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.

STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful

Henry VIII (Jude Law) returns from battle, ailing and injured. His present wife, Katherine Parr (Alicia Vikander) has an alliance with Anne Askew (Erin Doherty), a radical who still preaches the Protestant faith with a group of fellow followers. After executing a friend of Katherine's, she is forced to maintain a solid show of unity with her monarch husband, as he cracks down on the Protestant rebels, and all who support them.

While I did have a brief fixated interest in the Tudors and Stuarts as a young boy, it gradually faded over time. But one that remained ingrained in my, and probably many others who studied the topic, was King Henry VIII, a figure as large in figure as he was in life, the rock and roll king, who played by his own rules and lived his life in full blown bombastic fashion, in a manner that would make Donald Trump and Boris Johnson blush. Director Karim Anouz's historical drama delves into his being with unreserved zeal, portraying him as the tyrannical monster he truly was.

In the lead role, what must be a heavily made up Jude Law portrays said king, completely unrecognisable as a result of his transformation, but still able to deliver quite a compelling performance. In the other central roles, Vikander and Doherty are two powerful, commanding female leads, in roles as vital to the accuracy of the tale as the main character, complimented by a supporting cast including Sam Riley and Eddie Marsan. Anouz certainly doesn't hold back visually either, with some full on sex and violence. Despite all of this, however, there is never enough spark and energy in the script to really give it the power it needs.

In the present turbulent times with 'strongmen' leading everywhere, this is an even more prescient and inspiring idea for a film. The performances are strong and the era recreation is convincing, but they're sadly let down by a script that doesn't match them. ***

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.

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.

This film is set during the last days of Henry VIII (1546-7), with Jude Law as the King and Alicia Vikander as his sixth and last wife, Catherine Parr, who was also mother in all but name to the king's three children (only one of whom ever knew their actual mother).

The film starts with a caption which says (I forget the exact words) that there are always gaps in our knowledge of history, which we often fill with things we've made up. Well there aren't quite so many gaps as this film seems to suggest. The ending is entirely fictional, and there's at least one plot point that's total fabrication.

Does this matter, given that they were open with us? Probably not. Law is excellent as the sick, dying and paranoid king. Vikander is also excellent as the woman who must constantly tread a microscopically thin line between giving the king the support and affection he needs and becoming the third of his wives to be executed. Simon Russell Beale radiates oily menace as the odious Bishop Gardiner, and the rest of the ensemble cast do a good job in portraying a court torn between jockeying for advancement and fearful of provoking one of the king's irrational outbursts.

I do have one issue with the film: in an early scene we see Erin Doherty as Anne Askew the religious reformer (or radical, depending on your point of view) preaching to her followers in the woods. This is a dramatic and moving scene, and one hopes that Askew is going to feature prominently. She doesn't. Less than two minutes later we learn that Askew has been arrested, tortured and burned at the stake. We see nothing of this, which struck me as a missed opportunity.

That aside, we get a moving and dramatic film which skirts round the edge of actual history.

Oh; and if a King writes a song, of *course* the whole court will learn the words.