• Network: Showtime
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 92 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 80 out of 92
  2. Negative: 6 out of 92

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 16, 2010
    9
    Brillian Tosh...History is anachronistic at points and it was always clear that all Michael Hurst really wanted to write about was Anne Boleyn, so the series in Seasons One and Two could be better titled Henry & Anne - A Postmodern Romp. Seasons Three and Four fall off a little and it plods through three episodes beofre a good finale.

    Treat it as Dynasty with Cod Pieces and fun stuff
    and its great. Treat it as a Simon Schama lecture and you are bound to hate it. Expand
  2. Aug 22, 2010
    7
    For what this show aspires to be, it does a good job. It isn't by any means a perfectly accurate portrayal of historical facts but it still follows the basic truths of who all the characters were with respect to eachother. They got all the names right. Of course they had to fill in the gaps with guesswork and falsehoods to keep people entertained. It is after all just a TV show, and not a historical biography. Overall I thought it was a pleasure to watch just for the performances of the characters. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was perfect for the role of Henry. Expand
  3. Apr 15, 2011
    8
    Despite some historical inconsistencies, this tv show is well designed, sometimes a little too slow and too much dialogue which can sometimes make lose interest of the viewer.
  4. Jan 11, 2011
    10
    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. Expand
  5. Feb 5, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Horrible. Barely covers anything historical, and even that is dumbed down so much that it becomes completely boring. Just an excuse to watch JRM having sex. Oh, spoiler alert, I doubt Henry VIII bothered with positions or doing anything for the girl. just sayin. Expand
  6. Feb 8, 2011
    9
    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 sophomoric 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 Dickensian 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!
    Expand
  7. Feb 17, 2012
    10
    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!
    Expand
  8. Jun 17, 2012
    10
    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.
  9. Jun 6, 2014
    10
    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")
  10. Oct 8, 2014
    8
    If its historical accuracy you're looking for then you won't find it here. That said the Tudors is still a good watch - some of the cast choices are not great and the look and feel of Tudor England is never quite captured. It has a 'generic ITV drama' feel more than anything else.

    Henry is well acted, but as the show goes on his famous historic look is also never really captured. It's
    close, but he is so iconic that close doesn't really cut it in this instance.

    All that aside I really enjoyed it and it was great re-visiting so many of my history lessons from school (albeit a tiny bit dramatised) - Ha!

    I'd still highly recommend this - it still draws you in and the story of Henry VIII is never going to disappoint
    Expand
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: Matt Roush
    70
    Less lurid than HBO's Rome, yet still quite the pageant of pomp and friskiness, it's a throwback to the old-fashioned miniseries of yore, spiced with pay-cable frankness.
  2. 75
    The show is a lusty soap opera that aspires to the pulsating, cutting-edge glamour of Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth. It's a little ham-fisted for that. [2 Apr 2007, p.37]
  3. 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.