Firebrand

Alicia Vikander and Jude Law . The try of Karim Ainouz to explore the contribution of Katherine Parr to modelate last part of reign of her royal husband and the delicate balance between risks.

Motives to see this film, correct crafted, not always faithful to historical facts but working as honest sketch about a period and its challenges. And not bad resume of Henry VIII reign and the relation with his wives.

The only reproches - the feeling about soulness story, a presentation of venerable history teacher to his students after too many years of teaching. Second, the eccentric end and the impression about feminist manifesto.

But the costumes, rooms, relation of Katherine with the children of her king and the nice performances- Jude Law is, real, a good Henry VIII- are enough good points for appreciate this film.

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.

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 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.

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.