Filipe Neto
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 whores? 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.
Sue Nelson
With a few exceptions, bad casting. They had very similar looks, especially the men. The real Henry had a colorful look. He wasn't consistently in black clothing. Katherine Howard...omg! Played like a stupid, shallow, over-sexed YouTube-r. Mannerisms totally 21sr century Women covered their hair. Bare heads would have seemed immodest. Some of the jewelry seemed right, but the headgear was too "Tots and Tiaras"
Gjertson935
The best things about this drama were the costuming, the photography and the sets. So disappointed in the casting director's failure to research characters before making the choices for Henry VII and Anne of Cleves. Henry was a giant of a man for his day - - I believe at least 6' 2" or more and had a bright red mane of hair. His imposing appearance added greatly to his ability to intimidate his subjects. Casting such a pretty woman to play Anne of Cleves was ridiculous. In truth, the real Anne was purportedly so ugly that Henry couldn't get himself to perform his conjugal duties (despite his desire for a son) and so he got his marriage annulled. Too bad they didn't pay attention to historical facts, it would have been a much better show. I prefer the old BBC productions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I that were aired. I believe, back in the '70s. And, more time should have been spent on the story line and characters' personalities rather than the never- ending sex scenes.
JohnFAmos2
I enjoyed this show. I went in with no expectations that the show would be a historic recreation of Henry VIII's life. It was a fun show to watch.Aside from the sex (which of course comes with a show like this), there's nothing too offensive in the show. it's a pleasant ride with jousting, copulation, Renaissance ideals and technological marvels. Everything you'd expect in a show like this.If you watch this show like a soap opera, it will be have fun. Because that's basically what it is. The historical fiction elements just masks it.Sam Neil's departure affected the show. However there were good performances all-round from the major characters. They played their roles well and knew how to get the most out of their performances to give the intended results.However I lost interest in the show and had no real desire to finish the series. It just got boring for me. Hence the rating.But if you like your historical romance I'd recommend you give this a try.
