chiaragiacobelli I've just finished to watch the entire series and I really appreciated it. I found it very accurate in many aspects: photography, atmosphere, costumes, good actors and dialogues. I read some books about The Tudors and I can say that the series is not so different from the reality, so it is very interesting also regarding the historical aspect. Unfortunately, Henry VIII was not a kind of king that you can consider an hero, but this was a fascinating period in the past of England. The real protagonists are maybe the queens that he had, women with strong stories to tell. It was wonderful to discover them, although the episodes dedicated to Anne Boleyn are too many and I didn't like so much the actress. Anyway, my favourite character was Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk (Henry Cavill). Definitely a series to see if you like history and England!

crashblue This is a joke. King Henry VIII was about 6'3' and weighed probably about 250 lbs. and had red hair. This Henry VIII looks like Elvis Presley. This should be a daytime soap where "all the men are good looking and all the women are beautiful". As Garrison Keilor would say.

Filipe Neto This series was produced by a Canadian TV channel and had four seasons. It's name corresponds to the House of Tudor, one of the most notable royal English dynasties. For those who don't know or don't remember, this dynasty gave five kings to England: Henry VII, Henry VIII and his three sons (Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I). But despite that, the series focuses entirely on Henry VIII and this makes the title's choice a mistake. If it's about Tudors, where is Henry VII and why the series ends with the death of Henry VIII? Throughout the four seasons, there are dozens of actors entering and leaving, giving life to several people who were part of the court during the life of a king that most of people knows best by his six queens. But if there is something that deserves congratulations is the cast's performance. The highlight is for Jonathan Rhys Meyers (the volcanic king Henry), Henry Cavill (Charles Brandon), Peter O'Toole (in a brief role, as Pope Paul III) and the six actresses who gave life to the six queens who succeeded the throne and bed of Henry VIII: Maria Doyle Kennedy (Catherine of Aragon), Natalie Dormer (Anne Boleyn), Annabelle Wallis (Jane Seymour), Joss Stone (Anne of Cleves), Tamzin Merchant (Catherine Howard) and Joely Richardson (Catherine Parr).Now let's talk about the script. Here, the series makes a lot of mistakes (some more excusable than others). First of all, it exaggerates in the sex scenes. It's too much gratuitous sex for no reason, totally out of context and anachronistic, in situations and acts that would never happen in the sixteenth century. Okay, we aren't saints and we know that sex sells, but do they really need to turn queens and ladies into sidewalk whores? Worse than that is the enormous distortion of historical events and facts. How could a sister of the King of England marry the aged King Manuel I of Portugal if that same king married only three times and always with daughters of the Catholic Kings of Castile? And the insulting way as the court of Portugal, the richest and most powerful country in the world at that time, was portrayed? There are dozens of moments when the script runs over history, justifying that with "dramatic purposes"... but this argument isn't enough to justify arbitrary changes in the way historical facts and figures are portrayed.Speaking of anachronism, let's look at some furniture more closely and we will see some baroque furniture (18th century) in scenarios that should correspond to a period almost three hundred years earlier. One of the most egregious examples is the bed placed in the room of Charles Brandon (4th season), clearly baroque and portraying, in the back, the British coat of arms of the House of Hanover. Just pause the video and watch. Another problem, even more evident, is the wardrobe of the cast, in regard to something as prosaic as the underwear. If you look closely at the scenes, especially sex scenes, the actors almost never have the underwear that any person of the sixteenth century should use. This is even more blatant in women, who should wear inner skirts and a kind of shorts which helped to hold the tights, together with the garter.Conclusion: this series is not about the Tudors but about the way we, in the twenty-first century, see the reign of Henry VIII. Almost everything is fiction. Forget history, forget everything and understand this: this series created a fictional story based on real historical facts and characters. It's sex-driven fiction, the way people like it. Want to know true history? Read a book.

Movie Enthusiast Tudors is in my opinion the representative of the new wave of TV series, where a lot is invested into the artistic quality of each episode and also the new and innovative style is showcased. Almost every episode of Tudors is a little gem and it never gets boring. It is intense all the way through and not only the main players but also all supporting characters and one-off appearances are masterfully crafted and "filled from inside" with psychological truth.I think people who nag at the historical accuracy don't really get the vision of the show. This series does not have the ambition of being to-the-dot-accurate history lesson, it's ambition is to create an exciting drama. And that function it fills beautifully.Any movie maker knows that even if you make a documentary you cannot take every hour of every day and show every minute of it. You have to make a selection of the facts - and that selection will always be subjective. Besides, even historians do not know exactly what went on in Henry's court on a daily basis because they did not sleep in his bed and did not eat at his table, did they? The facts we have from history are also just a selection and there is no knowing whether it is a whole truth or not. And movie making is an art form - and in the work of art it is perfectly legal to bend the reality any way you like - as far it is engaging to the audiences. The bending of some facts is totally insignificant from the point of view of a bigger picture. The show has two main layers - one is timeless, universal - this is the story about human nature and basic forces that drive it, about darkness and light in human soul - and the other is a specific period in history, the specifics and the feel of it. The show blends both aspects naturally and beautifully.Many people complain about the choice of the actor for Henry the VIII. In my opinion the choice of Jonathan Mayers was a stroke of genius. Yes, he did not have the physique of the character but he portrayed brilliantly the nature of Henry the VIII - his dark side, his inner conflicts, his human side. Besides, it is a love story - who would want to see fat and shapeless Henry? Beat the historical accuracy! I loved the way they had sexed up the historic characters.The other stroke of genius was to cast Natalie Dormer as Ann Boleyn. Hers was the best Ann Boleyns portrayal ever. She had exactly this quality that has been described about historic Ann Boleyn - she was not a classical beauty, but there was something irresistibly captivating about her. I never got tired of watching her. Also Dormer and Jonathan Mayers had a fantastic on screen chemistry.What made that series overall so good was that almost all characters, both big and small were intense and believable. They bent the facts now and then but I feel they portrayed the psychology of the people of Henry the VIII times very well. The dreams and goals people had, their fears, their mindset, etc. They managed to show the inner life of historic figures in such a way that it was really believable and captivating.