Clevercell Very disappointing...

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

HotToastyRag 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.

sol- With his wife beyond child-bearing age and lacking a male heir, King Henry VIII pursues Anne Boleyn, a much younger woman, and ultimately forms the Anglician Church to annul his marriage and wed her in this historical drama starring Richard Burton and Geneviève Bujold. The film won an Oscar for its lavish costumes, yet Bujold's performance is the film's best asset as she brazenly stands up to Henry VIII early on, only to later relish in the power of being Queen; one truly gets a sense of her having grown and progressed over the course of the movie. Director Charles Jarrott never quite manages to disguise the stage play roots of the material with lots of static shots and a heavier emphasis on dialogue over atmosphere, but the project is oddly compelling for a film exploring such a well known slice of history. The performances definitely render the material more engrossing, with both Burton and co-star Anthony Quayle sharing some excellent scenes with the radiant Bujold. By all accounts, Burton disliked his turn here but he actually makes his character nicely sympathetic; even when he goes to reprehensible extremes to try to gain a son, his passion remains heartfelt. Some have in fact been critical of just how much the iconic monarch is softened here, but there is something quite refreshing in how the film tries to capture both Henry and Anne's perspectives.

Armand 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.

dbdumonteil Visually the movie is a splendor ;the two principals are excellent ,there's no need to add to the praise they have already received;the most difficult part is perhaps that of Ann;She begins as a romantic careless young girl ,who still thinks she can fall in love and marry the man she loves.Little by little,she becomes an ambitious unscrupulous woman;when she realises her fate is sealed ,she transfers her thirst for power to her daughter:the final words are highly prophetic and actually the two apparent losers of Charles Jarrot's two historical movies (Anne in 1970 ,Mary Stuart in 1972) were actually the posthumous winners : Elizabeth The First was one of the greatest sovereigns England had ever had and James Stuart reigned over England and Scottland after her death.