 | | |
| The Other Boleyn Girl [2003] | ![The Other Boleyn Girl [2003]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kMUPmFCmL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Phillipa Lowthorpe
Actors: Yolanda Vasquez, Jared Harris, Natascha Mcelhone, Steven Mackintosh, Jodhi May
Studio: 2 Entertain Video
Category: DVD
List Price: £4.99
Buy New: £3.56
You Save: £1.43 (29%)
Buy New from £3.56
Avg. Customer Rating:  (17 reviews)
Sales Rank: 231
Format: Pal
Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
Media: DVD
Running Time: 90 minutes
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 5.4 x 0.6
EAN: 5051561026812
ASIN: B0012X6RG0
Release Date: October 6, 2008
Theatrical Release Date: 2003
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 12 more reviews...
 Stick to the book November 7, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
The novel of "The Other Boleyn Girl" is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I've re-read it many times and can see why it would make an excellent subject for dramatisation so why is it so difficult to get right? OK, so certain things may have to be altered to suit modern sensibilites. The fact that Mary was in her early teens when she started her affair with Henry wouldn't sit comfortably with your average cinema audience so I can understand that being altered.
I wanted to like this largely because I didn't like the Hollywood version. The chauvanist in me wanted to think that the BBC could do it better (it usually does after all.) Sadly, I was disapointed. The whole thing seemed colourless and lacking in the sense of drama and excitement that the book portrays so well. As for the shots to camera I half expected Davina McCall to say, "Mary Boleyn , you have been evicted. You have 3 minutes to leave the Big Brother House". Just didn't work for me. Neither did some of the casting. Unlike some of the other reviewers I'm not a fan of Jodhi May. Anne Boleyn needs to be played by someone with charisma, someone that you can imagine Henry VIII causing a schism with the Catholic Church over. For me, Jodhi May looks like a rather gormless wet lettuce and certainly not worth risking your eternal soul over. Maybe it's just her (she spoiled "Tipping the Velvet" for me as well) Steven MacIntosh was also miscast as George Boleyn. George needs to be a sensualist, a rogue. Steven McIntosh was....colourless (that word again.)
So, no I wouldn't recommend this any more than I would the Hollywood version. I would love to see the BBC do a decent serialised version of this. Spend some money on it and get the casting right. In the meantime I'll just re-read the book.
 Was it really worth all those five stars? November 6, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
After I've read the book and fell in love with it, I had to see the Hollywood film and was of course disappointed. Then I found this film here at Amazon and read the reviews claiming it was much better than the US-version. Since I've lately been watching a lot of Jane Austen adaptations from BBC I was ready to believe that it was that good. But I was sorely disappointed. Not only were the actors not much better than Scarlett & Co, the staging was very abrupt, cutting from one scene to the next without any fluency in the story. If you had not read the book, I suppose you would have been lost. Many important persons were cut out from the script, such as Cardinal Wolsey and Lady Rochford (George Boleyn's wife). I suppose making a 90 min. film from this book is just not possible. But to add to the disappointment, the quality of the picture was extremely bad. I was wondering if it was one of those pirate copies from Asia, filmed at the theatre. So, even though the price was all right I still recommend not to buy it.
Picture quality a major problem November 4, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I am unable to comment on the film as the second copy we ordered is on its way back to Amazon. Just a note then to warn about the picture quality which is too grainy to watch with any enjoyment.
bit of a waste October 27, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
The success of "The other Boleyn girl," first as a book, and then as a film, is both remarkable and a testimony to our continuing fascination with the Tudor period. Even though I have a degree in history, I never minded the inaccuracies and exaggerations of the book since it worked well for what it was; an intimate and entertaining portrayle of a competitive relationship between sisters, with some sexy bits thrown in for luck. I thought it was too obviously sensationalist (the phrase "bodice-ripper" comes to mind) to be mistaken as a serious historical study, though the success of "The Da Vinci Code" shows you should never underestimate the gulibility of many people on this score. I haven't yet seen the American film, largely because I fear the subtleties of the book will be lost in the big-budget big-screen version. I was excited, however, at the prospect of the television version, since the BBC has such a great record with period dramas. But I have to say that on too many levels it just didn't work for me.
Stylistically, I felt the washed-out, fly-on-the-wall style of filming was completely at odds with the book. Presumably the intention was to rid the piece of the fluffy, schmaltzy connotaions of the period drama, and make the story seem fresh and new. But anyone who's read the book knows it's basically chic-lit with a thesaurus and better costumes. The juxtaposition of the excessively modern filming style with the period content was a bold move, but ultimately made the whole feel clumsy and fake. The tenderness and intimacy of the book, the main reasons for it's success, are drowned by the jittery, constantly-moving camera work. A more conservative style would have harmonised better with the content, which is obviously more "chamber-piece" than gritty realism.
I also felt that some poor choices were made when deciding what to include from the book and what to alter or excise. While I applaud the decision to get rid of the references to witchcraft, why then so blatantly condone the incest charge? Even Anne's contemporary enemies found this difficult to prove, and historians pretty much unanimously agree it was a desperate attempt to discredit and villanise her. I suppose how you feel about the responsibility of entertainment to be factually accurate will dictate how you respond to this, but for me it was just too much of a stretch to be credible. Even as entertainment it didn't really work; all the effort to establish Anne and her family as real, relatable and sypathetic caracters was spoiled by the sensationalist nature of this issue.
There are some redeeming factors, however. Some of the performances were wonderful; I'm thinking of John Woodvine as uncle Howard and Steven Mackintosh as George Boleyn in particular. Natasha McElhone also performs beautifully, though for me she is too elegant and poised in appearence for the giggly, naive caracter of Mary Boleyn. And while I feel the filming style failed to work in this example, it was still arresting and striking to watch. I would love to see a documentary approached in such a way, or at least something based more firmly in factual evidence, with a wider perspective than the intensely emotional book.
On the whole I felt this was a wasted opportunity. The story behind "The other Boleyn girl" has a lot of milage left in it, and the pace and arrangement of the book lends itself much better to television than film. But I can't help but feel the story and the way it was depicted in this version were fundamentally mismatched. Lacking the emotion and sensuality of the book, but also the satisfaction of actual accuracy, I can't quite grasp what the point of the piece was; ultimately, it feels irrelevant and, more importantly, unenjoyable.
Tedious October 27, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I found this production mean and claustrophobic. The cast is great and the acting is great but i could not take it seriously. I understand the Directors intentions ( i Claudius anyone?) but it really doesn't work. The grainy texture of the film is pointless and pretentious and is probably to create distance from the viewer in order to obscure the fact that Henry's court seems only to have 7 or 8 people in it. The court lacks the bustle and business of how the court would have been.
I didn't make it to the end of this, i found it tiresome, pretentious and, well, cheap.
|
|
|
Nintendo Games Consoles | | |
