Firebrand

Worth seeing movie but there are some significant problems - which are the fault of the director.

The positives: the film is absorbing with good performances, costumes and sets.

But a bunch of negatives, including some completely false presentation of history, particularly regarding Henry VIII's death.

This is unforgivable IMO.

And although the premise of the movie (based on a novel) is Catherine Parr as "feminist" queen, the movie inexplicably omits important information and context that actually illustrate her "feminist" achievements. For example no mention of her backstory (that she was twice a widow by the age of 31 when she was married to Henry VIII) and not clarifying her remarkable educational abilities and accomplishments including that she was fluent in Latin, French and Italian and the first woman in England to publish written work in English. Historians describe her as having good sense, moral rectitude, compassion, firm religious commitment, a strong sense of loyalty and devotion and embracing Henry's children Mary, Elizabeth and Edward.

There are also noticeable and distracting script and social behavior anachronisms - examples such as casual dialogue and contemporary language such as using the word "pregnant" instead of "with child"

Getting back to the director - a man, not British and Firebrand was his first English language film.

Hiring him as the director was a poor decision and disrespectful to the subject matter.

There would have been multiple other good choices - especially people with period piece experience such as Simon Curtis (Downton Abby), Tom Hooper (King's Speech), Stephen Frears.

Some positive notes: Alicia Vikander is amazing, costume design is great and it's visually stunning.

I don't mind historical inaccuracies. I do care about boring movies. How could it be so boring? The cast is amazing! The costumes are great, the acting is wonderful and the colors are beautiful. Yet, I watched a lot at my watch halfway in.

But, I don't know why, it fails to really entertain. It's not really a thrilling or grim movie but I have a feeling it was supposed to be. Also because it lacks emotion. That's because of the script and not because of Jude Law and Alicia Vikander.

Should you go see this? I'm not sure.

I began watching the movie without reading anything about it but the people involved.

10 minutes in the film and I get the same claustrophobic feeling you get when you feel that everything around you hangs by a thread and every word could be a threat to your very existence.

Some people haven't lived with a psycho or a narcissist. Those who have would be quite quick to realise the portrait of Henry that Jude Law was going for. I watched the entirety of the film thinking about how narcissists exploit everyone around them, making them walk on eggshells constantly, belittling them with tough, stingy remarks that look like jokes while you know that they could become a flood hitting your face next. Henry's grip on everyone around him is proportional to the power he was wielding at that time, a king appointed by God who was questioned by no one. He has absolute power of everyone around him and he is expecting others to dance at his whim while he enjoys watching them squirm and twist to predict his uncontrollable fits of rage or loosing his favour.

Towards the end of the film I realised what psychologists speak about when they mention that a narcissist destroys many people around him and/or takes them down with him because he senses his end.

The whole story could have been an essay about women in the blood soaked Tudorian era trying to survive within the confounds of a male designed and controlled society. But, it was rather a portrait of a deranged fill with grandiose narcissist who thought others were his toys. Surely, ecclesiastical zealous and the reform and other subjects were touched, but with no particular strength or adequate given time to see them through.

Jude Law and Alicia Vicader were excellent in their roles. I would recommend the watch.

Honestly, I am a bit surprised with the low reception this movie has been getting because while I can understand some of the writing faults and direction choices being strange, it's ambitious approach on the tale of Katherine Parr provides an interesting newfound dramatic story.

Karim Aïnouz, being his first movie outside of Brazil, approach on it's atmosphere, presentation, and themes remain vibrate, powerful, and tense that establishes some well-made choices, costumes, and structures throughout the setting. Including some wonderful colorful costume designs, production, musical soundtracks, and vibe.

Many of the performances have brought their characters to it's height of investment, particular Alicia Vikander and Jude Law have great chemistry both volatile, smart, and love. It's writing on the history and characters may feel a bit slim, however, does provide some interesting themes and atmospheres. The camerawork, unfortunately, is the worst aspect because the camerawork felt flat and usually Aïnouz approach on the camerawork is pretty good but here, it feels too flat which made certain moments feel lifeless.

Overall, it's not one of Karim Aïnouz best works but I thought it was ambitious and still engaging throughout.

I liked it! Was it the best historical drama ever? No.... But it was still entertaining. It's worth it just to watch Jude Law!!! Jude law was extraordinary. His interpretation of Henry felt historically accurate although the story itself isn't historically accurate. Alicia Vikander is always fun to watch. One of my favorites of hers is "Royal Affair". She just knows how to rock a period film.

It really captured how up and down Henry was, how his leg injury affected him, and how domineering and paranoid he could be. Throughout the whole film, I was constantly scared for Katherine's life. Overall, it was an interesting perspective about the king's last wife that is not normally depicted in TV or cinema.