User reviews

Having finished the first season and rewatched it a half dozen times as I wait impatiently for Showtime to unveil the second season of "The Tudors," I have to admit that this show has intrigued me in the history surrounding Henry VIII and his unfortunate wives better than any before it. The producers say it's "80% accurate," and that's an apt description, but what impressed me so much was that within that 80% are some little-known and often overlooked moments that make for great drama. Like the fact that the little wrestling match between Henry of England and Charles of France actually did take place, or that the only time Queen Katharine lost her cool in all that she was forced to endure was over the succession, and subsequent threat to her daughter's rights to the throne. Even certain of the dialogue is ripped right from the pages of history.

True, things are pushed out of order so as to move the story along at a more rapid pace, and the worst bastardization of history comes in the form of the preposterous mingling of Henry's sisters Margaret and Mary into one individual (oddly enough, they don't even bother to push through the fact that one marriage lasted eighteen years and produced several children, which would have given them a lead-in for producing a later series built on this one about the heirs to the throne), but the reality is that this is solid film-making. The production value is exquisite, the original score is absolutely gorgeous, and then there are the performances.

It is a downright shame that Maria Doyle Kennedy and Sam Neil were given no mentions in the Emmy nominations, because while the rest of the cast is outstanding, they really deserve critical acclaim. Kennedy's Katharine of Aragon is perhaps the most authentic and sympathetic depiction ever to reach the silver screen, large or small, and the audience has responded to her with overwhelmingly positive emotions. I know that she broke my heart more than once, as much as made me want to stand up and cheer, particularly in the eighth episode. Neil is not quite as unlikable as Wolsey could be, but in the second half of the first season hits his stride and is absolutely phenomenal in the finale.

The one thing that rather disenchanted me was the amount of pointless sex and skin revealed on the part of random ladies of the court. Henry certainly had his flings but they were not as often as depicted, and to be perfectly honest, one is left wondering what he sees in these naked trollops when he has a far more beautiful and enchanting wife lingering in the background. (It also doesn't give the audience much empathy for Henry, who seems incapable of "making love." Even his eventual tryst with Anne Boleyn has more primal boredom to it than wooing.) I know it was a low ploy by Showtime, cashing in on the "sex sells" shallowness of our culture, but the story is much more profoundly lingering without it.

Well, it's gorgeous, well-acted but far too much tampering with the facts of history. Henry had TWO sisters, not one, and it was his sister, Mary, who was married off to a king in his dotage - and it was to the king of France, not Portugal. Margaret was married to the Scottish King, from whence comes the Stuart claim to the English throne. Don't watch this for your history exam! Just enjoy the costumes, set, fiery acting and music. The portrait of Henry, though, is wonderful. Lest we forget; he was quite handsome and charismatic in his younger days. As he continued getting his way both in politics and the bedroom, he grew more and more self-absorbed and ruthless. One good historical item is pointing out that, whatever was going on in separating from the Roman church, most of the English reformers had little use for Luther and wished to distance themselves from the continental reformation. Odd that today the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran church work hand-in-hand in aid efforts and acknowledge more readily our common bonds. Just FYI, the word "protestant" actually means one who protests the abuse of the Sacrements, which was rampant in those days.

The Tudors is a fantastic show which showcases the life and times of King Henry the VIII. As the opening of the show tells the viewer, "You think you know a story but you only know how it ends. To get to the heart of a story you have to go back to the beginning." I'm sure a lot of people watching the show are watching it for entertainment and not because of its historical accuracy. I personally love Tudor England and know a lot about it. The show takes many liberties, but that's why it's entertainment and not a biographic film on the King. It's fascinating to see what is kept of what many believe to be true and what is changed. Things such as basing Henry's sister Margaret after both his sister Mary and his older sister Margaret is very interesting turn. The first four episodes have been phenomenal works of cinematic art which I hope will continue on for seasons to come.

The Tudors is about as close to perfection as a show of its genre can get. I understand people may argue that there are many historical inaccuracies but these become irrelevant when you realise the quality of the sets, scripts and not to forget the incredible acting.

I also think that the costume department also deserve an enormous amount of credit for designing royal attire that would have been fit for any Tudor King or Queen. As soon as you see the women walk out in their gorgeous dresses and the men in their traditional Tudor dress you are pulled into the world of Henry V111's court, a world, which thanks to this beautifully made show, I would never want to leave.

I think "The Tudors" is the best television I've watched in a long time. Interesting that it was a collaboration between Irish and Canadian TV, maybe that's why the BBC didn't give it more of a profile? I disagree with the approach taken by the other reviewers - it is a DRAMA and never purported to be an accurate historical documentary, so my advice is to understand that first and enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. The acting is superlative from everyone with the exception perhaps of Joely Richardson whom I've never "got" anyway - too colourless and divorced from the part. Tamsin Merchant as Catherine Howard gave a consistently outstanding performance, and all credit to such a young actress. Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII was absolutely excellent throughout, he thoroughly owned the character and delivered with incredible passion and conviction. (And yes, he was extremely pleasing to the eye unlike H8 - so what?). I would also like to praise the production itself, the incredible and spellbinding direction, the lavish sets and opulent costumes and not least of all the music which I am now intent on buying.

All these reviewers , boasting of their historical knowledge ....pleeeeez Get over yourselves !!! This is a Hollywood production , not a classroom lesson. The costumes , the scenery , the acting ... this is what film making is about . If you don't like it , go read an encyclopedia.

I absolutely loved this show! It got me completely fascinated with that time period. Obviously there are people who say that it embellishes too much but its Television and it is meant to entertain, and it does that perfectly! and truth be told, it really doesn't take too many liberties. I've seen shows and movies do way worse. I found myself constantly having numerous web pages open checking up on facts and what happened and I was often surprised at the things they included. Absolutely stunning show and I believe it does a great service to the time period. Don't be discouraged by the very few bad reviews. It's a must watch!

I'm glad to see Showtime taking on the Tudor era, even if they are doing it because Henry's life is a tabloid-seller's dream come true, and our culture is tabloid-obsessed.

I love the casting of Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) and Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey).

I read an earlier comment after I had already expressed the following thought elsewhere, and I completely agree -- Steven Waddington (Buckingham) would have been a better Henry VIII - he's bigger (he properly fills the screen, which in various shots J R-M painfully cannot, either in height or breadth); red-haired (as Henry was); and a POWERFUL, mesmerizing actor who's a better age for the part. (J R-M's eyes are riveting, but that's not enough for the part b/c at this stage of Henry's life, his fame was largely due to his physical dominance, learning & musical skill.) Showtime seems to be trying to appeal to a VERY young, VH-1 audience with the J R-M casting. Or, as they suggest, to people who don't know the story.

That's my second issue - don't suggest in the ads that you're going to tell the REAL story when you're not. Some dramatic license is expected (like flipping France for Portgual b/c they introduced Francis I early on) but there is no GOOD excuse for making a composite of Henry's sisters by telling Princess Mary Rose Tudor's story, but calling the character Princess Margaret, which was her older sister's name.

The real Margaret had a dramatic story, too -- and she's got the line to the current royal family through her great-granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots -- but they lost the chance to tell that by combining the sisters. Presumably they did it b/c they thought the audience was so dumb that we couldn't handle Henry's daughter and sister both being named Mary. Too bad.

No, it's not historically accurate. No, Henry VII looks nothing like he should. We might as well as get those things out of the way to begin with, because despite the obvious changes to the story that we all know and love, THE TUDORS is a wonderful television series.

This takes the stories of the Tudor court and updates them for a 21st century audience. The actors are young and attractive and give thoroughly engaging performances to boot. The show, complete with political manoeuvring, backstabbing, violence, sex, treachery, scandal and gossip, never slows down for a second. Having just sat through the entire four seasons, I can truly say that I wasn't bored for a second in any of the episodes.

Rhys Meyers gives a tour de force performance as the conflicted king. Given the extended time frame of the show, he has the opportunity to really get inside the skin and mind of Henry VIII. No other actor has come close. Rhys Meyers is a powerhouse, at times subtle and chilling, at other times pompous and civil, at other times stormy and frightening.

The supporting cast are excellent. Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn captures that fragile beauty and inner power/determination just right. Others, like Sarah Bolger, Sam Neill and Nick Dunning, are equally captivating. The show looks tremendous, making use of decent CGI to bring the locales to life. The costumes are sumptuous too.

In the end, though, it's the scripts that make or break a TV show, and in this respect THE TUDORS is at the top of its game. Kudos then to Michael Hirst for creating such a perfectly made and thoroughly entertaining slant on one of history's most popular periods.

Before I would say that Game of Thrones was my favourite show of all time, but after that awful last season, I had to re-think about it. It seems like something always draws me back to The Tudors. So far, I've seen the show 4 times in my life and it always gets better every time. Wonderful costumes, amazing sets, great acting and keeps you entertained the entire time. I know about some of the historical inaccuracies, but this is just a tv show and it entertained me, so I'm fine with that. My only flaw with this show is that it contains many unnecessary sex scenes that don't really add up to the overall plot.

I had finally come to review this show as I had been a fan since its creation. Before reviewing however, I had to read other user reviews, and I must say WOW. Really? Just really...? So many complaints because they tampered with a few historical facts. Henry had two sisters, clothing was not correct, bla bla bla. Get a life, or take a history course. Showtime is not obliged to bring us a perfect history lesson, nor should you cry about like some whiny child. It is really just stupid that you would give this show 1-3 stars because your having a hissy fit about history lessons, or to much nudity... Regarding that we were presented several beautiful ladies in a sensual way which I commend the director for his ability to deliver this. The show had amazing music, amazing characters, and while season three was the not the best. I would sit and watch it any day over some stupid reality show like The Biggest Loser. So if you want more trash like reality shows go ahead and keep dissing this amazing show. Maybe television will give you the trash you please, but for my sake I hope not. I really enjoyed this series. Just amazing considering most episodes could keep me at the edge of my seat regarding how long each one was. Ignore the crybabies and give this show a chance. If your like me and don't cry every time you don't see Henry's second sister, or the fact he is wearing the wrong shirt, or a breast is shown then you should really enjoy this show. Then again, I am appalled at the hate this show has received....

I've seen a lot of reviews complaining about the show not being historically accurate. But this is not a historical documentary. It's a TV show based loosely on fact. And it's executed very well. The basic facts of the reign of Henry VIII are kept in this show and some more in detail facts are in here too, and some are slightly different than what the truths are.

What this show did for me was to educate me further in my knowledge of the reign of Henry VIII. I did not get the education from the show but that the show encouraged me seek out facts behind the show - such as the execution of Anne Boleyn, in fact her execution speech is near a mirror to the one the real Anne Boleyn spoke at her execution. So this show does educate people. It encourages them to seek out the real facts.

Another positive about the show was that it showed a human side to these historic people. Jonathan R. Meyers plays an absolutely fantastic Henry. Truly commendable. He does bring a human side to Henry, the side that isn't perhaps shown - the fact that he was a father and albeit not always a good one but nevertheless he seemed to have been good at times. Moreover I liked that the show sympathised with Anne Boleyn. I personally don't feel she was as much of a "bitch" as historians make her out to be. She was not fully to blame for the destruction of Henry's first marriage. I actually sympathised greatly with Anne. I felt she was a pawn in many peoples games. And I want to commend Natalie Dormer for a truly incredible performance as Anne. In the episode of Anne's death I was sobbing throughout.

There were many great actors in this show. I was highly impressed. From Jonathan - who pulled off the life of Henry as king in a truly kingly manor! - to smaller parts like Lady Rochford and Anne of Cleves. I think all actors got their character just right.

In the case of writing and directing - superb! The script was fantastic (bar someone exclaiming "oh my god", I think it was Catherine Howard, which is obviously blasphemy and I don't think Henry would have approved.

Anyone, who won't be too annoyed by small factual errors should watch this. A true success and no doubt I'll be re-watching it.

hi friends, I'm coming from China, and very like history of world.

From mid of 2007, I found this great TV series on net, and inspired by it immediately, as I know about a picture of King Henry VIII and imaging from books, he is a fat and normal looking man, had changed 8 wives, killed 6 of them, and his doctor is Queen Elizabeth I, but in this TV series, the actors makes me almost back to that age, all the environment, language, scene and people of that age comes to my eyes like a hurricane, their act and charming makes the TV becoming one of the greatest history TV series, like Rome and the Band of Brothers etc.

The king is a most complex person, and also the Anne Boleyn was same, the two actors play the role from their soul, I think even the real King Henry and Queen Ann would be satisfied with them.

my poor English level can't allow me to write more, but I'm very happy to know this series and waiting for the serious extended to Elizabeth age asap----the King Henry's time is long enough, IMO, kidding.

I would recommend "The Tudors" to everyone who likes stories about medieval times and about politics in personal and international affairs.

I would say the series revolve around personal choices and relationships involving individuals, international affairs and the church.

I am not sure how historically correct the series are, but they definitely convey the spirit of that time in terms of the King's figure and the Court life.

I find the series unpredictable and intriguing.

King's acting is excellent and convincing.

In my mind it's a YES.

Now I am no historian as I have said in one or two of my previous reviews, but I do take an interest in it. The Tudors I especially loved learning about, and by year 4 I was able to tell my class a few facts about Henry VIII, his life and his wives without referencing a book or asking the teacher for help. This is an imperfect but good and quite interesting series.

I do agree though about the inaccuracies. I would be lying if the writers didn't take liberties with the truth, or got a bit over-creative. I am especially talking about Henry's sisters and also flipping France for Portugal. Also I think the writers could have focused more on his musical skills and physical dominance not to mention the fiery red hair of his, as that was what made him famous and also what made stand out from the rest of the kings and queens.

I do agree to some extent about Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Granted he is dashing, has riveting eyes and does show some compelling acting chops. But... he is the wrong build, too tall and too thin and I also think he is too young for the part as well. Consequently any time shifts don't quite come across as believable.

Some of the earlier seasons could have done with more character development. It has improved significantly over time, as has the acting, but when it started I did think it was rather sketchy and underdeveloped.

Faults aside, The Tudors does look exquisite. The sets and scenery are truly sumptuous, with a very convincing Tudor look, while the costumes are often mesmerising. The photography is always top notch, while the editing is crisp and props authentic enough. I am also quite taken with the music in this show. The main theme has a wonderful Medieval lilt to it, while the background scoring is almost cinematic.

The writing is mostly good. Even with the inaccuracies, I do think the dialogue is thought-provoking and entertaining. The story lines are compelling enough, well paced and written with heart in my opinion. There are scenes that do make me emotional or do disturb me. In particular there was a recent episode where a woman was tortured and burned alive, the impact that had was almost reminiscent of the beginning of Elizabeth and some parts of Witchfinder General, scenes which disturbed me greatly.

The direction is solid enough as well, while the acting is in general fine. While the wrong build and age, Meyers as I said before does show some good acting and emotion. Out of his wives, I have liked Joely Richardson and Natalie Dormer most. My favourites of the cast though are Jeremy Northam and Sam Neill, who are both inspired casting and both give excellent performances.

All in all, this is a good if imperfect show. If you want a truer account of the life and six wives of Henry VIII though, watch the David Starkey documentary Channel 4 mini-series The Six Wives of Henry VIII, which I learnt a lot from, or the film Henry VIII and his Six Wives with Keith Michell, while compressed it benefits from splendid acting and a wonderfully sympathetic Henry. 7/10 for The Tudors. Bethany Cox

With the proposed ending of Rome - I think a lot of viewers will automatically turn to The Tudors as a replacement. I have watched the first episode and find that the acting and set alone can pull a viewer in. It is different than Rome, but the same core passions of humanity are present.

I am deeply saddened that Rome will be ending after such a short run, and I think that were it not, The Tudors would find far more competition. As it is, both shows are proving that there is an audience for historical dramas and I hope such endeavors continue in the future.

The Tudors has a quality cast with attractive actors for both genders to attach to. I cannot make an honest opinion yet on the plots and direction of the series until I see more of it, but the imagery alone is a good start for this series.

THE TUDORS has enjoyed a dedicated audience since it first impressive Season I and now the final season IV is over: there will be a void on Sunday evenings, but it seems the promise of a series on the BORGIAS will step into that slot next season. For those of us who enjoy historical drama (whether fictionalized to enhance the drama or not) this view of the beginning of the Tudor reign in England was a satisfying treat - visually and dramatically. Yes, there were errors of omission and commission and some jumbling of times and incidents, added characters and subtracted or mutated characters, but the spectacle won us over. Probably some of the finest set dressing and costuming ever assembled for a huge cast kept the eye entertained while the quality of acting included some of the more important actors of the day along with introducing some fresh and exciting faces: Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill, James Frain, Sarah Bolger, Natalie Dormer, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Jeremy Northam, Sam Neill, Hans Matheson, Henry Czerny, Peter O'Toole, Joely Richaradson, Max von Sydow, Joss Stone, Gabrielle Anwar, David O'Hara and on and on.

What may have been lacking in verisimilitude was compensated by a richly dramatic portrayal of one of the most fascinating royal families ever. Michael Hirst wrote all 38 episodes, no minor feat! The cinematography was superb and the running themes by composer Trevor Morris kept the series connected. Let's hope the next series will be as rewarding!

Grady Harp