After finishing the book yesterday, I'm so disappointed with the film. I feel it was rushed and missed out lots of important parts of the book. Most people say films are nothing like the book and in this case I seriously have to agree

Starring actor from the recent film 'Hannah' who plays the king in the feature movie titled 'The Other Boleyn Girl'. Recent adventure brought the decades of English husbandry and kingship to it's 'bloody' historical proofs. The Other Boleyn Girl lived to history as about an English King. Even in the days of kings the English led better lives than fourth world countries; hunters with bows and arrows from tribes. The King did not throw javelins or rocks to a distance but behaves like he is the 'Macho Man' from the entire England.

This film is based on the love affairs between the English King Henry VIII and his two courtesans, Mary and Anne Boleyn, the second of which would become queen, though for a short period. Directed by Justin Chadwick, was written by Peter Morgan and has the participation of Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana.This film has its origin not on historical facts but on a historical novel by Philippa Gregory, slightly inspired by historical facts. So, this movie does not portray what really happened. An historical novel is not a history book and, unfortunately for the movie, this novel is bad, openly subverts the facts and omits some historical personalities that were crucial for this events. Basically, she almost rewrote history and Justin Chadwick obediently swallowed all the straw the book had without bothering to examine their veracity.In fact, while this film portrays Mary Boleyn as a very serious girl, the truth is that she had a very bad reputation and maybe have had lots of lovers, in the French and English courts. As the Boleyn family machinations seem to be true, probably didn't have involved Anne because she fell in love with Henry Percy, heir to the duchy of Northumberland. Who probably also fell in love was the king, but we know that Anne rejected his advances. Thinking about it, we can almost hear Anne saying "no, no way. Only after the wedding, I am a family girl".Returning to the film, and knowing now that the script is bad because it had a poor start (everything that is born crooked, later or never straightens), we can say that Eric Bana disappointed in the role of the English king: besides he not seem very inspired or comfortable with his character, Bana starred in a stupid violation scene. Henry VIII was a famous gentleman, a seducer, he didn't need to humiliate himself violating a girl, no matter what. Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson look good in the roles of the Boleyn girls and, judging by the portraits, they must be very similar to what the real girls were.The most interesting thins in this film are the sets, the costumes and the visual effects. The scenarios are many, usually English cathedrals and palaces from that time. The costumes have been carefully designed to portray the historical period faithfully, radically contrasting with the script.

If you forget these are historical figures and just take it as a movie about two sisters competing for a king, it's mildly entertaining, mostly a bodice-ripper with A-list actors and very elaborate costumes. Has pretty much NOTHING to do with the real people other than names, making only a glancing effort at historical accuracy, not just with actual events but with all the little details. I expected to see someone chewing gum. Has very little in common with the book, which at least made an effort at historical accuracy. What I don't understand is this: if you just want to make a movie about two sisters competing for a king, why pretend it's about Henry VIII and the Boleyns? Just call them King Rodney and the Watson sisters or whatever. I felt sorry for the actors. I bet they thought this might be a good movie.