|
| The Tudors - The Complete First Season | 
 enlarge
| Actors: Steven Waddington, Perdita Weeks, Matt Ryan, Barry Mcgovern, Anna Brewster
Studio: Showtime Ent.
Category: DVD
List Price: $42.99
Buy New: $24.99
You Save: $18.00 (42%)
New (47) Used (13) from $23.50
Avg. Customer Rating:  228 reviews
Sales Rank: 203
Format: Ac-3, Box Set, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Number Of Items: 4
Running Time: 556
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.7 x 5.4 x 0.7
MPN: PARD851604D
UPC: 097368516045
EAN: 0097368516045
ASIN: B000P12LWY
Theatrical Release Date: 2007
Release Date: January 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Studio: Paramount Home Video Release Date: 12/31/2007
Amazon.com
The Tudors: The Complete First Season may cover the same subject matter as the 1970 BBC series The Six Wives of Henry VIII, but in every other respect it is a different idea of historical drama. Sexy and violent, The Tudors envisions Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) as a young man of both passion and ambition, driven by boundless sexual energy and the desire to establish a legacy early in his monarchy. When he isn't sleeping with any available beauty--heedless of whose daughter or wife a lover might be--he's getting fired up about going to war with France. He is amenable, however, to alternative ideas, including the counsel of his Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill), who wants his king to sign a treaty of universal peace with all of Europe. Henry's fiery temperament endangers such a move, but Wolsey persists in hopes of gaining France's support for his own, possible ascendance to the papacy. His ambitions are not to be, however, and his fortunes go downhill as Henry's desire to wed Ann Boleyn (Natalie Dormer) puts Wolsey in the position of petitioning Rome for a hearing on the legitimacy of Henry's marriage to Queen Katherine. Henry's shrewd alliance with the king of Spain is also testament to his desire to have more influence over European affairs. But his even greater desire for another woman proves an obstacle there, too. Over the course of the ten episodes on The Complete First Season, Henry's confidence grows as a monarch while his self-interest undercuts his better judgement about making a difference to Europe's progress. While the series makes the historical events rich and captivating, it also makes Henry's love life a voyeuristic delight, full of candlelit flesh and romps in the royal bed. Some of the most fascinating characters in the show are those who figure out the link between Henry's libido and his exercise of power--including Boleyn's own father (Nick Dunning), who encourages Ann to keep up the good work. Sheesh. --Tom Keogh
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 223 more reviews...
 Utterly appalling October 27, 2007
322 out of 421 found this review helpful
Why can't one give a zero star review? Nothing, nothing, nothing deserves even one star - ah! perhaps Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More, who manages a shred of dignity.
Speaking of shreds, this shreds history into an unrecognizable mess of bodice shredding escapades. I am only watching this travesty as one would an accident in progress; morbid fascination trumps good sense and judgement all too often. My specialization is this period of history (over thirty five years of studying every primary and secondary source in existence), and I have yet to see an entirely accurate fictional representation - which I accept with serenity. Theatrical license is perfectly acceptable, but this is pure fantasy; I am pressed to find even one per cent accuracy. Earlier versions of Tudor sagas, such as 'Anne of the Thousand Days', Keith Michell's Henry VIII and Glenda Jackson's Elizabeth I, 'Mary, Queen of Scots', or 'A Man for All Seasons' (brilliant) capture the spirit of the personages and era, notwithstanding certain problems. A sixteenth century rock star brat pack? Replete with American idioms, furniture destroying rages and gangster behaviour?
Why, when the historical figures were far more nuanced and compelling? When events were, for the time, earth shattering? The writers here settled for titillation and romance novel cardboard cutouts, not complex, contradictory, fascinating individuals who changed the known world.
What lazy and sloppy writing!
I despair. I know this is a minority opinion, but the series had a soporific effect on me. The dialogue is not intriguing, nor evocative of the period: Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons in the miniseries 'Elizabeth' spoke dialogue suggestive of Shakespeare's era; a sophisticated, scintillating treat for the ears and intellect. Historical inaccuracies can be overlooked with a sharp script and superb delivery. Here, the dialogue is modern: Henry VII described as a "businessman"? Charles Brandon casually remarking he can easily obtain a divorce? Why the modern, almost American, English? Challenge me, please, force me to think, make me savour the words, transport me to the era I love. And why so many scenes of thrashing limbs, naked bodies, and suggestions of sexual practices I cannot name here? Gratuitous, fanciful and unneccesary.
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is hopelessly miscast, and plays Henry VIII as an unpleasant, sullen, brooding brat/"lad" given to tantrums and meaningless sex; too young and without a whisper of charm. A flat, one note performance lacking in dignity. The real Henry was a fascinating, complex man: sunny one minute, stormy the next (unpredictable and hence, far more dangerous), a cultured and musically gifted man, intellectual and intelligent, emotionally expressive, a force of natural charisma; large boned, over six feet tall with thinning red-blonde hair. And rather prudish and discreet - flirtatious, chivalrous, unrealistically romantic - with only two known mistresses, taken late in his first marriage. He actually loathed risque jokes, and furiously dismissed those who dared tell one in his presence. As his claim to the throne was tenuous, Henry VIII's behaviour was invariably dignified and commanding.
Perhaps my greatest disappointment is how this series all too deliberately resembles "The Sopranos" (which I loved), but without depth and intelligence: unfortunately, this formula does not fit the sixteenth century.
Anne Boleyn/Natalie Dormer? No physical resemblance (Anne Boleyn's dark eyes, high cheekbones, long neck and narrow but strong jawline), of course, but also lacking in fire, temper, culture, elegance, artistic abilities and keen intelligence; Dormer is round faced and vacuous. Katherine of Aragon/Maria Kennedy is presented as too old next to Rhys-Meyers, and again, as the dark haired Spaniard. Costume? Anachronistic (baroque/Italianate, sometimes Germanic, not at all English, with many elements much later than this era). Not a gabled hood or French hood to be found, but many ruffs; completely inaccurate. In the Chateau Vert scene, of which we have costume descriptions, women wear almost nothing: ruffs with Victorian corsets? And why is everyone beautiful in our modern sense? Perfect skin, perfect hair, perfect features, perfect makeup, perfect model thin bodies, perfect teeth. Historical personages should be rough around the physical edges.
Lest we forget historical inaccuracies bordering on the bizarre: the Mary/Margaret amalgamation (she married and killed the King of Portugal? In what universe? Drunk, a screaming banshee, a vulgar, common fishwife?). Henry VIII's uncle murdered? Thomas Tallis in court during the 1520s, and gay? Buckingham's absurdly raucous, undignified, execution? Wolsey, a suicide? Henry Fitzroy, dead as a child? Why would they do this, particularly as some might actually construe this as reasonably true? I will not delineate any more historical errors - the list is far too long for this venue. Change all the names, and I would not recognize a single historical personage.
"Your Majesty"? Not a term in use then; Henry VIII would have been addressed as "Your Grace." I also noted a radiator in a bedchamber, an asphalt driveway, and a modern tape measure, and a nineteenth century carriage.
Very, very, very curious: the brief glimpses offered of Whitehall, Hampton Court Palace and Greenwich are painstakingly accurate, presented as they appeared in the early sixteenth century. As is Anne Boleyn's signature. Mystifying. Perhaps that also warrants the single star I am forced to give.
 Not much history here August 20, 2007
255 out of 328 found this review helpful
When I first heard about Showtime's series "The Tudors," I was really looking forward to seeing it. I've always had an interest in English history and in particular a fascination with Anne Boleyn. I also understood that this was not a documentary; I expected there to be some straying from the historical record. However, when a series purporting to be based on factual events strays as far from the historical truth as this one does, it becomes not merely laughable but maddening.
Other reviewers have pointed out the inaccuracies regarding Henry's sisters. He had two, Margaret and Mary. Margaret married the king of Scotland. In "The Tudors," he has one sister, inexplicably called Margaret. I say inexplicably because her story more closely follows Mary's life, but with glaring differences. The writers have this Mary marry an entirely different king than the real one did and on top of that they have her kill him. I don't get it. It's as if the writers decided that Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and the break with Rome just weren't interesting enough in and of themselves, so they threw in some murders, duels, and lots and lots of sex. Also, the timelines are just plain screwy. There are events happening concurrently that in reality happened years apart. And what's ironic is that in an ongoing series like this one, they could have taken the time to show events in the correct order.
I applaud the casting of Sam Neill as Cardinal Wolsey and Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More. They are excellent. However, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is badly miscast as Henry VIII. Henry was a tall and imposing figure. Jonathan Rhys Meyers lacks the physical stature to carry the role off. He also seems a bit young to be playing Henry at this stage of his life. I can't believe they couldn't find a more physically impressive actor to play Henry.
On the plus side, "The Tudors" is beautifully filmed. It certainly is visually appealing and I can see why some viewers find it enjoyable. I just hope they don't kid themselves that they are learning much about English history. I wish the producers would have given a fictional name to this series rather than tying it in to the Tudors, because history this isn't.
 Inaccurate but wonderful show May 27, 2007
127 out of 147 found this review helpful
Completely hooked after first episode. JRM, Henry Cavill, and Maria Kennedy give stellar performances. Absolutely love this show but there are a few inaccuracies, such as combining King Henry's sisters into one, Margaret, whom did not marry Brandon, but sister Mary did and bore his chldren.Henry Fitzroy dying at such a young age when he had a great deal to do with Anne Boleyn's trial was mind blowing. Do not watch this if you believe you are "learning" about the Tudors, it clearly deviates from the truth, but it is an amazing piece of fiction with a gorgeous cast!!!
Wonderful and 90% accurate May 24, 2007
85 out of 122 found this review helpful
I am an admitted history dork and loved Rome on HBO, after it finished airing and I heard about the Tudors I thought I was not going to get into another mini series. Darn Showtime though.. they put the first two episodes on Showtime on demand before it aired.. genius move.. the first one was okay.. and then by the second I was hooked. the story is about 90% accurate there are a few changes but nothing major.. the beauty of this shows that history need not be boring or dull.. its a beautiful lavish production Showtime should be proud of.. also if you like this type of thing Get Elizabeth 1 (with Helen Mirren) also and HBO production.. HBO has seemed to have a handle on this genre.. Showtime should be proud of this one and unlike Rome which after two season was finished.. with Henry's life, history and wives I hope it continues for years to come..
I am thrilled they are now working on season two.. I can't get enough and lOVE they put the episodes early on demand... can't WAIT for season 2!!!!! Get this.. you will NOT be disappointed.
Inaccurate, sleazy drivel August 11, 2007
29 out of 53 found this review helpful
I have to wonder......did any of those who produced this pile of useless, oversexed and inaccurate drivel ever bother to read a history book? I'm not one of those viewers who EXPECTS BBC like accuracy (Their Six Wives series with the unequalled Keith Michell is still the golden standard) from every Tudor related film. I enjoyed movies like "Young Bess" and "Anne of the thousand days", inaccurate though they were. But "The Tudors" has hit a new low. For one, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII. He looks more like a skinny, pretty Don Juan wannabe and not like the red-haired, majestic and sophisticated King Henry of history. Yes, Henry wasn't always a fat man, till about 1529 he was a handsome man, strong of muscle and very intelligent. But he was always of a broad built and not the little nothing that we see here. At 6''2 he towered over everyone around him. Nothing of this can be seen here. All we get here is a soap opera reject playing around in inaccurate costumes.
Another thing: Anne Boleyn. Where are her striking dark eyes? Her cutting wit? Her elegance and her French education?
I could go on and on. But it's useless. This is 95% fantasy using the names of people who've actually walked on this earth long ago. With a director saying "that Henry's d*ck actually changed history", how CAN you expect something tasteful! Disgusting, inaccurate, sleazy and badly cast, directed and acted. In one word: Useless!
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
