Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Leofwine_draca ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS tells the story of the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's second wife. I've seen this story so many times now, in everything from THE TUDORS to HENRY VII AND HIS SIX WIVES, that it would take a special kind of film to really get me interested in the story again.Sadly, ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS isn't that film. Oh, it's a perfectly adequate costume drama to be sure, but it never feels like anything more than that. The film looks good but the script just lacks the kind of intrigue, excitement and drama that the material demands. It's also at least an hour too long, dragging the early stages of the marriage out far too long and to little reason.The relationship between Anne and Henry is depicted in soap opera-ish ways and occasionally feels trite, despite the best efforts of both actors. It's always apparent that these two are acting the parts, rather than inhabiting the roles; there's something very mannered about both Burton and Bujold. A lack of really interesting supporting performers hurts it too.Not a bomb, then, just a passable movie that I have no great desire to rewatch. Certainly no classic. Natalie Dormer's vixen-like turn as the scheming Anne in THE TUDORS is still my favourite portrayal of the doomed queen.

dbdumonteil Visually the movie is a splendor ;the two principals are excellent ,there's no need to add to the praise they have already received;the most difficult part is perhaps that of Ann;She begins as a romantic careless young girl ,who still thinks she can fall in love and marry the man she loves.Little by little,she becomes an ambitious unscrupulous woman;when she realises her fate is sealed ,she transfers her thirst for power to her daughter:the final words are highly prophetic and actually the two apparent losers of Charles Jarrot's two historical movies (Anne in 1970 ,Mary Stuart in 1972) were actually the posthumous winners : Elizabeth The First was one of the greatest sovereigns England had ever had and James Stuart reigned over England and Scottland after her death.

sddavis63 The Tudors have spawned a lot of movies over the years. Perhaps surprisingly, most of them (at least the ones I've seen, and I've seen a few) have been pretty good ones. "Anne Of The Thousand Days" is no exception to that rule. With a great cast and lavish sets, this manages to tell the story of the relationship between King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn - apparently destined against her will to be the King's mistress, but then, at her demand, and given no choice in the matter, the instigator of both political and religious turmoil as she demands to be not the King's mistress, but the King's wife - and Queen of England - a goal stymied by the fact of the King's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.As Henry and Anne, Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold put on excellent performances, and the supporting cast was also quite strong. Neither Henry nor Anne were truly vilified; neither were they made heroes. Henry was portrayed as a King overcome repeatedly by lust (the cycle emphasized near the end of the movie with the appearance of Jane Seymour at court while Anne watched at a dinner very reminiscent of the dinner at which Anne appeared at court while Catherine watched.) Henry will manipulate and threaten and do whatever it takes to satisfy his lust. Yet, one gets the impression that - while consumed by lust - Henry does have a sincere concern about the need for a male heir and a belief that England won't allow itself to be ruled by a Queen. He's also clearly portrayed as concerned by his split with the Church, although at the same time one sees that he believes his prerogatives as King take priority over the concerns of the Church or even of God, summed up by his comment that "when the King prays, God answers." Anne on the other hand is a figure of some sympathy. In this movie at least she didn't ask to get mixed up in royal politics; she was the unwilling attention of Henry's lust. Yet, once her destiny was sealed, she also is clearly manipulative, grasping after what she wants, determined to get as much as she can from the King. The politics of the court are well portrayed, and most of what we see is accurate to the historical record, although the movie chooses to end on an obviously anachronistic note, with looks ahead to the glorious coming reign of Anne's daughter, who would defy her father's belief that a Queen couldn't rule England by becoming the magnificent figure of Queen Elizabeth I. This is a worthy piece of the Tudor movie collection. (7/10)

[email protected] WOW! Now I can understand Shakespeare perfectly. It wasn't so much that he was a genius, just look at the fodder he had all around him, all he needed do was to simply put pen to paper and the stories just oozed out, LOL, on their own. I wonder just how true these stories are to fact? This story had me shaking my head in disbelief; the deception, the treachery, the pomposity, the buggery, those horny monarchs, lol. It is beyond incredible that for mere want of a male heir, or even worse, to simply fulfill some base carnal desire, much like an animal, a "King" would stoop to such skulduggery. It seems that every film I've yet to see of this genre, all suffer similar outcomes, so I guess I've answered my own question, there must be some basis of truth to all these stories. Boy, that must have been some scary times to be alive, or worse yet to be born into nobility and have to deal with all those idiots and all the backstabbing just for the sake of paying homage to the "boss", LOL...I guess the film left an impression...