I can't claim any relation to Scarlett Johansson, either. (Yes, for those of you who don't know: My surname is Johanson, just like MaryAnn. But we're not related.)

I've been considering going to see this movie, if for no other reason than to compare it to Showtime's series The Tudors, returning for a second season next month: Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Henry VIII, and Natalie Dormer (from Casanova) plays Anne Boleyn. Mary Boleyn was introduced and disappeared from the story fairly quickly. The Tudors is lavishly soapy and I'm sure its historical accuracy leaves much to be desired, but it's still fun to watch. (Especially Natalie Dormer. Yowza.)

I thought this book--and most of Gregory's "historical fiction"--was total harlequin nonsense. So I really shouldn't have been surprised that the movie was too. You can enjoy harlequin nonsense if the film/books KNOWS it's harlequin dribble but that was the problem with both the book and movie--they take themselves wwwwaaaayyyy too seriously to allow you to partake in the trash.
MJ, I think I'm the only person who doesn't get Scarlett Johansson AT ALL. Before she glammed herself up to impersonate Monroe (I love how red lipstick, bleached blonde hair and a good stylist can make you a throwback to Old Hollywood. We should all give it a shot!) she was a pretty plain looking girl. I find her acting incredibly lazy and one-track--every line in every film is delivered in that same flat, deadpan monotone, with a limited number of facial expressions. I find it kind of strange that all her roles are played along the same line: her work in Lost in Translation could have passed for Girl with the Pearl Earring, which could have passed for The Other Boleyn Girl, which could have passed for The Prestige and so on...
Maybe to some people that's depth and wisdom beyond her years, but to me it just comes off as a lack of range and an easy out if you want to impress critics--after all, it's hard to call someone a bad actress if they don't really, um, 'act'. Smart girl, that Johansson. I'll give her points for that.
While Portman often misses her mark as an actress--misplaced histrionics or pulling out the ingenue card when all else fails--I do appreciate the fact that she throws it all out there and genuinely looks like she's done her homework and is trying to get under the skin of her character. You talk about movie stars, MJ--I think that's the difference between Portman (and several other rare young actresses today who are few and far in between) and Johansson: the former is trying to be an actress, the latter is trying to be a movie star. Which makes for a very awkward chemistry, as was the case with The Other Boleyn Girl.

Not having seen the film, an not in any particular hurry to do so, I would like to abuse this opportunity to send a note of encouragement to getoutofthewaterophelia. I don't see why Scarlett J. is considered such a hot property, either. She was pretty useful as a dull background for bespectacled motormouth Thora Birch in Ghost World, but she and Jon Rhys-Meyers bored me to death by non-acting in Woody Allen's awful Match Point and Lost in Translation was pretty much lost on me, too. Let's agree to disagree with the majority out there.

I gave ScarJo a chance, honest I did. Her pallid performances could pass for maturity when she was still a young teenager, but now the gig is getting old. There are plenty of pretty faces who get by and are fully acknowledged by Hollywood as ONLY pretty faces--so when a bland-looking, bland-acting starlet receives a Mt. Olympus-sized portion of hype for both, I just don't understand it. I think she's gotten used to playing the husky somnambulist, top that with (an increasingly creepy) Woody Allen pronouncing her his new and foremost muse, and what's left to do but sit pretty and let the applause roll in?

Well, truth be told, my interest in Scarlett is almost completely prurient. ;-) I like her voice, and obviously she's very attractive. But a great actress, she is not, not even in Lost in Translation. Natalie Portman is a much better actress, and cute to boot.

Like another poster said, the very inaccurate novel and its movie adaptation take themselves a bit too seriously. Pacing seems to be off in the second middle half and there's not enough meat in this puppy. The Tudors TV series, which seems aimed at the same audience, is trashier but bolder, and succeeds more than The Other Boleyn Girl.

23 is not terribly young, MJ--especially in Hollywood years. Scarlett's not a teenager anymore; like getinthewaterophelia said, she's a very one-track actress. What I find funny (is that the right word?) is that Johansson's pretty outspoken and often downright insolent in a lot of her interviews--I keep thinking of ther Vogue interview last year where she harrassed a poor French Creole server, teasing him about "voodoo and witchcraft". So where's all this sassy fire onscreen? Why are we left with the same lifeless performances film after film?
This movie def. seemed like it had a lot of conflicting tones from its leads--in the end I was left wondering if this wasn't just a vehicle to stud the screen with a costume-clad Portman & Johansson.

Personally, I just thought this film was terribly miscast from beginning to end. I don't know about anyone else but I'm so sick of Hollywood using the same starlets every damn time, without even glancing at the more talented (and often more attractive) actors out there. I thought Emily Blunt or Eva Green would have made terrific Annes; Romola Garai would have been a wonderful Mary, so would Sophia Myles. True, none of those are 'celeb' names, but even with Portman/Johansson at the helm this film is still doing pretty mild at the box office.
I agree with the above posters, Johansson's pretty dismal to watch onscreen--no matter how much boob & lip she keeps throwing at us, Monroe she is not and never will be. I think she's the collective product of a powerhouse PR firm, ballsy agent and your classic stage mother--don't even get me started on her upcoming role as Mary Queen of Scots and the influences that snagged her the part. (Mommie's producing? Hmmmmm...wonder if any other actresses were even auditioned?)
I can take or leave Portman--when she's good, she's very good and when she's weak it's pretty painful. Her Anne was certainly the most interesting of all the characters, and far more multi-layered than Bana's horny king and Johansson's autistic Mary.
I just think the film was way too cheesy and Lifetime-esque considering how seriously its actors took their roles. Surely they knew they were signing on to do some serious schmaltz????

Actually, MJ, I think the better question is: "Why doesn't ScarJo take some acting lessons like a proper, decent actress?"
Well, at least those lips of hers that can't seem to shut themselves drew a good audience for the opening weekend...there's hope yet.
--BTW, I love how you choose to comment on the most minor details of my post; it wasn't about her lips/boobs, it was about her acting. I notice how little you have to comment about that. Interesting.

I actually loved how the movie's poster exagerrated ScarJo's and Natalie's lips to ridiculous portions--along with several other details. God, I love Hollywood.
Let's face it, folks--in our age of reality TV, flimsy blockbusters and plastic actors, we're desperate to find and elevate a cinematic icon. Look's like Scarlett's it for now.

I have to admit that I liked this even less than The Golden Age--not just for the historical inaccuracy (I'm one of those weird people who thinks the real history would make a great movie), but also because it didn't make much sense. The machinations of the Howards/Boleyns, even with the license Gregory took, at least made coherent sense in the book. The book's timeline made sense--the movie, of course, had to compress 20+ years of events into 2 hours. Henry's sexual aggression (to put in mildly) towards Anne was gratuitous. But even the actors I liked in other things just weren't terribly compelling--Cate Blanchett at least makes a fairly believable and interesting Elizabeth.

And my brain just boggles at Anne Boleyn raising the young Princess Elizabeth. There has to be a point at which historical revisionism is Not Acceptable. People actually do leave the theatre thinking this stuff is accurate.

What do you mean? Does Anne not lose her head at the end of the film? I read the book, but haven't seen the movie yet--hadn't planned onit. But now you've got me intriqued--don't tell me they have her living for a while in order to raise the future Queen Elizabeth?! LOL. LOL A LOT.

Script. Problematic. And after some thought -- I just watch them and score them; I don't write them -- I think I understand why.

Peter Morgan's "Queen" and "Scotland" scripts were brilliant, but they were based on much more modern monarchies than the Tudor dynasty.

In attempting to make the action accessible, he's using modern idiom -- both in his characters' lines and his screen directions -- instead of the one in the century where his action is placed.

BTW, MaJo - I read Jezebel, and I mentioned you over there today in a film critic discussion, so if you get a sudden influx of readership, I'd like my props in the form of a quietly and tastefully rigged giveaway. *kthx* :D

I cannot wait to see this, it opens in South Africa next week Friday...YAY!

Loved the reiew.

Sorry, I meant Mary and mistyped. Even playing with Mary's children is beyond unlikely, given Mary's marriage beneath her station etc. (And don't get me started on movie!Stafford.)

Scarlett Johansson (no relation -- don’t I wish I could glom onto her gorgeousness)

Oh, I'd say you got your share... ;-)

Re: the whole question of whether SJ is a good actress or not, the primary goal of Hollywood films is to make money. People are cast because it's believed their presence will contribute to the bottom line. If being a good actor was the primary consideration, Brooke Shields wouldn't have had a career. But I'll give Brooke credit, it's only taken her a scant 30 years or so to go from laughable to passable.

However, SJ "plain" looking? Dang, what island of Amazons do you people live on where she only rates a "plain"?

Just rented this.

A lot of the above commentary is spent on SJ's acting. I haven't seen enough of her work to make a comprehensive statment on her abilities but it seemed to me she gave a performance that was appropriate for the character and film. Her character was the more introverted of the sisters.

I wonder if was a different actor who they didn't have a predisposition to dislike, if they'd use phrases like "economical", "less is more" or whatever. John Wayne was essentially the same in every movie he did. Do DeNiro or Pacino change radically from one film to the next?

I watch films like this under the assumption they're going to take liberties with history, not that it's meant to be historical non-fiction. If one insists on complete accuracy, it's probably a safe assumption they didn't have Pantene hair and Colgate smiles. Pics of Hank 8 even in his youth sure don't look anything like Eric Bana. From what I've read, the film seems to hit the major historical points fairly faithfully. I believe a lot of the detail isn't known with certainty, there's a certain amount of speculation regarding a lot of it.

It's never been quite clear to me why Anne Boleyn had to be killed, on trumped-up charges no less. Why not simply give her the bum's rush as he did Katherine Of Aragon? Who btw I thought was a superb character in this film.

The mind boggles as to how different the psychology and mindset of people of this era was, seemingly more similar to Middle Easterners of today than what Americans are accustomed to. Daughters regarded as so much chattel, Henry VIII had wives killed for adultery when he committed such acts with impunity. Amazing that a wife would so readily accept her husband being such a dog, but that sort of thing seems to be rampant even today among political types.

A bit of history I ran across, is that it's reported that in an effort to lessen her suffering Anne's executioner called out "Where is my sword?" just before striking her so she wouldn't realize it was coming. I would have thought that would have been worthy of putting in the film.

The mind boggles as to how different the psychology and mindset of people of this era was, seemingly more similar to Middle Easterners of today than what Americans are accustomed to.

I should amend that, more similar to totalitarian regimes throughout history, including more modern times.

The rumors and charges against Anne Boleyn snowballed into crimes punishable by death. Nobody wanted to argue her innocence, so the inertia of events carried her to the chopping block.

The rumors and charges against Anne Boleyn snowballed into crimes punishable by death. Nobody wanted to argue her innocence, so the inertia of events carried her to the chopping block.

But I gather the charges were flimsy at best and Henry clearly could have stopped her execution had he so chosen. He obviously could do pretty much whatever he wished. If he believed she couldn't give him a son, I don't get why he didn't just have her de-queened instead of de-headed.

These days if a member of the English Royal household horses around, they get a book deal.