I love this period and am hopelessly nerdy in what I "know" about the Tudor dynasty and its place in British history. So I know the film (and the book) are taking liberties with history.

Having a "ripped" Henry VIII chasing the Boleyn skirts is actually more "accurate" than thinking of him as the grossly obese ogre he eventually became (somewhere between wife 3 and 4). With wife 1 and 2, Henry was England's first rock star. He was handsome, athletic, "sensitive" (writing poems and songs), charming, and reportedly had more charisma than Barack Obama.(No! But, Yes!)

But banal? Never! So I hope Eric Bana isn't too awful.

As for Natalie Portman, I fear her Anne Boleyn will be a reprise of her cardboard Queen-Senator-Amadallah-what's-her-cookies? from the "Star Wars" franchise. I worry less about Scarlett Johansson as Mary.

Truth? Perhaps the "ideal" casting would have been Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston vs Angelina Jolie.

I was going to see "Goya's Ghost" just because I love Milos Foreman's movies, but when I read that Natalie Portman was at the heart of the story my interest came to a stop. Her awful English accent in "V For Vendetta" was unbelievably put on and phoney. Now here is Portman again in a role where an English accent is required. Her sort of stick figure femeninity doesn't leave me feeling awed, interested, engaged, or believing that she is a "great beauty," which is about all her fans have to say about her. It takes more than being a pretty paper doll to give a performance.

My god, the idea of the two of them in one room makes me melt into a puddle of male stupidity.

... I was sitting here counting the historical inaccuracies noted in just the review of this movie.Even the portrayal of the Boleyn mother as "wringing her hands over the fate of her daughters" is laughable. Elizabeth Boleyn, a Howard, bartered her daughters as much as her Howard relatives and her husband. I bloody hate it when people don't know enough of a subject (and don't have enough intellectual curiosity to google "portraits of young Henry VIII")to see that the fat Henry was a later life incarnation of the monarch. Sorry, Stephanie, but I have noticed way too many times lately where you speak without even doing some cursory research on something. Casting is actually where they may have done something right- Mary was golden, Anne was dark and Henry was hot. I enjoy your reviews but the laziness is getting irritating.

Yeah, the inaccuracies are pretty appalling, *but* it's a movie based on a romance novel.

(From what I've seen in trailers and reviews) I think the atmosphere of Henry's court as one long Spring Break, and the politically-minded families' blatant "pimping out" their daughter and nieces to curry royal favor is dead-on. So I can forgive the anachronism and made-up details *if* the story is still compelling.

To be fair, Natalie Portman is a fine actress. The blame for that Star Wars mess can and should be heaped upon George Lucas for his mockery of the term "director".

I wouldn't consider myself a Natalie Portman fan, but several talented actors have stumbled through the Star Wars franchise under Lucas's direction, and all suffered effectively the same fate.

You beat me to it. I was going to also mention the fact that Henry VIII didn't become the portly king well-known from the famous painting until later in his reign. He was quite young and very athletic when he first came to power.

When it comes to cable, probably not in the theater. I like historically inaccurate movies because 1) you can feel superior discussing all of the mistakes 2) usually the inaccuries make for a better movie because of the constraints inherent in the art form. If you want the true story (whatever that means) read a history book. I think movies like this are a good jumping off point for people who might be interested in the time period (maybe even younger folk) to do some research.

Having said that, I think Stephanie is smoking crack if she thinks Philip Seymour Hoffman would be or could be sexy. I know sexiness, like comedy, is completely subjective, but c'mon. His sausage fingers, his voice...he gives me a plate of heebie, hold the jeebies. I think he's a fine actor, but he grosses me out. Kind of like Forest Whitaker.

Originally, Natalie Portman was supposed to act in the role of Grace in The Horse Whisperer. She withdrew from the role when she had the opportunity to play Anne Frank on Broadway. So, the role went to Scarlett Johannson. Meanwhile Kristin Scott Thomas played Grace's mother, Annie. Now, Thomas gets to play both of these actors mother again. How 'bout that!

And Scarlett Johansson brush Natalie's teeth too.

"...would have given his left nut to capture the interplay of light and shadow"

While Holbein did paint several portraits of Anne Boleyn, he was never fascinated by the interplay of light and shadow like Rembrandt, Frans Hals or Caravaggio.

Don't you hate it when we get 3 or 4 versions of the same movie all bunched up together, on the big screen and the little? Helen Mirren's Elizabeth I vs Cate Blanchett's, for example. They seemed virtually identical to me, though I'm just a movie-goer, not a historian so I wouldn't know which is more accurate. But as much as Mirren and Irons are wonderful actors, I liked Blanchett and Fiennes more, that's all. The younger actors' chemistry was far more exciting.

So when I go through this review, I am expecting, but not finding, a comparison to Showtime's The Tudors, which might be affected and overacted, but damn, Rhys-Meyers is hot, hot, hot as Henry! Eric Bana is NOT king material, people! And, at least R-M has the accent down and the sex isn't hidden behind Hollywood scrim. The Other Boleyn Girl feels like the copycat in this comparison, a latecomer and underachiever.

Hm, just because we're all "used" to Henry VIII being rather...portly......doesn't mean he was always that way.

Henry was rather famous for being a sizzling hot ladies' man long before the wine and food got the better of him.