Die Schwester der Königin

All and all, not a particularly enjoyable film.

This movie sacrifices all that was interesting about the novel in the first place just to squeeze in all the historical aspects. All of the page turning scenes in the book that would have been interesting to see translated to screen (Anne's bloodstained dress, the deformed child, the courtship between Mary and William) were cut.

Fortuanatly, I expected that. With such a long book, I had to expect most of my favourite scenes were going to get the axe.

What I didn't expect was for the narration to change from that of Mary (aka. "The Other Boelyn Girl" for which the book was named) to yet another story about Anne Boelyn. The film started off well, if rather slow, with the story being told from Mary, but it quickly changes gears as the audience is suddenly following Anne's courtship of Henry and Anne's trials, emotions and desperation. Mary is quickly delegated to little more then a secondary role, with many key moments happening while she isn't on screen.

The story of Anne was told well, she was portrayed brilliantly by Portman, and had several fun and emotional moments. But that's just the problem, I've seen that all before. There have been dozens of films, series, and books written from Anne's point of view. If I wanted to see a story about Anne, I would have watched Anne of the Thousand Days or maybe "The Tudors" HBO series. What made this story special was it told the story behind Anne and Henry (and it was mostly fictional which added to the drama).

Unfortunately the movie ignored this, and thus failed to create the same reaction I had towards the book.

Another problem is that of characterisation, I expected that the movie would make the two sisters friends as it creates more drama towards the end as opposed to them being not particularly close like in the book. Same with the enormous changes they made in the personalities of the parents (and honestly, almost every character)I expected it. Many of the characters in the movie were actually more two-dimensional then the callous characters from the book. It wasn't as though this movie was badly acted or written...it was just bad.

The person I was most disappointed about was George (one of my favourites in the book) who was given a woefully small role, although the actor who portrayed him did it brilliantly. Also, The character of William Stafford seemed to be added in as an afterthought which confused the audience who hadn't read the book (the two main questions I heard were "Is that the guy she married in the beginning" or "What happened to the guy she married in the beginning") and left those of us who had read the book wondering why he was portrayed as such a pansy?

And the editing, where to begin. Horrible, the particularly poignant scenes (few and far between as they were) were not given enough time to sink in before the audience was whisked off to another scene. Even having read the source material I was lost, so I can only imagine how it must have been from those new to the story.

The only bright side of this tedious film were the beautiful costumes, but even the bright colours and swirly dresses couldn't distract anyone with more then a 10 second attention span and despite them the movie soon became unbearably boring.

All in all, this movie probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. It was apparent there was too much story to tell in two hours, it had mini-series written all over it. But seeing as it had to be made for the film industry to cash in the the books success, it could have been done a lot better.

A quick glimpse at the Tudor family line on Wikipedia will yield hundreds of years of made-for-movie material, but none quite as compelling as the story of Anne Boleyn. Pair a classic story with airy language, beautiful sets and costumes, and some A-list names and you have Oscar magic in the making. Right? Well, not always. We've seen it before and we're not necessarily impressed with royalty anymore. The Other Boleyn Girl offers new perspectives and dramatic angles on the saga of wives that is Henry VIII's legacy, but nearly drowns in melodrama.

And it's not entirely the movie's fault. Boleyn Girl follows the story of both Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Scarlett Johansson) Boleyn and their relationship with the English court. King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) has trouble producing a male heir, so the Boleyn family offers their daughter Anne to bed. When Henry has a hunting accident due to Anne's carelessness, he is nursed and subsequently charmed by innocent Mary. But Mary is already married, so the King promotes her husband and sends the couple to court where he can meet with Mary whenever he pleases. Mary falls in love with Henry and becomes his mistress. Anne, the elder sister, is scorned by what she believes is her sister's ultimate betrayal, and plots revenge. The two continue on in these roles for some time, swapping places in bed with Henry and spurting out babies while their relatives egg them on. This isn't quite how things went down in reality, but the changes are minor and seem necessary to condense the timeline and create at least one sympathetic character.

The Other Boleyn Girl fares best when it's exploring the relationship between Anne and Mary. This isn't the first story of sister rivalry, but the dynamic between Anne and Mary is extraordinarily well-played. Their previous roles and their public images make Portman and Johansson perfect fits. We believe Portman to be intelligent and coy, and Johansson to be naive and desired. More - we believe these roles might be easily reversed. As sisters, their relationship is deeply disturbing: they love each other, they hate each other, they're unable to escape the expectations placed upon them by their family. As an older sister (with an admittedly not-as-screwed-up relationship), I found this portrayal very realistic - rich with emotion and complex meaning.

I wish I could say the rest of the movie was as artful. There's constant allusion and foreshadowing to the Boleyn demise through use of visual and editing metaphors. If some details were twisted, other details might have been cut out - too many tear-filled scenes means that this eventually feels like a soap opera. At one point in the movie, Anne is sent off to France and comes back wearing a very distracting "B" charm, which she sports until the end of the movie. When I finally finished inventing what else "B" might stand for (besides Boleyn, there are plenty of other fits), I wondered about Anne's character. She's now praised as being changed and thus back in play, but I don't see it - she was smart and ambitious before, and only gained a bit of wit during her trip to France - certainly not the drastic change everyone seemed to be making it out to be. There are some very poorly done scenes where supporting cast spell out the politics of the situation for you. This is a little condescending and probably unnecessary, if not repetitive. The costumes are beautiful, but the matching dresses become unbelievable and even plain in places. PETA must have a field day with this movie and its use of fur and meat. You won't get to see Scarlett Johansson naked in this movie, in case you were wondering - just lots of fuzzy sex montages, weirdly full of backlit hair and fur. Katherine of Aragon (Henry VIII's first wife) is given some of the most powerful lines in the movie, but they're delivered with such woodenness that my disappointment must be made known.

The Other Boleyn Girl could be so much more. As a hyper-dramatic costume flick, it does stand out. There's more than meets your eye, and the costarring performances are not to be missed. There's a lot of material to cover in this story, but a simplified script would have helped keep this film farther away from melodrama. Especially with a true story as wild as this, there's not a lot that needs to be changed or added to grip the viewer. Any embellishments verge on destroying believability and creating situations we can't relate to.

The Other Boleyn Girl is a compelling film due to the exceptional performances and the splendid costumes. Additionally, there is simply a terrific story told about the relationship of Henry VIII and the two Boleyn sisters, Anne and Mary.

Natalie Portman (Anne) and Scarlett Johansson (Mary) are outstanding as characters engaged in both sibling rivalry and sisterly bonding. In the central relationship of the sisters, the film develops the social roles and imposed limitations on women in Tudor England.

One of the film's most moving character portrayals is the mother of the two Boleyn Sisters. In the heartbreaking performance of Kristin Scott Thomas, Elizabeth Boleyn can only watch helplessly as her daughters become pawns of the greedy men (Thomas Boleyn and the Duke of Norfolk), who use the young women much like pimps in order to line their pockets and further their own advancement at court. Another sterling aspect of the film is the portrayal of Katherine of Aragon (Ana Torent), another victim of the men due to the obsessive pursuit of Henry VIII to beget a male heir, leading to his momentous divorce from Katherine and England's break with the church of Rome.

While commentators may point out the omissions of many of the details from the novel by Philippa Gregory, the film is still true to the spirit of the book. It is also a faithful representation of the role of women in Tudor age. The film effectively presents the gender issues from the perspective of many of the remarkable women of the age along with the reminder of the greatest legacy of Anne Boleyn, which was the indirect result of her relationship of Henry VIII. That legacy was the future ruler of England...and also a woman: Elizabeth I.

interesting cast. and nothing else. desire to present an old story in easy form. and the strange result. all is childish, nothing convincing, a nice game with facts, legends and parts of truth. and, after so many travels in Tudors world, this is only a joke. not very inspiring. it is not a bad movie but it is far to be more than mediocre. and nobody is guilty. just the ambition to make history with actors in incorrect roles. because Eric Bana is not Henry (not more than ambiguous sketch ) , Natalie Portman is in wrong position and Scarlett Johassen - shadow of good intentions. no nuances, no roots. only a dark story with ridiculous accents. good actors and nice costumes are not enough.not in this case.

Put it this way, if you saw Anne of the Thousand Days, you probably felt sorry for Anne Boleyn. After seeing this film, while you might feel sorry for her - not so much.

The Other Boleyn Girl is a 2008 film starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johannson, Eric Bana, Kristen Scott-Thomas, Mark Rylance, David Morrissey, and Benedict Cumberbatch who at this writing is #2 on the IMDb Starmeter, so I'd say his fortunes have changed.

The story fills in what we don't actually know about the Boleyns and tells some of their story, though the writers had to leave out a lot of material.

Nevertheless, this is a great drama, beautifully costumed and filmed, with wonderful acting and, let's face it, two of the most stunning women in films today.

Natalie Portman plays Anne Boleyn, who is more or less pimped out by her father (Mark Rylance) hoping that she can give Henry VIII a son and, in so doing, increase the family's fortunes. It doesn't work out.

Instead, the King takes a fancy to the newly married Mary, Anne's sister, and both the young women are given a position at court. Henry, then married to Catherine of Aragon, then takes Mary as a lover. Mary later gives birth to a son.

Anne secretly marries someone who is betrothed to another, and as a punishment is sent to the court in France. When she returns, she captivates King Henry by refusing to become his mistress while he is still married, driving him to distraction.

He eventually gets the law changed so he can divorce Catherine and marry Anne. By now he is long finished with Mary, barely acknowledging his son.

One of the created scenes in the film occurs when Anne miscarries her child, a boy. She is desperate that Henry not find out and appeals to her brother to sleep with her. He can't do it.

In truth, one of the crimes Anne was charged with was incest, but these allegations were made up. Her brother George was executed because of it, however. In the film, someone sees them together and reports it.

I actually think the writers did an okay job with this story - in historical films one always has to combine events and characters or leave them out.

Natalie Portman is excellent as Anne, rather bratty, seductive, and emotional. Johannson has a less showy role but she's marvelous as well.

Eric Bana is an attractive Henry. The real Henry was a redhead, but the depiction of Henry as slender and attractive is certainly correct for the period in which the story takes place.

The film makes a great deal out of the relationship between Anne and Mary -- Anne is furious when Mary nabs the King, then Mary is furious when Anne makes her big move.

In fact, the two sisters weren't particularly close. And though in the film Anne is the older sister, historians today believe that Mary was the older one.

Mary actually had two children, but there isn't a lot of evidence to support that her second child was actually King Henry's. What isn't mentioned in the film itself is that after Mary's husband (Cumberbatch) died, she married a soldier secretly, a man way beneath her station, and was banished from court, never to return.

Her family also disowned her. Up until then, she was at court; when she was widowed, Anne arranged for her to have a pension and had Mary's second child, a boy, educated.

After Mary's and Anne's parents died, Mary inherited some property and she and her husband lived quietly and happily for the rest of their lives.

Very good film, well worth seeing.