• Network: Showtime
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
Season #: 1, 2, 3, 4
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 27
  2. Negative: 2 out of 27
  1. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    60
    "The Tudors" is not the great series that it might have been, but it's certainly a watchable and diverting one.
  2. There's not a lot of depth to the proceedings, and the series is at its weakest when it tries to make some Important Point. But it's a good deal of fun watching Meyers and the rest of the ensemble smartly bringing to life the deceit and internal politics of this royal chess match. "The Tudors" is a spicy soap opera, decked out in really fancy trappings.
  3. Enjoyable but not exhilarating, engaging but not hypnotic.
  4. 60
    Ultimately, this series diminishes the king.
  5. 60
    "The Tudors" takes all of the intrigue and power struggles and tomfoolery of the House of Tudor and gives it six-pack abs and a rock-star swagger
  6. 50
    Still, for all its ferocious ambition to be more than just another heavily corseted, respectful historical drama, "The Tudors" falls flat in more than one arena.
  7. Reviewed by: Diane Werts
    50
    "The Tudors" could actually use a touch of the over-the-top wildness that undermined the substance of HBO's "Rome." If we could blend the two together somehow, we might have a kickily effective history mash-up.
  8. I don't want to beat up on Meyers here. He does justice to Hirst's Henry, if not entirely to history's, and being young and good-looking is hardly a crime. But like Tony Soprano, Henry VIII brings more to the table than charisma: Corrupted by absolute power, he's a bit of a monster.
  9. 50
    Written by Michael Hirst , who also wrote about Henry's daughter in Cate Blanchett's "Elizabeth," the series goes only rock-opera deep, moving full-steam ahead without much accounting for character motivation.
  10. Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    50
    As a glorified romance novel, it's perfectly fine, but don't expect Shakespeare.
  11. Though it starts out with a fair bit of energy, in spite of regular paroxysms of royal lust and pique, it becomes less engaging as it goes on and grows finally rather dull.
User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 97 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 49
  2. Negative: 5 out of 49
  1. GabrielaL
    Apr 15, 2008
    7
    Great costumes, and setting; fantastic cast; but one can not ignore the enormous historical inaccuracy and Rhys-Meyers limited interpretation skills.
  2. JenniferH
    Nov 20, 2009
    4
    If so many viewers realize there is a lot of historical inaccuracy, maybe we are not as stupid as they think. Why not educate with historical If so many viewers realize there is a lot of historical inaccuracy, maybe we are not as stupid as they think. Why not educate with historical facts which are quite juicy enough? The series lacks depth of character. So much overt sex can be tiring, as if we all had one-track minds and I don't believe we have. Full Review »
  3. scottT
    Sep 24, 2009
    4
    Juvenile script, overacting (particularly Rhys-Meyers) and shallow. Fails to even bother exploring the enormous dynamics of the period. The Juvenile script, overacting (particularly Rhys-Meyers) and shallow. Fails to even bother exploring the enormous dynamics of the period. The sex is great, but essentially it's a soap opera. Full Review »