Too much of everything

Sadly Over-hyped

Good concept, poorly executed.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Henry did not visit Anne when she was imprisoned in the Tower, Anne was not given the right to question the witnesses at her trial, Henry did not intervene in Anne's trial, there is no historical certainty that Cromwell had Anne framed.

If you don't know the story of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, the movie will give you a fair warning in the opening scene. A very upset and conflicted Richard Burton is faced with signing an edict, ordering Anne, Queen of England (a phrase he utters three times for the audience's benefit), to death. Then it goes back in time to the night he first met Anne, played by Genevieve Bujold. Normally, I don't like non-linear movies, but since the opening scene is the only part of the movie that throws off the timeline, I don't mind it. Also, it serves to caution those in the audience who don't know their history. This movie's going to be a heavy drama, and Richard Burton just warned you of the ending.Anne of the Thousand Days is an incredibly beautiful film. While it was nominated for ten Oscars in 1970, it only won Best Costume Design. Although Richard Burton had some competition in the Best Actor award from his friend Peter O'Toole in Goodbye, Mr. Chips, I would have awarded the film Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Art Direction with no hesitation. It takes an incredible talent to create a period piece of that time period with such believable sets and costumes that the audience actually starts to think it's a documentary. It sounds silly, but I actually began to believe I wasn't watching Richard and Genevieve. I was really and truly watching Henry and Anne, because of the acting, directing, sets, and costumes. Margaret Furse's costumes are perhaps the most beautiful costumes I've ever seen in a film. It's easy to watch an old movie and think, "Those costumes were borrowed from the set of The Court Jester." These costumes are so unbelievably beautiful, I kept pressing pause so I could admire the detail of the fabric, the patterns, and the accessories. I really don't think I can stress enough how beautiful the outfits are, so you'll just have to watch it to appreciate how realistically it captures the time period.The director of a film so fantastic in all its elements should be given enormous credit; it's very difficult to pull off an epic like this without it boring the audience, flying high above their heads, or coming across as cheesy. Director Charles Jarrett wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. But at least he won the Golden Globe.I love when period pieces are well written. When getting your information from a dry history book, it's easy to make the dialogue hard to digest. Screenwriters John Hale, Bridget Boland, and Richard Sokolove wrote an accessible, easy to understand, but still archaically correct script. Their words flow off the actors' tongues easily. It's hard to imagine anyone in that movie taking their costumes off at the end of the day and saying, "Groovy, man!" as they might have in 1969.And now, the acting. Usually, Henry VIII is depicted as a despicable villain with no redeeming qualities. Not in this version. Richard Burton breathes so much humanity into the role. The audience truly feels how conflicted, betrayed, and passionate he feels in every scene. You might not think he's an unequivocal hero, but he's definitely not a one-dimensional villain. He has three very fleshed out dimensions to his character. Genevieve Bujold is just as complex. She is not a simpering victim; she's conniving, bold, villainous, and torturous in her own way.This is a wonderful movie, even though it's not particularly uplifting. There's so much to love about it. I've already seen it twice, but you only have to watch it one time to know what I mean.

in a special manner. for acting. for accuracy. and for Bujold. a great film not about history of a king choices but about values, forms of cruelty and love, about measure and desire. it is a classic but not just for the passing time . but for delicate nuances of performance - not a really surprise from an impressive cast ( Anthony Quayle, Irene Papas, Michael Hordern or William Squaire ) - for costumes and atmosphere, for the art to be key to discover testimonies of past. in many scenes, it can be second part for The man for all seasons. in same time, it remains proof for force of characters of Richard Burton. more than a film, it is a meeting. with a page of past, with the brilliant manner to translate tension of a time, for universal message and, sure, for art to do a real remarkable film.

A terrible attempt to cash in on the success of A Man for All Seasons, this is a very overlong and boring film. Richard Burton, always a wooden film actor, overacts like never before as Henry VIII. His horrid, raspy chain smoker's voice is all wrong for the part - cigarettes didn't even exist in the 16th century. Burton is also too old for the part, he was only 43 during filming but looks more like 50. I wasn't surprised he was amazed to receive yet another undeserved Oscar nomination for this garbage, not only is the film so terribly acted by its elderly cast but there is nothing good about Burton's awful performance at all. Unsurprisingly, the film was an enormous flop on release. Forget about watching this crap, stick with A man for All Seasons instead starring Paul Scofield, an actor who (unlike Burton) actually had talent and could act.0/10.