Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

TheLittleSongbird If anything Henry VIII did have some promising things but it was also hugely problematic too. It is true that historians will despair, and already have done, when watching Henry VIII, because history is so distorted to the point that it feels like it'd been rewritten(speaking as a non-historian but as someone who always showed a great interest in the Tudors). And it doesn't fare a huge amount better as a standalone either. As said previously, it does have good things, the best thing being most of the performances. Of the six wives, Assumpta Serna, Clare Holman and particularly Helena Bonham Carter fared best; Serna's Catherine of Aragon is very dignified, Holman doesn't have a huge amount to do but is very touching as Katherine Parr and Bonham Carter, who has the most screen time of the six wives, makes for a witty, shrewish and sometimes moving Anne Boleyn. The supporting cast are even better, with powerful but too brief performances from Charles Dance and particularly Sean Bean, David Suchet playing Wolsey as if born to play him and Mark Strong as a menacing Duke of Norfolk. Henry VIII is well-made as well, it is photographed absolutely beautifully and the costumes and settings are colourful and elegant though the portrayal of the court didn't seem as luxurious as one would like. There are a few good lines, almost all of them from Henry VIII(you have got to love his insult of Anne of Cleves likening her to a horse) and there are some charming moments in the music score with a big shout out to the music for Henry and Anne(Boleyn)'s wedding dance.That's not all to say that all the music works because in the more dramatic moments it did get rather too intrusive. And I did have mixed feelings on Ray Winstone's Henry, him faring much better in the second half than in the first half. As the older Henry Winstone is excellent, in the later parts Henry is very tortured and complex and Winstone does a fine job with that. But for me he fails as the younger Henry, being more cockney Tony Soprano than Henry VIII.Coming onto the flaws, Henry VIII did feel really rushed, after so much time with Catherine and Anne it literally steamrolls through the other four wives, with the way Anne of Cleves was written here she may not as well existed. Most of the acting was fine, but there are roles that suffered from not being very well-written, of the remaining three wives Emilia Fox's Jane Seymour is rather wooden emotionally, Emily Blunt plays Katherine Howard as too much of a nymphomaniac and Pia Girard is completely wasted as Anne of Cleves. Duke of Norfolk and especially Thomas Cromwell seemed written as stock antagonistic caricatures, though it was much more noticeable in Danny Webb's Cromwell than with Strong; to me Strong showed more demeanour and charisma but Webb seemed out of sorts in one of the weaker portrayals of Cromwell. The story has some compelling moments but its fatal mistake is focusing so much on the relationships between Henry and his wives and not properly showing what made him so famous(at most any mention of his or his wives' contributions are explored barely) as well as making a lot of the characters one-dimensional. Another let-down was the script, which again had moments but showed soap-opera at its most melodramatic and the subtlety of an axe(pun intended), Henry and Anne's chemistry and dialogue were far wittier in Anne of the Thousand Days. Henry VIII is also needlessly violent, of course any executions unmistakably brutal but Henry VIII goes overkill on the gratuitous factor, particularly badly done were those of the inept executioner and that for Katherine Howard(how Katherine is written in this scene is embarrassing). It also shows Henry VIII as a wife-beater and a rapist which only succeeded in vilifying his character and possibly distorting history more.Overall, Henry VIII impressed in some areas but it frustrated in other areas as well, didn't hate it but didn't love it either. 5/10 Bethany Cox

aceellaway2010 Fatally flawed by miscasting of Title Character. Ray Winstone, may be very good playing an Eastender drunk. But Henry Vlll for all his many flaws, was a well educated, well read good looking King. This henry comes across as a small time, crude, cockney thug. I imagine that anyone who would watch this , would do so because they have some knowledge of history. I despise Henry Vlll , he murdered wives, friends, anyone who got in his way, and he did so with the power of an absolute monarch. But this miscasting is so bad that it is offensive, and one wonders who chose Winstone to play the character, whoever it was they should suffer the same fate of many of Henry's victims.

Leofwine_draca This BBC two-parter tells the story of Henry VIII and casts Ray Winstone in the titular role. Winstone, a much-mocked actor, seems to have a legion of detractors but I found him perfect in this part, playing a surprisingly emotional and unstable monarch.Given Henry's status as England's most famous king, the story is very familiar but that doesn't stop HENRY VIII from being a highly entertaining interpretation of the story. Of course, the pacing is super-fast seeing as six wives and all manner of political turmoil is compressed into just three hours, but it still has time to get all the important stuff in there.The budget seems higher than the Hollywood version of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (maybe because money wasn't blown on needless 'star' names) with close attention to detail both in set and costume. The cast is simply excellent - not just in the supporting male characters (Mark Strong and Danny Webb are great bad guys, Charles Dance and Sean Bean are brief and tragic figures, David Suchet makes Wolsey his own) but particularly in the actresses playing Henry's wives.Of course, Helena Bonham Carter bags the headlining role of Anne Boleyn, and very good she is too. But Emilia Fox (as Jane Seymour) and an impossibly young Emily Blunt (as Catherine Howard) also deserve plaudits for their acting skills. Is this better than the Keith Michell version? No, but I'd say it was equally as good and a fittingly violent interpretation for our times.

joligreeneyes 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