Watch Henry VIII For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Pretty Good

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I was a little uninterested in the idea that this film was a "waste of time". I found Peter Morgan's script to be finely executed. I think that many educated women would appreciate the dynamism of Anne Boleyn's predicament - blamed for producing "wrong" children only minutes after the births. The scene in which she is tried and condemned is streamlined so that issues of court corruption are obvious. At the same time, we are presented with a pathetically cornered Henry whose great desire is to legitimize his dynasty through the birth of a male heir. The production relies on the previous knowledge of its audience, so that when a little and perplexed Elizabeth acknowledges her mother's departure, the audience is presented with the ironic portrayal of a girl who is necessarily going to grow up fast. This is a postmodern take on the role of some women caught up in male power-play. Having said that, the film is not anti-male. The representation of the historically chronicled Thomas Cranmer, for instance, is very subtle. When asked by Henry why Anne did not accept an alternative to execution, Cranmer points out that Anne found it "unnecessary" to confess to charges of adultery. Those of us who have already seen the Burton/Bujold "Anne of a Thousand Days" or the Keith Michell "Henry VIII" or the many other representations of an intriguing Tudor court, will see the political understatement as well as human exploration in this production.

I REALLY liked this movie, regardless of the inaccuracies that may or may not have been filmed. I think Ray Winstone is believable as a young,(and older) sexy Henry the VIII, whom ladies of the court could have fallen for. He had it going' on, and was a player before his time--much to Anne Bolelyn and Katherine Howard's ill fortune. One must remember, that a movie must cram years of documented history/happenings into a 2-4 hour production, therefore a lot gets deleted. I enjoyed this movie very much, and having watched it, it made my trip to England and the Tower of London all the more history-worthy, and special. Tower green has left a lasting impression of sorrow and history upon me. Adores history and movies, Me

The facts are XVIth Century but the style is clearly XXIst Century. It can be argued that everything in this miniseries really happened (except for a few fictional subplots) but it is unarguable that the end result is extremely vulgar, from the Cockney accent and body language of the king to the soap-opera techniques of the editing style. In this universe, a birth cannot happen without the camera projecting between the legs of the mother and blood spurting everywhere, courtesans cannot be disgraced without a Nazi style arrest followed by the cries of the tortured. History is a series of excuses for showing body fluids and not mentioning any important or relevant social issues other than sex and violence. It is entertainment for the readers of Rupert Murdoch's tabloids (Mr. Murdoch also owns Granada Television). It follows in the euro-trash tradition of revisionist history as spectacular blood-sport of such recent period films as "Elizabeth", "Le Roi Danse", "Vatel", "La Reine Margot", "L'Affaire du Collier", etc., etc., etc. Ad nauseam... It also made possible a piece of egregious dung like "Gunpowder, Treason & Plot" (2004).

I second most of the comments already made about the historical inaccuracy of this program, but want to add yet another quibble: the scenes that purport to show the dissolution of the monasteries. What a bunch of hooey! I thought I was watching a scene from some movie of the Vikings raiding and pillaging the English coast. What actually happened was that inspectors were sent around and anything of value was methodically stripped and either taken for the royal treasury or sold; the monasteries were then pulled down, bells were melted, etc.; the monks and nuns were given pensions. It's true that servants were turned off without work, causing hardship; it's also true that those who were especially obdurate were tried and executed, but the slashing swords and burning monks fleeing from buildings were complete inventions of the filmmakers. I just don't see the point--fiction is the name for this (not even historical fiction--just fiction).