KatharineFanatic
Joined Nov 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings838
KatharineFanatic's rating
Reviews64
KatharineFanatic's rating
Divorced. Beheaded. Died. Divorced. Beheaded. Survived.
Lucy Worsley goes where many historians have gone before -- but in a unique way, by stepping back in time to illustrate scenes from Tudor life. She spends a decent chunk of the three episodes with Katharine of Aragon, revealing her as the "warrior queen" devoted to her husband's spiritual welfare, dispelling the myth of her as an angry, bitter old woman and instead showing the fire and zeal of a true fighter, who gave Henry 'what for' over seven years.
Her Anne Boleyn is a fair portrait of an intelligent, ambitious woman in over her head, whose flirtations give rise to scandal and set her up for removal.
She defends Jane Seymour as no doormat, but instead an intelligent, clever woman intending to play one in order to survive.
Anne of Cleves is depicted as the one woman who outsmarted all the others, who held out for better things, and died better off by far than any of the others.
Katherine Howard arguably receives the greatest re-imagining, with Worsley raising questions about her affair with Culpepper being the result of blackmail over her previous sexual activities -- and she boldly attacks the presuppositions about Katherine as a "slut" by staring into the camera and asserting that nowadays, we'd call her an abused child.
Katherine Parr is portrayed as the most "intellectually curious" of Henry's wives, with much emphasis placed on her evangelism, her writing of the first book in England published by a woman, and her cleverness in managing to escape an arrest warrant.
It's arguably brief. It glosses over much in each woman's life. You'd need longer than three episodes to explore the first two queens' humanitarian work, or Katherine Howard's compassion to those in need (including poor imprisoned Margaret Pole), but for a brief introductory biography that escapes common clichés and biases, and treats each wife fairly with no hints of favoritism, it's an excellent three hours.
Lucy Worsley goes where many historians have gone before -- but in a unique way, by stepping back in time to illustrate scenes from Tudor life. She spends a decent chunk of the three episodes with Katharine of Aragon, revealing her as the "warrior queen" devoted to her husband's spiritual welfare, dispelling the myth of her as an angry, bitter old woman and instead showing the fire and zeal of a true fighter, who gave Henry 'what for' over seven years.
Her Anne Boleyn is a fair portrait of an intelligent, ambitious woman in over her head, whose flirtations give rise to scandal and set her up for removal.
She defends Jane Seymour as no doormat, but instead an intelligent, clever woman intending to play one in order to survive.
Anne of Cleves is depicted as the one woman who outsmarted all the others, who held out for better things, and died better off by far than any of the others.
Katherine Howard arguably receives the greatest re-imagining, with Worsley raising questions about her affair with Culpepper being the result of blackmail over her previous sexual activities -- and she boldly attacks the presuppositions about Katherine as a "slut" by staring into the camera and asserting that nowadays, we'd call her an abused child.
Katherine Parr is portrayed as the most "intellectually curious" of Henry's wives, with much emphasis placed on her evangelism, her writing of the first book in England published by a woman, and her cleverness in managing to escape an arrest warrant.
It's arguably brief. It glosses over much in each woman's life. You'd need longer than three episodes to explore the first two queens' humanitarian work, or Katherine Howard's compassion to those in need (including poor imprisoned Margaret Pole), but for a brief introductory biography that escapes common clichés and biases, and treats each wife fairly with no hints of favoritism, it's an excellent three hours.
This film has taken a beating in the press for daring to "remake" the 1959 award-winning classic; but it's a solid piece of entertainment, and arguably, has far more powerful spiritual themes than any of its predecessors. The cast is terrific, the script never lags, the romance is believable, and the sense of realism in Jerusalem is wonderful. It explores the political upheaval of the region at the time, using the zealot conflicts as a cornerstone for the event that lands Judah in trouble with Rome.
While I do have a few minor nitpicks with the production's historical accuracy (it's a bit shocking to see so many beards among the Romans), the costuming and set design is magnificent. The chariot race isn't the only pulse-pounding moment but it does boast spectacular action scenes (and some gritty carnage). The camera is used to give a sense of claustrophobia inside the ship. The score neither overwhelms nor detracts from the experience.
I wanted a bit more duality in the Roman characters than the script allowed; most of them are simply villains. The audience is left to assume Messala's emotions and motivations, and he doesn't seem to have as much emotional conflict as one would expect, in condemning his former family to death. It is confusing toward the start, as it establishes the zealots, but resolves all its major plot arcs.
Sentimentality may make people consider passing this up, but if they can put aside comparisons and see it as a new take on the novel, rather than a remake, they'll find it a thought-provoking and powerful film.
While I do have a few minor nitpicks with the production's historical accuracy (it's a bit shocking to see so many beards among the Romans), the costuming and set design is magnificent. The chariot race isn't the only pulse-pounding moment but it does boast spectacular action scenes (and some gritty carnage). The camera is used to give a sense of claustrophobia inside the ship. The score neither overwhelms nor detracts from the experience.
I wanted a bit more duality in the Roman characters than the script allowed; most of them are simply villains. The audience is left to assume Messala's emotions and motivations, and he doesn't seem to have as much emotional conflict as one would expect, in condemning his former family to death. It is confusing toward the start, as it establishes the zealots, but resolves all its major plot arcs.
Sentimentality may make people consider passing this up, but if they can put aside comparisons and see it as a new take on the novel, rather than a remake, they'll find it a thought-provoking and powerful film.
I'm a Roman/Judean history nut, so when this came out, I had to see it. Three hours later, I have mixed thoughts.
The Good: the plot! It has its shaky moments but overall, this is a decent script. Barabbas comes across as a cynical, self-serving man who undergoes a change of heart and finds redemption. Pilate's wife, Claudia, also has a decent role, far bigger than any other depiction of her ever made—although I can't say the end of her story made me happy! Wandering in and out of different biblical events was also fun.
The Strange: can someone explain to me why Pilate has a beard? It wasn't fashionable for Romans at the time. He's also much too short to be a believable governor, considering Barabbas is about a foot taller. Why does Ester one minute tell Barabbas fornication is a sin against God, then turns around awhile later after following Jesus around and fornicates with him? Also, even though thirty years have passed by the end (which the film doesn't tell us, and most people ignorant of the time period wouldn't know), no one gets any older except Peter why is that? The Bad: the acting! I'm not sure if it was foreigners struggling to speak in English rather than Italian that turned in such a crop of mediocre and sometimes downright painful performances, or that they just have no talent, but almost no one in this production is memorable. Zane is better than most but still hams it up a bit; I also wonder why Hristo Shopov is wasted in a minor role. He's played Pilate twice before (in Mel Gibson's film, and in a foreign follow-up), so it's strange they wouldn't let him do it again, particularly given that he has five times the presence and "governor-ness" than "this" Pilate. Also, something is "off" in this Jesus, but I'm not sure what; it's slightly creepy in places.
The Result: is a decent film hampered by its low production values; if you can overlook that, it's enjoyable, moving, and quite often surprising in where it leads.
The Good: the plot! It has its shaky moments but overall, this is a decent script. Barabbas comes across as a cynical, self-serving man who undergoes a change of heart and finds redemption. Pilate's wife, Claudia, also has a decent role, far bigger than any other depiction of her ever made—although I can't say the end of her story made me happy! Wandering in and out of different biblical events was also fun.
The Strange: can someone explain to me why Pilate has a beard? It wasn't fashionable for Romans at the time. He's also much too short to be a believable governor, considering Barabbas is about a foot taller. Why does Ester one minute tell Barabbas fornication is a sin against God, then turns around awhile later after following Jesus around and fornicates with him? Also, even though thirty years have passed by the end (which the film doesn't tell us, and most people ignorant of the time period wouldn't know), no one gets any older except Peter why is that? The Bad: the acting! I'm not sure if it was foreigners struggling to speak in English rather than Italian that turned in such a crop of mediocre and sometimes downright painful performances, or that they just have no talent, but almost no one in this production is memorable. Zane is better than most but still hams it up a bit; I also wonder why Hristo Shopov is wasted in a minor role. He's played Pilate twice before (in Mel Gibson's film, and in a foreign follow-up), so it's strange they wouldn't let him do it again, particularly given that he has five times the presence and "governor-ness" than "this" Pilate. Also, something is "off" in this Jesus, but I'm not sure what; it's slightly creepy in places.
The Result: is a decent film hampered by its low production values; if you can overlook that, it's enjoyable, moving, and quite often surprising in where it leads.