tragedy. Henry is becoming impatient with his wife of fifteen years; her inability to produce a male heir has him worried. So when he meets the flighty young Anne Boleyn, (played to perfection by Helena Bonham Carter) his determination for a male heir becomes an obsession, convinced Anne will give him the heir he craves, he risks the wrath of his people and his catholic faith, to divorce his catholic Queen, and marry his protestant lover, which once again results with only a daughter. This failure was to cost the young Queen Anne her life, as she was executed on a trumped up charge of treason.

Just as it seems life cant get any better for Henry with the birth of a third child, a healthy son (later Edward VII) with third wife Jane Seymour, (Emilia Fox) tragedy strikes, which was to ultimately lead to the downfall and eventual death of the tyrannical monarch. With an exceptional supporting cast including Mark Strong, Sean Bean, David Suchet, Charles Dance, and the up and coming Emily Blunt as Henrys fifth Queen, Catherine Howard. This tale brings history to life with Henrys determination for a male heir, and the belief that only a male monarch could rule England, without bringing the country to destruction.

Entertainment over history

[=G= · 7/10 · 24 January 2005]

"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)

An interesting and new view of history with many great actors and a heartwarming script.

[Ecahodgkins · 10/10 · 6 November 2003]

I have always enjoyed this part of history, and to see it acted out in front of me by many talented actors including Ray Winstone, Sean Bean, Helena Bownam Carter and Emilia Fox was 4 hours of unreputed joy. This film gave us a view of the parts of history the text books didn't and gave us a sight of the 'real Henry' and, even more so the other people who contributed to his fascinating life. Everybody, down to the extras in the background carried their roles wonderfully. The music and scenery perfectly complemented the peice. A pleasure to watch.

Henry VIII

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 3 September 2023]

Now, the old adage of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story has to be applied to this rather well made, but otherwise pretty shallow dramatisation of the life of England's infamous King Henry VIII. Ray Winstone is efficient in the title role, but his style of acting reverts to bluster all to often - fine in a crime thriller, or as the cheeky East Londoner, but somehow just not great here. The associated characterisations are really all pretty flat, too - Joss Ackland has a decent stab at the role of his ruthless father Henry VII, but Charles Dance's Duke of Buckingham, David Suchet's Cardinal Wolsey and the headline-grabbing Anne Boleyn (Helena Bonham Cater) just don't work well enough at all to recreate the sense of peril, lust - for power and sex - and danger at this colourful, but lethal Tudor court. Nor do we really get from the pen of Peter Morgan, any sense of depth to their complex and volatile personas - no sense at all of what made them tick. It looks great, the settings at some of Engand's finest stately homes add richness to the quality of the production, but the narrative dwells way too long on the superficialities of the second wife, with little focus on the remainder of his lifetime, an of his subsequent four marriages. It certainly isn't an history lesson - loads of licence taken, much of which is forgivable given this is a drama, but it could have been so much more...

Absolutely Great!

[Coco_Libanaise · 10/10 · 12 October 2003]

I have just finished from watching it and thought it was very close to the real story ( as far as we know it to be anyway ). Helena Bonham Carter was great - very inspirational - but it took me a while to warm to Ray Winstone as Henry - but I suppose that tells me a great deal about what the real Henry was truly like.

Long live English mini series like this!

A guilty pleasure...

[LW-08854 · 6/10 · 24 December 2023]

This had quite a lot of promise, a big star cast featuring Ray Winston, Sean Bean, Charles Dance, Emily Blunt, Emilia Fox, Mark Strong, Helena Bonham Carter. We are also given what appears to be a big budget, lavish production design, some special effects, hosts of extras and costumes. On the face of it this should be great. The production values are very high throughout, you can't really argue with that.

This also came out around the time of The Lord of the Rings, Troy and a new King Arthur adaptation so you expect good things. One of the first things you notice is they've decided to use modern English, this can work, after all 14th century English may just appear clunky, strange and hard to relate to, though it can be done well. The modern language instantly lets you know what kind of adaptation this will be, it's one for a modern audience with modern states, lots of focus on violence, bad language, sex and other juicy scenes. The Henry VIII we are given at the start is equally a man of base pleasures and appetites, any finer qualities he actually possessed are no where to be seen. As I said the production design is nice at times, lots of interior shots of candles, robes, thrones and the like, this is very much dumbed down history though, much of it is untrue in fact. The dialogue is not predictably well written, it's quite clunky, introductions to new characters are awkward and everything is spelt out for the audience so we don't have to make much effort to follow it, "I need an heir!" Bellows Henry VIII at one point. Sean Bean also gets a scene where he's outnumbered, surrounded and being hit with arrows, a direct rip off from his Lord of the Rings demise. Henry VIII is largely reduced to a base man who loves fighting, women and power, that's about it. The cinematography can be a bit distracting doing slow motion shots for dramatic effect, spinning the camera constantly when characters talk, I did like Henry VIII in love with Anne Boleyn, he displays a great almost boyish passion, distracted to the point of despair, it's quite well done and the fact they also write to each other works well. Anne Boleyn is quite a good character but she's almost forgotten by the end, so long is the story, she's portrayed as bold, strong minded and beautiful, she's not above a little manipulation of her own either, in one scene she sculks behind a pillar during her rival's trial. Her love scenes with Henry VIII though are very cheesy and overdone and the King's manner towards her quickly turns cold. What gets you through some of the worse moments again are some of the production values which are nearly always very good, the cast are all trying too.

Part 2 opens up with a darker tone, the country in turmoil, monks and nuns are put to the sword, we briefly get a bit more depth of a troubled man, disturbed by violence and division unleashed by his schemes. This doesn't last long though, he simply blames those around him for giving him bad advise and has them cast out of his court and into the dungeons. We get a lot of scenes in this of his minions plotting against each other as you'd expect. Each one wields power, wins his favour, then falls out of favour and is upended by some new sneaky chap who has exactly the same happen to him, and so on it goes. There is a slight tragic quality to the series, Henry VIII is his own worst enemy and will kill all those who stand in his way including those he loves and has befriended. The series moves him on an older man, now a glutton, still surrounded by scheming advisers. Now though he is more bad tempered, even paranoid. We get more violence, sex, adultery and the rest while the religious conflict of the period is barely touched on, it's all about his personal life and his wives, each of whom are developed then quickly killed off. It's all quite saucy and spied up, a bit like a historical drama aimed at the readers of The Sun newspaper. In fairness this was pretty good TV back in 2003 before we got the big budget streaming series we get now. It does feel very TV though at times, well done TV but still that. The cinematography also gives us lots of close shots, the series lacks the kind of impressive wide shots which gives a series a sense of scope, grander and scale it needs. All in all the production values are great, the cast deliver a good performance but the script and writing is just too dumped down and more interested in melodrama and. The women in the series have a far too cotemporary look, this isn't really going for anything other than juicy entertainment in the end, rather than aiming to be real history or anything like that. It does a least though try to avoid inserting into it current political problems of 2003 into it, there's no attempt to think of France as the invasion of Iraq, no character masquerading as Alastair Campbell. It also lacks any worry about trying to appease current whims and trends like ensuring Henry VIII is not the centre of the story or trying to make his wives into characters driven by 21st ideas of equality, nor is Robert Aske played by John Boyega or anything like that. Plus a young Emily Blunt takes her clothes off too which I won't complain about. On the question of violence in the show I'd argue while it is used primarily for entertainment in this, it should at least be in there as a reflection of the violent times the adaptation is really set in.

East enders meets something even worse...

[smorris200 · 3/10 · 20 October 2003]

Absolute Trash

Performances were not bad and I can forgive the "cockney" accent that the King had, but what is unforgiveble is the fact that the writers concentrated so much on the relationships with "six" wives that they gave almost no attention to the things that made the king great. As a result, Henry came off looking like a weak, confused, sex mad monarch who was guilty of more "back stabbing" than anyone since brutus.

For goodness sake, whilst Henry was on the throne, there was a huge war in France, as well as much more civil unrest in England. The catholic/protestant "debate" was only hinted at. The "token" inclusion of Sean Bean was welcome, all be it far too brief and the failure to show the absolute horrors of what atrocities were comitted in the kings name is an injustice to every english man and woman. These were defining times in our history but were passed off as cheap tricks purely to satisfy the kings lust for women.

very disatisfied. 4/10

unhistorical drama

[didi-5 · 16 November 2003]

Perhaps, like other dramas suggested by historical characters, this version of the story of 'Henry VIII' should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion since most of the events depicted have very little basis in what we know of the complex Tudor monarch.

Putting this reservation aside, there are plenty of opportunities to enjoy this four-hour drama for what it is, largely an entertainment playing on our prejudices and emotions throughout its depiction and treatment of the six wives. Part One wastes far too much time on the courtship between Henry and Anne Boleyn, and then manages to whizz through the circumstances of her downfall in a matter of minutes. This was a huge mistake in my opinion and makes that part of the story extremely confusing.

Part Two obviously spends time on Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard, but again with a large amount of artistic licence - was Jane really a political meddler and did her husband's violence towards her cause her to go into premature birth? was Catherine really a manipulated slut with no mind of her own? The second section of "Henry VIII" is more gory than Part One, in particular concerning the execution scenes, and I think this aspect probably worked.

In the cast, kudos has to go to Ray Winstone in the lead despite the distraction of his East End accent, particularly for his work in the later part of the story. Of the wives, Assumpta Serna is an excellent Katharine of Aragon, giving the role some dignity; Helena Bonham-Carter is ok as Anne Boleyn but irritates at times - she does better in the scenes where she appears vulnerable than when she is feisty, talking-back Anne; Emilia Fox is good as Jane Seymour; Pia Girard has nothing to do as Anne of Cleves (I don't think she even speaks); Emily Blunt is miscast as Catherine Howard; and Clare Holman is effective as Catherine Parr. Others making an impact include David Suchet as Wolsey, Michael Maloney as Cranmer, Danny Webb as Thomas Cromwell, Dominic Mafham as Anne Boleyn's brother; Joseph Morgan as Thomas Culpepper; and Sean Bean as Robert Ashe.

Perhaps a bit of a misfire but a fascinating one.

Good movie...

[gregorykudish · 7/10 · 3 February 2007]

Henry VIII is a good movie. It shows in details historical facts, and it's very good to see it when you're studying the history of Great Britain. However, I do not recommend this movie for young children. In Fact, it contains blood, and some nudity scenes who may be shocking for them. Although the lengths of the movie, it's very well structured. I could divide the movie in six parts. The first part would be Catherine of Aragon, the second Anne Boleyn, the third Jane Seymour, the fourth Anne of Cleves, the fifth Catherine Howard, and the sixth Catherine Parr. I think it's a very logical division for the number of wives Henry had...

Why not longer?

[helena_lehmann · 10/10 · 25 August 2004]

I liked this movie very much, although I had some problems with understanding the King (did he really talk with an accent?). Would have liked some subtitles, just to get all that was said.

I very much liked that all "foreigners" in the movie, where actually talking in their mother-tongue (doesn't happen a lot in movies), and it sounded very very real (like the lady in waiting of anne of cleve, she was German, as far as i heard).

I would have liked it very much, if the movie in whole, would have been a little longer, or with more historical informations as specials in DVD 2. I liked the interviews (DVD2) but the scene's from the set, really could have been more into "the making of".

Wonderful, underrated film with superb acting

[fidolofido · 10/10 · 10 January 2008]

Henry VIII is a fantastic film. Granted, there are several mistakes in it, such as minor historical inaccuracies, some shoddy editing, and leaving the viewer slightly unsatisfied in the second half.

However, the acting of Ray Winstone in the role of Henry VIII makes up for the mistakes. He delights the viewer in a Henry that loves, roars, kills, and cries, and his dimensions are limitless. Mr. Winstone plays a young, virile Henry equally as well as his dying, grotesque older Henry. His transition from young to old is gradual and delicate, and yet he shocks the viewer at the king's sudden decay.

Each wife, all well cast and all well acted, are real women unstilted by their time period. Helena Bonham Carter's Anne Boleyn and Assumpta Serna's Catherine of Aragon are particular stand-outs, with powerful, multi-dimensional performances. The other wives are not given much spotlight in the film, and in the second half of the mini-series the remaining four wives are cycled through quickly and without as much care as Anne Boleyn's section of the film.

At the film's end, we are still rooting for Mr. Winstone's Henry, even after the destruction he has caused in England and to his loved ones. The film's arc and journey give us a Henry VIII who learns from his mistakes, and acknowledges his faults.

Henry the VIII

[joligreeneyes · 9/10 · 28 October 2006]

I REALLY liked this movie, regardless of the inaccuracies that may or may not have been filmed. I think Ray Winstone is believable as a young,(and older) sexy Henry the VIII, whom ladies of the court could have fallen for. He had it going' on, and was a player before his time--much to Anne Bolelyn and Katherine Howard's ill fortune. One must remember, that a movie must cram years of documented history/happenings into a 2-4 hour production, therefore a lot gets deleted. I enjoyed this movie very much, and having watched it, it made my trip to England and the Tower of London all the more history-worthy, and special. Tower green has left a lasting impression of sorrow and history upon me.

Adores history and movies, Me

A strong production

[rose-249 · 8/10 · 20 January 2007]

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.

Anachronisms abound in this revisionist "historical drama"

[alisonc-1 · 4/10 · 2 July 2004]

Other reviewers have commented on historical inaccuracies in this mini-series; I'd like to comment on the screenplay and its apparent attempt to "modernize" this historical story. Aside from Winstone's Cockney accent (unlikely in a palace-reared king at a time when French was still used widely in the English court), would Henry VIII *really* have said "how come" instead of "why" and would Catherine Howard *really* have said to someone that "it's down to you that I'm here"? I must also note that I've read a lot about this period in English history, and don't actually remember any huge Catholic uprising led by a noble from York (wonderfully played by Sean Bean though the role was); surely such a significant episode would have made a bit of a splash in the many histories of Henry VIII that I've read?

I will say that once I realized how hopelessly anachronistic this version was (about 5 minutes into part 1, shown here in Canada over the last week or so), I just settled back to enjoy the spectacle; and, for the limited, soap-operaish trashy wallow that this mini-series turned out to be, it was quite enjoyable. Some very fine actors hopefully received reasonably hefty paychecks for this, and some of the scenery and effects were very nice to watch. But for anyone interested in real history, this is about on par with the feature film "Elizabeth" of a few years ago, which posited a modernized version of the first English queen of that name that was, historically speaking, simply laughable.

Watch it for the actors; don't watch it for any sense of authenticity.

Good, but not great

[Stupidityno1 · 20 October 2003]

Well this is just another telling of the story of England's most famous monarch, and to be very honest, it was OK, but it's been done better before.

It did have numerous strong points. Firstly, some of the wives came across particularly well. Helena Bonham Carter gave perhaps the best Anne Boleyn to date (it would be a battle with Dame Dorothy Tutin for the title), sticking to what is known about the real woman, whilst still giving a very moving performance. Katherine Parr, however brief her appearance may have been, was another winner in this production, as this is the first time her character has been accurately and well portrayed.

The acting was very good overall, but Ray Winstone stuck out a little as the King. The rest of the cast were in Tudor mode, poshing it up and giving it their all, whilst he stuck to his usual cockney gangster style. However, this aside, he did portray the King well and was the first Henry VIII to date to show any form of remorse or concern following the execution of Anne Boleyn.

However there were short falls. The single biggest problem was that it was all too glamourised - did we really need to see the executioner hold up Anne Boleyn's severed head? Did they really need to alter history and have the Queens beheaded before baying crowds, just for that dramatic effect?

There were also some questionable interpretations of history. The Duke of Norfolk's role in Catherine Howard's downfall has been altered completely here (again, all done for thrills). Some scenes were very badly juxta-posed - to any viewer unfamiliar with the history behind this story, the film would give them the impression Jane Seymour had died after been punched in the face and thrown on the floor by her violent husband.

Just as some wives came across well, the rest came across very badly. Katherine of Aragon, rather than the respected and virtuous woman history paints a picture of, is an incessant whinge here - there's nothing likeable at all in her. Anne of Cleves appears twice, but doesn't utter a word in either scene, so she doesn't come across at all. Jane Seymour was wooden - the portrayal of her arouses no feelings whatsoever.

To summarise, it's all very glitsy and modern. The story is mistold in many key places. The only thing that really makes this worth watching is the star performance from Helena Bonham Carter. If you really want to see this story well told, invest some time and patience in watching the complete 1970 TV series 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII'.

I Love Movie and I Love Emily Blunt

[fasoficialdeandrealagunes · 10/10 · 16 July 2021]

I love this movie and especially I love Queen Catherine Howard, Emily Blunt did she was the best performance, Catherine Howard is my favorite from this movie and in real life I hate King Henry VIII.

Ray Winstone brilliant in this yet again!

[jennie2524 · 9/10 · 24 December 2010]

Now, I know nothing about history and to be honest, I don't have much interest in it either but this film was brilliant. I first watched it when it was a two-part drama on TV and I went out to buy it straight after. This isn't usually my type of film at all (history of kings and queens) but it tells the tale of Henry Viii to a tee and I was hooked, it's one of my favourite films it's that good! I'm a bit of a fan of old Ray and enjoy a lot of his films but i've never seen him play a part like this before, he did it justice. You get to love his character and can't help but feel a little compassion for the strange bloke. My favourite part of this film (call me sadistic) was witnessing Anne Boleyn being beheaded, it really opens your eyes up to how much times have changed, I had a few tears at this point. It's truly a great film, it makes you laugh and sad at the same time. A great film for anyone who would like to learn about the life of Henry Viii but doesn't care much for sitting through a load of documentaries, taught my teen a lot about history for his homework and he loved it at the same time :o)It's a film I never for one second thought i'd like but it proved me wrong, it's great!

Still worth watching

[nicholls_les · 8/10 · 6 March 2009]

Although it is true that it was not 100% accurate, this was still well worth spending 4 hours watching, in face I felt it could have been longer. Ray Winstone played his part well and true he did his cockney gangster accent ( and at times his Richard Burton ) but his emotional range made him very believable. He did come across as ignorant and uneducated at times which is not what ( we are led to believe anyway ) was true of Henry. My main problem was that this could have been longer and some of the wives were hardly mentioned at all. Henena Bonham Carter was very convincing as Anne Boleyn Katherine Howard was at least portrayed as the teenager she was unlike many depictions in previous films. I guess it must be hard to get everything accurate in a 4 hour version of a very long life but it sure had it's dramatic moments. I think any film leaving you wishing there was more must be good.