IMDb user comments for
"The Tudors" (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

80 comments in total

---

92 out of 126 people found the following comment useful :-
Exciting, but founders on miscast Henry & historical inaccuracy, 25 aprile 2007

Author: reesieg da Florida

I'm glad to see Showtime taking on the Tudor era, even if they are doing it because Henry's life is a tabloid-seller's dream come true, and our culture is tabloid-obsessed.

I love the casting of Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) and Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey).

I read an earlier comment after I had already expressed the following thought elsewhere, and I completely agree -- Steven Waddington (Buckingham) would have been a better Henry VIII - he's bigger (he properly fills the screen, which in various shots J R-M painfully cannot, either in height or breadth); red-haired (as Henry was); and a POWERFUL, mesmerizing actor who's a better age for the part. (J R-M's eyes are riveting, but that's not enough for the part b/c at this stage of Henry's life, his fame was largely due to his physical dominance, learning & musical skill.) Showtime seems to be trying to appeal to a VERY young, VH-1 audience with the J R-M casting. Or, as they suggest, to people who don't know the story.

That's my second issue - don't suggest in the ads that you're going to tell the REAL story when you're not. Some dramatic license is expected (like flipping France for Portgual b/c they introduced Francis I early on) but there is no GOOD excuse for making a composite of Henry's sisters by telling Princess Mary Rose Tudor's story, but calling the character Princess Margaret, which was her older sister's name.

The real Margaret had a dramatic story, too -- and she's got the line to the current royal family through her great-granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots -- but they lost the chance to tell that by combining the sisters. Presumably they did it b/c they thought the audience was so dumb that we couldn't handle Henry's daughter and sister both being named Mary. Too bad.

---

85 out of 120 people found the following comment useful :-
A Must-See! Contender, 22 marzo 2007

Author: Padfoot_04 (leofed@gmail.com) da Arizona, USA

I am skeptical when it comes to original programming on premium television. HBO seems to hit the mark quite often, leaving other premiums in the dust. However, Showtime has issued a return to HBO in the form of 'The Tudors.' Set in renaissance Britain during the reign of Henry VIII, we are introduced to the young and ill-tempered king, as well as his Spanish Queen Catherine, his friends and ministers Sir Thomas Moore and Cardinal Wolsey, and a host of would-be mistresses and wives. The first two episodes (which I have previewed) lay the foundation for what is sure to become a fantastic television series.

King Henry is portrayed with such energy and passion, one simultaneously loves and hates him. The women of his life are so wonderfully cast, Maria Doyle Kennedy (Queen Catherine) and Natalie Dormer (Anne Boleyn) in particular. The cast is so diverse and compelling, the sets and costumes rich and lively, that 'The Tudors' are surely going to become a household name outside of Europe.

In the spirit of competition, someone needs to challenge HBO's programming supremacy, and I honestly believe that Showtime may have finally done it.

And done it well.

---

55 out of 78 people found the following comment useful :-
too much fact-tampering, 27 aprile 2007

Author: tremont600 da United States

Well, it's gorgeous, well-acted but far too much tampering with the facts of history. Henry had TWO sisters, not one, and it was his sister, Mary, who was married off to a king in his dotage - and it was to the king of France, not Portugal. Margaret was married to the Scottish King, from whence comes the Stuart claim to the English throne. Don't watch this for your history exam! Just enjoy the costumes, set, fiery acting and music. The portrait of Henry, though, is wonderful. Lest we forget; he was quite handsome and charismatic in his younger days. As he continued getting his way both in politics and the bedroom, he grew more and more self-absorbed and ruthless. One good historical item is pointing out that, whatever was going on in separating from the Roman church, most of the English reformers had little use for Luther and wished to distance themselves from the continental reformation. Odd that today the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran church work hand-in-hand in aid efforts and acknowledge more readily our common bonds. Just FYI, the word "protestant" actually means one who protests the abuse of the Sacrements, which was rampant in those days.

---

59 out of 97 people found the following comment useful :-
Not quite like Rome, but in the spirit of historically set series, a good replacement, 23 marzo 2007

Author: lilwolfe006 da United States

With the proposed ending of Rome - I think a lot of viewers will automatically turn to The Tudors as a replacement. I have watched the first episode and find that the acting and set alone can pull a viewer in. It is different than Rome, but the same core passions of humanity are present.

I am deeply saddened that Rome will be ending after such a short run, and I think that were it not, The Tudors would find far more competition. As it is, both shows are proving that there is an audience for historical dramas and I hope such endeavors continue in the future.

The Tudors has a quality cast with attractive actors for both genders to attach to. I cannot make an honest opinion yet on the plots and direction of the series until I see more of it, but the imagery alone is a good start for this series.

---

35 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
A wonderful show even if it is not completely historically accurate, 25 aprile 2007

Author: Amber da United States

The Tudors is a fantastic show which showcases the life and times of King Henry the VIII. As the opening of the show tells the viewer, "You think you know a story but you only know how it ends. To get to the heart of a story you have to go back to the beginning." I'm sure a lot of people watching the show are watching it for entertainment and not because of its historical accuracy. I personally love Tudor England and know a lot about it. The show takes many liberties, but that's why it's entertainment and not a biographic film on the King. It's fascinating to see what is kept of what many believe to be true and what is changed. Things such as basing Henry's sister Margaret after both his sister Mary and his older sister Margaret is very interesting turn. The first four episodes have been phenomenal works of cinematic art which I hope will continue on for seasons to come.

---

43 out of 67 people found the following comment useful :-
Could have been so much more., 5 ottobre 2007

Author: gillard_stephen da United Kingdom

Rather than disliking this show I'd just say I was kind of disappointed. Being a bit of a fan of the Tudor history I was kind of hoping for an in-depth look at a very complex time in British history, sort of like Ye Olde West Wing. The Tudors could have been a show that dramatically explored what was one of the most intelligent, erudite and politically savvy royal lines this country has ever seen. Instead I felt like I was watching a slightly more sexed up Ye Olde Hollyoakes. As a diversion there's absolutely nothing wrong with that I guess, but we just had Rome, which did it a lot better in my opinion. There's no one thing I dislike about this show, I'm just a little down that it wasn't as "clever" as I thought it could be. Maybe I'm in a minority though. Hollyoakes still runs despite my best efforts so.....

---

21 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Michael Hirst Should Be Banned From Doing Movies About Tudor England, 7 luglio 2007

Author: bmonkey18-1 da United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Just like the title says, Michael Hirst should be banned from doing historical movies. His work has a complete disregard for history (just see Elizabeth to figure that out). I understand the need for drama but Tudor History was full of drama without completely destroying the actual facts.

First of all, Henry had two sisters, Margaret and Mary. Margaret married the King of Scotland and Mary (his favorite sister) married the aging King of France. But there is absolutely NO evidence that Mary ever killed her husband. And she didn't die as it was depicted in the movie. She had a daughter named Francis (who was the mother of Lady Jane Grey) with Charles Brandon. After her death some years later, he married a very young 14 year old girl meant to be his daughter in law originally.

Also, they butchered the life of Henry Fitzroy. He wasn't a child when he died, either.

The costuming is good and there is plenty of drama. But it should at least be accurate. Michael Hirst should stick to topics he knows about instead of butchering history for everyone else.

---

28 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Historically awful, 10 aprile 2007

Author: christianetrue da United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I appreciate that the series tries to give us a look at a Henry other than the fat old Henry of the Holbein portraits. But when Henry looks like he's in his 20s and Katherine of Aragon looks old enough to be his mom, this makes me annoyed.

There were only about six years in the difference between Henry's and Katherine's ages. By the time he meets Anne Boleyn, Henry is 36, Katherine 42. By the time he marries Anne, Henry is over 40, Anne in her 20s. Hellllooooooooooo! Looks like they are not going to age Jonathon Rhys Meyers any in the series ...

You want a good look at a younger Henry, look at Richard Burton's performance in "Anne of a Thousand Days." Henry's active here, mature, and not the fat-tacular wreck he was by the time he got around to Jane Seymour, and Anne of Cleves.

I give it a 4 because of the "Field of the Cloth of Gold" sequence and the spectacular wood and canvas palace. And in 1520, Henry was 29, so Mr. Rhys Meyers is fine for that sequence.

---

14 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
When it is historic why not be accurate to history?, 29 aprile 2007
Author: egonzinc da Puerto Rico

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The series so far has been interesting, but it never ceases to amaze me that these historical pieces often abandon with no apparent reason the historical facts. Case in point is the role played by Gabrielle Anwar, called Princess Margaret int eh series. There of course was a Princess Margaret, but she married James IV of Scotland, was the mother of James V. Her marriage to the King of Scotland eventually led to the "Union of the Crowns" of Scotland and England. Henry VIII had another sister, Mary. This one resembles the character a bit more, but Princess Mary, married Louis XII of France and was therefore Queen Consort of France. After the death of Louis XII she remarried Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, as in the series. I'm not saying that everything else about the series is accurate, but why change this character when the real history is as interesting or more than the storyline used? Mary's short marriage to Louis of course preceded the reign of Francis I in France. Maybe they wanted to make the rivalry between Henry and Francis such a big part of the story that they decided it was worth changing the historical facts.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Truth or Dare; In Bed with the Tudors, 6 gennaio 2008

Author: roula k da Greece

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

By now, most of the Tudors' historical inaccuracies have been well pointed out; indeed, it's safe to say that the only thing that wasn't changed was the names. Granted, the series isn't good history. But is it good television? Unfortunately, although the Tudors are doubtlessly a visual triumph, they are also a fiasco in terms of pace, dramatic development and characterization – that is, the things that matter.

Tackling Henry VIII's life is no walk in the park; the events of his day can be daunting and a fine line has to be trod between the man's public and private life. It has to be said that the first episodes manage to balance the two fairly well (we get a decent examination of the birth of realpolitik) and do a good job of making 500-year old court intrigue actually look interesting.

But not for long. Apparently someone must have thought that audiences would soon tire of politics and that the only way to keep them hooked is to show costumes (for the gals) and boobies (for the guys). I have nothing against either of the two, but when you push everything into the background to make Henry's sexual escapades your sole focus, most of your plot ends up seeming irrelevant, a filler. The Reformation is a good case in point. Of course, we all know that heresy was a serious issue in those days – and that Lutheranism posed a very tangible political threat for England. The problem is that the series provides very little internal justification for the persecution of heretics; what we get instead is Henry taking a break from rolling in the grass with Anne Boleyn to pen a couple of pamphlets against Luther and a religious fanatic burning books and people. We are effectively requested to draw on our own knowledge to fill the gaps.

Another pitfall is the total lack of character development – something that may very well be the result of poor acting. None of the stormy events of the day (diplomatic crises; wars; epidemics) seem to have any lasting effect on the major characters - Sam Neils' Cardinal Wolsey being the sole exception. Some historical accuracy could have helped here. For example, Henry was 40 when he met Anne Boleyn (20 at the time) and pressed to produce a male heir to secure the continuation of the young Tudor line (he was only the second Tudor on the throne.) Any mention of the above would have added some much needed depth to their story; sadly the series opted for third-rate, sloppy romance that just drags on and on.

All of the above explain why the series suffers so much in terms of pace. The action visibly slows down somewhere in the middle to hit rock bottom during the last part. We see the introduction of several unnecessary sub-plots (Margaret, Thomas Tallis) that don't serve the development of the main storyline at all. The handling of Henry's divorce is also problematic. Considering how many other events were rushed through, was it really necessary to drag this one for so long? And why wasn't the issue resolved at the end? (Probably someone's idea of a cliffhanger ending.) Although the Tudors are great to look at, they are on the whole I found the Tudors uninventive and uninteresting – an no amount of costumes or boobies can compensate for that.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Voti	Premi
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Dettagli principali	Your user comments	Your vote history