Lady Jane
Lady Jane
| 07 February 1986 (USA)
Lady Jane Trailers

The death of King Henry VIII throws his kingdom into chaos because of succession disputes. His weak son, Edward, is on his deathbed. Anxious to keep England true to the Reformation, a scheming minister John Dudley marries off his son, Guildford to Lady Jane Grey, whom he places on the throne after Edward dies. At first hostile to each other, Guildford and Jane fall in love, but they cannot withstand the course of power which will lead to their ultimate downfall.

Reviews
Drewchristiansen78-4-616661

Helen-Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes give fine performances in the lead roles. Also I think the portrayal of Mary I in this film was good. But despite some of the good performances, I found this movie not very pleasing.Having read several books on the historical Jane Grey, it is hard to honestly find good in this film despite its historic inaccuracies. But putting aside, when looking at this at a cinematic standpoint alone, I still find much about it I don't enjoy.The romance between the two leads, makes for what one would call a good "chick flick". However, I think most audience, regardless of gender, would find this display of the romance heavily mawkish. It is hard for me to relate to, and I am someone who usually enjoys romance in film.Outside of the two leads, the rest of the characters come off as very cardboard-like. And they seem to fit into two different camps: a) plotters/schemers (which no doubt, that kind of thing definitely went on in the Tudor court) and b) honorable people (but are kept at surface level).For as much cinematic liberties as this took. Some of these character (though usually historic) should've just been molded into one character to save on time for casting, and because it seemed excessive to have as many historic portrayals as they did all in one movie.I tried to find much good in this film, and I just couldn't. I'd recommend Tudor Rose (1936) aka. Nine Days a Queen, as the superior of these two films in presenting the story as well. Tudor Rose was an incredibly moving picture,and concise (unlike the needlessly lengthy runtime of Lady Jane) but with great performances all around by a solid 30's British cast. It wasn't as historically accurate either. But from a cinematic standpoint, I found Tudor Rose better than this film in terms of Jane Grey movies.

... View More
richgouette

I'm not sure why some folks think it's so wildly inaccurate a story as compared with the historical record. It's a movie..and as such there will be liberties taken, and there were.But, there was such faithfulness to some very small details of the record, that I'm inclined to think the writers did due justice to the story as a whole.The first viewing was many years ago, and I remember thinking then, that within this movie, as depicted by the exchanges between Jane and Feckenham ,this was one of the most clear and concise examples of the great rift that exists between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.I'm surprised no one has made a point of highlighting this.Anyway, I watched it again last night, and once again was thrilled with it's sober storyline.bravo R

... View More
roghache

I love these historical Tudor dramas, such as the earlier Mary Queen of Scots with Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson. However, I confess that I caught this one on television and missed a few parts. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert either on the history of its title character, nicknamed the Nine Days Queen, so am going somewhat by others' comments on the historical accuracy.The film chronicles the succession chaos following the death of Henry VIII. When the new king, Henry's sickly teenage son, Edward VI is dying, a scheming minister, John Dudley (Duke of Northumberland), concocts a scheme to ensure a Protestant succession by marrying off his own son, Guildford, to the young king's royal cousin, Lady Jane Grey, a devout Protestant. Lady Jane is merely a pawn forced by her parents to acquiesce to this arranged marriage and claim to the throne. Although at first she detests her new husband, as time passes, the couple fall passionately in love. However, all is not well. Henry VIII's daughter, Mary, claims the crown for herself and must therefore eliminate the young usurper, resulting in the execution of both Jane and Guildford.This is an interesting tale of Tudor court intrigue, with the period costumes, castles, and scenes all beautifully done.Helena Bonham Carter, a very young actress herself, brings a sympathetic portrayal of the 15 year old bookish, devout Lady Jane, coerced by her parents into an unwanted marriage. Also, this young queen's willingness to sacrifice her life rather than renounce her faith (if this is indeed historical) serves as an inspiration for us all. Patrick Stewart is particularly forceful (as always) in his role as Jane's domineering father, Henry Grey, who eventually springs to his daughter's defense by leading a rebellion on her behalf.My problem lies mainly with the historical accuracy. If there is no evidence of true love existing between Jane and Guildford Dudley, it isn't acceptable to simply concoct a sort of Romeo and Juliet type romance out of the story, in order to keep audiences entertained. Perhaps a bit of dramatic license is tolerable with historical figures, but not to this extent. I remember being quite touched by Jane's genuine friendship with her cousin, the sickly young King Edward, which is perhaps more historically based.Lady Jane's claim to the throne was indeed a weak one, and the crown went to Henry VIII's closer kin, his two daughters, first Mary and then Elizabeth. Mary was his older Catholic daughter by his divorced first wife, Katherine of Aragon. This tragic, much maligned figure, who came to be known as Bloody Mary, was poorly treated by both her father and her husband, Philip of Spain, with whom she failed to produce an heir. Elizabeth, Henry's younger Protestant daughter and offspring of his second wife (Anne Boleyn), enjoyed a long reign as Elizabeth I. Lady Jane Grey's story is indeed a tragic one, but she was merely Henry VIII's great niece, a much more distant relative than his daughters.

... View More
andrea_howard

Historical inaccuracies aside, I must say this movie did what few, if any present-day movies do for me. It touched me. Yes, it brought tears to my eyes. I FELT with the main characters. I was carried along with the plot. Perhaps it was contrived. Perhaps it was overplayed. I think not. To me, it struck that infinitesimal balance between maudlin and going straight for your heart.Yes the performances of several of the actors were clumsy. Could you indulge, just for the moment, in the suspension of disbelief? Could you allow yourself to be transported back to the characters' time and place? Could you go so far as to let yourself feel what they were feeling? Ah, I suppose not...And so you miss out, not only on this, but on so many things... Each of us has to be ready to receive the gifts that are before us. For the others, a treasure will pass by unnoticed.It is a beautiful movie. See it, if you dare (hehehe)

... View More