I have a few issues with the messages it’s sending. Particularly with the character Gigi. I felt it totally championed her pathetic, desperate, unhealthy, stalking personality as being positive and romantic by “keeping hope” that one day, someone would really love her. A better message is one of self improvement – I thought for sure, we’d see her overcome her desperate, unhealthy ways and see how it attracts the men! We did see a hint of it but not enough to make a difference and that speech she gave which made her unhealthy desperation sound like something to be proud of just made me cringe. Keeping hope and an open heart does not have to mean being a desperate stalker! They made it sound like this was just normal behavior that everyone experiences at some point but it’s definitely NOT. And even if one does experience it, it’s not something to be proud of.

The other message I had a problem with was with Beth’s relationship. I love happy endings and all but this is just sending the message that men who say for 7 years that they never want to get married WILL eventually come around. Sorry ladies but some men will NEVER come around. And believe it or not, there are even some WOMEN today who have no desire to get married.

The only realistic aspect of this was the fact that Ben ended up alone. I cringed at the line Drew Barrymore had about “what if you meet the right person but they’re already married?” So now it’s okay to get involved in an affair? So the fact that Ben did not wind up with his mistress after all was one of the few saving graces of this movie.

I don’t believe that people do and believe whatever they see on TV or in movies but I also don’t believe they have NO influence on our perspections of real life whatsoever. Don’t get me wrong, I love a nice, happy ending but the thing that really bugged me about this movie was that it started out talking about the negative influences we have on our perspections of men from the time we a child… and then goes on to simply contribute to them!

As usual with Margaret George’s novels, it was very detailed and gave a lot of depth to her characters (particularly the main character). But with such a long story, it did drag in parts and I was a bit disappointed with the ending. The novel was written in first person on the idea that Cleopatra wrote the memoirs of her life. Since it’s difficult to write about ones own death, there is always someone close to the main character in George’s novels, writing about the death as an add-on in the end. George followed this pattern again but also had Cleopatra still writing her tale up till the very end, after having been struck by the snake and awaiting her death.

Sorry but I just find it hard to believe that someone would be sitting there writing about the sensations of what they are experiencing after a snake bite unless they are doing so for the purpose of medical knowledge. I would have expected something more profound from Egypt’s last Pharaoh as she’s committing suicide. Instead, we get a description about the sensations in her arm from the snake bite and flimsy prayer to the goddess Isis.

But otherwise, it was good and inspired me to look into the actual facts and history of Cleopatra’s life. Compared to George’s other novels, I would rank it as better than “Mary, Called Magdalene” and “Helen of Troy” but not quite as good as “Autobiography of Henry VII” (haven’t read “Mary, Queen of Scotland and the Isles”).

I never really kept up with Sex And The City, I’m not a huge fan, I don’t religiously watch it. But I watched it now and then and managed to filled in the gaps of what I missed (not difficult). I mostly just liked the wit and humor. But a few things about it have always really bugged me. I won’t go into all of it because it’s not that important. But for one, the issue of Big.

Is this really what we want to teach women of today? That it’s okay to get hurt by a man, over and over again and still drop everything and go running to him when he comes back into our lives? I know sometimes it’s more complicated than that and yeah, I believe in giving people second chances… but to the casual viewer, Big just comes across as an absolute jerk and Carrie a fool for putting up with it again and again and again and again… how many again’s are there exactly?

I have to also point out – Carrie’s PA, Louise, just screams “politically correct”. Her whole character just seemed forced on the plot, totally unnecessary and clearly trying very hard to present a positive, politically correct image of a young, black woman. I don’t have a problem with diversity when it’s genuine but don’t just throw it in there to say “See! We can be politically correct!”

I also felt, as a casual viewer, it was too long.

However, there were some really funny and touching moments so it balances out to an averagely decent movie.

And I thought the book was a bit disappointing compared to the hype! This movie has made my list of “worst movies I’ve ever seen” and wound up improving my opinion of the book.

I should say that the depth and detail of the history of Henry VIII, Catherine and Anne is so great that I don’t believe it can be sufficiently covered in the span of one movie so it was foolish of them to attempt it. It was rushed and seemed edited down to the point of making characters and events shallow and boring.

Not only was it very historically inaccurate but it didn’t even follow the book very well. The historical accuracy doesn’t have to be 100% for me to enjoy it but this movie just lacked any sort of build up to or depth of certain defining moments in history.

Though the movie was full of good actors, their delivery was let down by the nature of the movie being rushed and shallow. If you want to watch a Tudor story that lives up to it’s potential, watch Showtime’s “The Tudors” instead.

SPOILER:

I was speechless – and not in a good way – during the scene where Henry just flat out rapes Anne. I’m still speechless as I write this, I can’t even begin to describe how absurd it is. Henry was an arrogant, selfish womanizer but he was NOT a rapist. Whoever wrote that scene is a disgrace.

It’s enjoyable as fiction but it’s not very historically accurate. I prefer historical fictions that are more historical than fictional – this one seemed to be more ficton than history.

I thought this was going to be a cute romantic comedy but it seemed like more of a drama than anything. It’s true, I didn’t finish watching it and I’ve heard there are some really funny moments in it, later on. But I wasn’t prepared to have a sob-fest to get to them. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t really like movies that make me cry more than once anymore. So I cried when he first died, I cried when she called his cell phone just to hear his voice on the recorded message and then I turned it off before I could cry about the cake and recorded song he had prebooked before he died to be sent on her birthday.

On another note, Gerard Butler’s Irish accent was horrible! Maybe the producers wrongly assumed that because he was Scottish, he could do an Irish accent without training so they skipped on the voice coach. I actually really like Gerard Butler, he’s one of the reasons I wanted to see this movie but even I have to admit his accent was a joke!

A lot of it just seemed forced for the sake of the lyrics, like the “Prudence” character – she was completely unnecessary to the main plot and only thrown in so they could add a few songs. Or the fact that there happened to be a band in the story so whenever they wanted to use a song that didn’t fit the main plot (and they couldn’t make up another unnecessary character for it), they could just have the band play it.

I know it must have been difficult to come up with a story that would involve only Beatles songs but I think my point is, they shouldn’t have attempted it in the first place. Anytime you try to create a story out of pre-existing songs – songs which are unrelated to each other and therefore trying to make them related to the same story is going to seem forced and unrealistic.

Plus, the psychedelic scenes… I understand they were just trying to portray the times but enough already, it’s difficult to appreciate scenes like that unless you ARE high (as proven by another member’s review who recommends that everyone watch it while high).

I really loved Sebold’s other books but after only a few pages of this I have to give up. Maybe it’s more about it just not being the right book at this time in my life. For starters, I recently finished “Mercy” which is a book about a man who kills his wife to spare her the pain of dying of cancer. Sebold’s book starts off with the sentence “When all is said and done, killing my mother came easily”. I’m really just not in the mood for this type of thing so soon after reading “Mercy”.

Still, I tried to read on, giving it a chance to grab my interest – but it goes on to describe the character’s mother’s physical and mental deterioration. This is also something I’m not in the mood for because currently, my husband’s parents are nearing the end of their lives and becoming more and more physically and mentally incapable. I guess I want to read something different to what is actually going on in my life right now. Maybe someday in the future I will pick this up again but right now, I’m not in the mood for it.

I did like this series and I plan on watching the second season. It’s good entertainment but some parts a very historical inaccurate.

And I don’t just mean the minor things like Henry not matching his physical description. There are other major deviations from fact. The biggest one that I discovered (after watching it I wanted to find out how accurate it was so I looked it up) is the issue of Henry’s sister. In Showtime’s version, Henry had a sister named Margaret – which is true, he did have a sister named Margaret. Unfortunately for Showtime, Margaret was never married to the King of Portugal OR Charles Brandon. Henry’s other sister, Mary – whose name was never mentioned in “The Tudors” WAS married to Charles Brandon, however she was previously married to Louis VII of France, not the King of Portugal. Nor did she murder her first husband. And although he did die within 3 months of their marriage, “The Tudors” certainly exaggerated their short marriage by making it last only a few days. Plus in the show she seemingly had no children but in fact, she had a few.

My only thought as to the logic behind the name swap is possibly that they worried people would confuse Henry’s sister Mary with Henry’s daughter Mary. While this could be a major insult to viewers, I can see how when character’s speak of “Mary” it may not be clear which Mary they are speaking of and therefore they attempted to avoid any confusion and call her Margaret instead.

As for why they had her marry the King of Portugal instead of Louis VII of France, it probably has to do with the timeline in the TV show not lining up with the historical timeline. In the TV show’s timeline, it probably wasn’t an ideal time for Mary/”Margaret” to marry the King of France so they chose a different country. Of course, had they followed the accurate timeline, they wouldn’t have needed to.

And the last thing I will say about the Mary/”Margaret” topic is that she was 18 when she married Louis VII and there is NO way Gabrielle Anwar could pass for that young. Maybe she wasn’t supposed for pass for 18 (it’s clear they had no regard for accuracy when it came to her character anyway) but given that even in the TV show, the King of Portugal was supposedly her first marriage, I found it hard to believe in that era a princess would go unmarried into her late 30s! Before I even looked up all of these inaccuracies it just didn’t seem right to me. A clear miscasting in my opinion.

And as far as miscasting goes, I also think either the actress who played Catherine of Aragon is too old or Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Henry) is too young. In history, Catherine is older than Henry but it’s only by 6 years – while the difference between the actors looks much, much greater.

Apparently Cardinal Wosley did not commit suicide and did not die in prison.

And I too thought the scene of Henry masturbating while one of his servants held a towel in front of him was unnecessary.

Don’t get me wrong, I can still enjoy the TV show as part fact, part fiction, part filling in the gaps with guesses. A lot of the casting I didn’t mention was very well done and the episodes certainly held my interest. I just hate to see so many people thinking it’s historically accurate when a lot of it is not so that’s the only reason I mention all of this. It’s certainly enjoyable but everyone should remember to take it with a grain of salt and if you want full historical accuracy, this isn’t it.

This is possibly my favorite book ever. A story about womanhood and sisterly bonds but also about ancient mesopotamian culture and mythology. Heaven. It’s so well written that it feels real, despite the unusual culture of ancient times.