SummaryThe Tudors focuses on the life and romances of the young King Henry VIII. The first series takes a look at the often overlooked, early political relationships as well as Henry's trysts with such notable women as Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn.
The second series looks at King Henry's struggle with the Pope over his divorce, and his...
SummaryThe Tudors focuses on the life and romances of the young King Henry VIII. The first series takes a look at the often overlooked, early political relationships as well as Henry's trysts with such notable women as Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn.
The second series looks at King Henry's struggle with the Pope over his divorce, and his...
With everyone's motivations in this handsomely mounted but adrenaline-fueled series so on-the-surface, Dormer's enigmatic, time-halting loveliness [as Anne Boleyn] is a boon for The Tudors, and damn near worth losing your head over.
It is like ... or actually my conviction is: Michael Hirst is trying to celebrate every cultures' 'greatness' ...
And now he is expression my cultures' greatness, legends, mythes and much, much more!
For me! Michael Hirst, and the actors, and the Co. behind ... proving top class "new morden" art!
Deepest respect, if my conviction is true!
(review's source: "Vikings", then "The Borgias")
Excellent production and cast! This is a beautifully dramatized series of the most well known British monarchs of all time. The political and religious turmoil of the period is integrated beautifully and the pace of the show is great.
Do we ever feel as if we're really there, in Henry's court, half a millennium ago? Perhaps not, but a splendid cast and sumptuous production details make "The Tudors" a rollicking and resplendent show, if never a deeply affecting one.
In fact, "The Tudors" suffers from being merely capable on most fronts, a decent diversion. The direction is effective but artistically flat, and so are several scripts.
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.
"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.
This series is outrageously inaccurate, the l, therefore, unintenionally funny.
Henry was a tall, red-haired, blue eyed man. He was famous for his fair complexion.
As was his daughter Elizabeth.
The actor portraying Henry is a small, dark-haired Jew - in fact, most of the cast appears to be Jewish. .
Blatant falsification of history.
Henry would have beheaded this little impostor very quickly. Producers spent a bundle on costumes which is the only thing that is good here - photography ain't bad either.
The sexual content is revolting - especially the scene between two men - This series was made for sexual and violent content, it has nothing to do with history and having Henry ask "Says who?" when it was pointed out to him that his horse couldn't jump over a wide creek was very funny.
Not to mention some of his courtiers fleeing from one thing or another calling out to each other:" I'm outta here."
This series is strictly fiction.
Enough already!
Although the show may lack many historical facts, as interesting as they are, I enjoyed The Tudors for what it is, which in my opinion is an entertaining show, with beautiful (if inaccurate) costumes, beautiful stets and on the whole sterling acting and have been totally addicted to it. I am slightly baffled that when Steven Waddington (Buckingham, season 1) walked into the casting room they chose not to cast him as Henry ( I personally think it would have been better than JRM - however good he may be) but then I suppose given the rest of the show, it clear the aim of it's creators wasn't to produce some sort historical docu-drama. But that aside (and the strange name swapping which confused me more than if they'd had two Mary Tudors) I think it's an entirely enjoyable series and well worth watching, providing you aren't looking for a history lesson in the Tudors, but then and again there are always books for that.
I have read some of the reviews of The Tudors, both good and bad and feel compelled to share my views. i have just finished the second series, in tears with my wife next to me watching the beheading of Anne Boleyn. We have been so compelled by this dramatic adaptation of the lives of Henry VIII and his court that we have forsaken precious sleep to watch an episode or two each night. The story is so well written, and the characters so well portrayed, that we have actually researched the facts of Henry's court in order to further our understanding of the events that hold us at their mercy in this production. We have found that the authors have taken some dramatic license with the facts, but we don't mind because the Showtime production is simply so engaging. I have read that the costumes may not be exactly accurate, and that the dialogue may be **** at times. Honestly, I cannot say that i noticed these faults. More importantly, there are moments of genius in The Tudors that one rarely sees on television. The final scene of the last episode of the second season is one of these moments: Henry, sitting at a banquet table moments after the decapitation of his wife Anne, is offered tented serving tray (that I assumed was the head of the Queen). He removes the elaborate tent to reveal a stuffed swan surrounding a baked pie. He rips the wing off the swan and plunges his hand with cannibalistic fervor into the pie, then stuffs his laughing mouth with the wet meat....
The story is told in a **** manner, each episode full of unfinished business. This is what I want to watch when I spend my precious time in front of the TV. It is accurate enough, beautifully costumed, well acted, and skillfully told. Visually it is generally well done, but some of the computer generated graphics are a bit obvious. I don't understand some of the critics who state that the characters aren't flesh out and that the motivation for their behavior is lacking. The Tudors took 2 seasons just to get through Henry's second wife. The characters are about as well fleshed out as a dramatic piece can make them, and they are generally not 2 dimensional at that. Watch a few episodes, read the "real" history so that you aren't caught in an inaccuracy at your next **** party, and see if you aren't compelled to watch more!
This series was produced by a Canadian TV channel and had four seasons. It's name corresponds to the House of Tudor, one of the most notable royal English dynasties. For those who don't know or don't remember, this dynasty gave five kings to England: Henry VII, Henry VIII and his three sons (Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I). But despite that, the series focuses entirely on Henry VIII and this makes the title's choice a mistake. If it's about Tudors, where is Henry VII and why the series ends with the death of Henry VIII? Throughout the four seasons, there are dozens of actors entering and leaving, giving life to several people who were part of the court during the life of a king that most of people knows best by his six queens. But if there is something that deserves congratulations is the cast's performance. The highlight is for Jonathan Rhys Meyers (the volcanic king Henry), Henry Cavill (Charles Brandon), Peter O'Toole (in a brief role, as Pope Paul III) and the six actresses who gave life to the six queens who succeeded the throne and bed of Henry VIII: Maria Doyle Kennedy (Catherine of Aragon), Natalie Dormer (Anne Boleyn), Annabelle Wallis (Jane Seymour), Joss Stone (Anne of Cleves), Tamzin Merchant (Catherine Howard) and Joely Richardson (Catherine Parr).
Now let's talk about the script. Here, the series makes a lot of mistakes (some more excusable than others). First of all, it exaggerates in the sex scenes. It's too much gratuitous sex for no reason, totally out of context and anachronistic, in situations and acts that would never happen in the sixteenth century. Okay, we aren't saints and we know that sex sells, but do they really need to turn queens and ladies into sidewalk ****? Worse than that is the enormous distortion of historical events and facts. How could a sister of the King of England marry the aged King Manuel I of Portugal if that same king married only three times and always with daughters of the Catholic Kings of Castile? And the insulting way as the court of Portugal, the richest and most powerful country in the world at that time, was portrayed? There are dozens of moments when the script runs over history, justifying that with "dramatic purposes"... but this argument isn't enough to justify arbitrary changes in the way historical facts and figures are portrayed.
Speaking of anachronism, let's look at some furniture more closely and we will see some baroque furniture (18th century) in scenarios that should correspond to a period almost three hundred years earlier. One of the most egregious examples is the bed placed in the room of Charles Brandon (4th season), clearly baroque and portraying, in the back, the British coat of arms of the House of Hanover. Just pause the video and watch. Another problem, even more evident, is the wardrobe of the cast, in regard to something as prosaic as the underwear. If you look closely at the scenes, especially sex scenes, the actors almost never have the underwear that any person of the sixteenth century should use. This is even more blatant in women, who should wear inner skirts and a kind of shorts which helped to hold the tights, together with the garter.
Conclusion: this series is not about the Tudors but about the way we, in the twenty-first century, see the reign of Henry VIII. Almost everything is fiction. Forget history, forget everything and understand this: this series created a fictional story based on real historical facts and characters. It's sex-driven fiction, the way people like it. Want to know true history? Read a book.