The iG and I snatched one of her few (and diminishing) blocks of free time to get to a movie on Wednesday. Our choice? The forgettably-entitled
The Other Boleyn Girl, starring Natalie Portman, Scarlet Johannsen, Eric Bana, and a lot of pretty costumes in old castles. The film tells the story of two sisters in the court of Henry VIII, as they (sort of) scheme for his affections, fight with each other and the queen, and hope to advance their family's prospects.
The film sounds like a chick flick, but it's not really. At least it's not a satisfying one, since there's no true love, no star-crossed lovers struggling to overcome the fates, and certainly no happily ever after ending, unless you're the headsman. He makes out pretty well, come the final reel.
The Other Boleyn Girl, 2008
Script/Story: 6
Acting/Casting: 7
Action: NA
Eye Candy: 3
Fun Factor: 4
Replayability: 5
Overall: 6
Going into the movie, I was confused by the reviews. Namely, by the fact that they weren't very good. I've kind of given up on Rotten Tomatoes now that they've overcomplicated their layout with too many tabs and click through requirements, but this film has
a 50 on Metacritic, and that's both the medium and the mean, since the scores are almost all right in the middle. No one thinks it's a masterpiece and no one thinks it's a disaster. If you bell curve the reviews, there's no curve. Just a sort of speedbump, with one or two lower and higher, but most scores lumped together like poorly-mixed batter in the 33-66% range. Where mine fell too, you'll note. The range is odd, that no one loves or hates the film, and the overall low average is very odd, since critics usually eat up this character-driven, costume drama horseshit.
They didn't eat up this shovelful, or run screaming from it. They took a sample, chewed politely, made middle-of-the-road, non-judgmental comments about it, then quickly forgot the experience. I suspect I'll do much the same, since well... there's not a lot to think about. I'm going to spend most of this review talking about what the opportunities the film missed, since that's far more interesting than what it did. Which wasn't much. The film wasn't great, or awful, even in any small portion. It was just a lot of largely flavorless adequacy.
The movie doesn't suck, but it's not very good either, and that holds true for almost every aspect of it. The acting is probably the best part, though it's not outstanding. Natalie Portman does pretty well during one section when she's playing a vivacious schemer, but that doesn't last, and it's proceeded by a forgettable period of friendly innocence and followed by an unconvincing half hour of panicked desperation.
Aside from Portman's moments of melodramaticism, most of the film is filled with scenes of brow-furrowed conversation in back rooms, as the members of the Boleyn family argue with each other about which daughter should be schtuppng the king at this point, how they're trying to scheme to turn their daughters' vaginas (and uterii) into social advancement, how duty is more important than love, how all that's going wrong is someone else's fault, etc. It's all rather half-hearted though, and even the Boleyn uncle, who is supposed to be the powerful patriarch with a lust for power, just comes off as kind of a stern, no-nonsense guy who isn't afraid to ungild the lily.
The other sister, played by Johansen, is largely passive and dutiful in her every act (even when the audience itches for her to finally take a stand and be a bitch), her mother is shrewish and full of "I told you so's," her father is wimpy and without much purpose of use, her brother is forgettable, the uncle is unimpressive, and the various servants are entirely anonymous. The other main character is Eric Bana as King Henry, and he looks the part, with his close-trimmed beard and shoulder padded outfits and intense stare, but the role sucks, since he's got no personality or individuality.
There's some love, but not really; some scheming, but not really; some scandal, but not really; some heartbreak, but not really, etc. It's soap opera-y, but not in a good way. There aren't any of those "Ohh, snap!" moments, where some plot twist kicks in with a vengeance, and none of the characters are written well enough to inspire sympathy or antipathy. Johansen is supposed to be the kind, honest one, but she's too passive and meek and forgiving to root for. Spineless. Portman is the flashy, seducing daughter, and she has a few scenes of vivaciousness, but those pass all too quickly, leaving her to succumb to a slow, desperate breakdown over the last half hour of the film. Bana is an empty cape as the king; he looks the part, but swings from one extreme to the other, and his desperate need for Portman, a desire so great that it creates England's schism with the Catholic Church and the formation of the Protestant Church of England, is hardly motivated, and then mentioned largely as a side note during the film. If you didn't know the history you'd think his decision hardly more momentous than switching from one church to another on the other side of the street.
That mood prevails throughout the film, as the overall story has a smallness and low budget feel to it. A generous splash of
wuxia-style pomp and circumstance would have benefited this film, since it's got a PBS, English TV drama to much of it, with small sets, a limited number of actors, subdued costumes, dim lighting, etc. I'm sure that's more historically accurate, but it's not much for entertainment, hence the very low eye candy score I gave this film.
It's small, and it's insular. Portman's character goes to France for a couple of months, and the extent of that is her looking pouty pre-departure, a shot of her dad writing her a letter, and then a short scene of her riding her horse along the beach when she returns, with a CG ship in the background. There's very little sense of sociopolitical issues, nothing about the nation at a whole, and almost nothing about one of the most pivotal religious events in European history. There is one, obviously CG, overhead shot of the palace with a crowd around it, and two mentions of the mood of "the people," but "the people" never matter in anyway, nor does anyone else not directly involved in the courtly events. This movie felt like the tightly-edited version of a mini-series, with all the color and quirkiness and variety removed to squeeze it into a 90 minute running time.
That would all be excusable, since the movie's focus is on one family, and especially the two sisters in that family. Movies can do great work focusing on a few individuals during a time of chaos and tumult. They need to do slightly more than hint at the tumult and chaos though, and the main characters need to be very interesting and captivating. This film didn't hit on either level.
So, if all I have are complaints, why did I score it so (relatively) highly? Well, I based my tally on the movie itself, while most of my comments are about what it could or should have done. At the time, I enjoyed it. The performances were adequate, the plot wasn't bad, I was moderately involved in the events, some of the costumes were pretty nice, the writing wasn't awful, etc. It's okay, perhaps a bit better than okay, but that's just if you go by what's on the screen, and how it's done. As usual, it's all about expectations. If you want something with the scheming and vivid characters of Martin's
Song of Ice and Fire, or the scope of a historical documentary, or the performances of a great costume drama, you'll be disappointed. If you just want a decent movie about some sporadically interesting, quasi-historical figures and their lives and dilemmas, then you can enjoy your $10 worth. And since I saw it at a matinee for $7, and got to hold hands with and hug a pretty girl during the scary beheading parts, I didn't fail to derive enjoyment from the experience. Your odds of enjoying a similar outcome may be somewhat dependent upon your ability to recreate a similar viewing environment. Good luck with that.
I can't imagine seeing this film again though, at the theater or on DVD. It did make me want to watch
Dangerous Liaisons though, since that's a film that does noble intrigue and scheming and seduction and emotional blackmail to devastating impact. As best I recall; it's been years since I saw it last. Even if it's not as powerful as I remember, at least there are characters who are actually evil and scheming; not just mildly ambitious. Plus it's R-rated, so there's more intensity, explicit scenes and language, and some actual nudity, rather than the watered down, mildly-steamy frottage and male upper body nudity of The Other Boleyn Girl.
Labels: movie review
