I wonder whether there is any historical accuracy to the plot of this film. It was well done, and fairly well acted, and honestly quite interesting. I´d like to think that I may have learned something, too. But did I?

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.

The Other Boleyn Girl is an adaptation of a historical fiction novel by Philippa Gregory. It was previously made as a BBC mini series and several years later BBC films co-produced the condensed film version.Looking at it now its an all star cast with Oscar nominees Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne is small but important roles, Andrew Garfield credited although its blink and you miss him and Oscar winner Natalie Portman plays Anne Boleyn and Scarlett Johansson plays her younger sister Mary Boleyn.The film is not meant to be historically accurate given that the source material is a fictional historical. In that sense it ties Henry VIII need to father a male heir with the Boleyn Family trying to engineer their rise in social status, riches and political power by using the Boleyn girls hooked up with Henry.The film also deals with rivalry as Mary first becomes Henry's mistress and gives birth to an illegitimate son and then Anne pledges herself to Henry but only if he first divorces his wife and also send Mary and her child away.Of course as Anne could not give birth to a son causes friction and for her Henry's wrath which results in the two sisters bonding again as the Boleyn family are put to peril.They say life in olden times was short, nasty and brutish. It seems to be no different even if you are in the inner circle of the Royal family particularly the Tudor court. This is a quick romp through a period in Henry VIII's life with enough intrigue, plotting that is doomed to failure.The film is carried by its actresses both Porter and Johansson are very good and Kristin Scott Thomas as the mother is excellent as the one who realises that her daughters are at risk from this foolhardy plan.

Whilst I think this movie Missed a trick by not casting Keira Knightley as Natalie Portman's sister, this is still an excellent movie featuring brilliant performances from Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric BanaPlot In A Paragraph: Two beautiful sisters, Anne (Portman) and Mary (Johansson) Boleyn, driven by their family's blind ambition, compete for the love of the handsome and passionate King Henry VIII. (Bana)David Morrisey (Walking Dead) Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) and Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables) Kristin Scott Thomas (Four Weddings & A Funeral) are all good in their supporting roles, as is future Amazing Spiderman, Andrew Garfield. However this movie is all about the three leads, and Portman is the best of an excellent bunch, giving what I consider, to be one of the best performances of her career.She gives a brilliant performance as the tragic Anne Boleyn. Her Speech in her final scene is wonderful, and I'm surprised her performance here has not been as praised as much as her Oscar winning turn in "Black Swan"Sadly her career will forever be linked with the Star Wars prequels which seemed to hurt her career, rather than help it. I think she is wonderful, and any movie automatically becomes better when her name is in the cast.