Firebrand

A classy production but the writers have admitted that they played "fast and loose" with the script, even though the historical facts are so well documented. The life of Henry VIII is probably the most dramatic and fascinating of any king in history, so why conjure up a fairy tale about it? Ignoring the setting of the film in Derbyshire not London, Queen Catherine Parr (she actually styled herself Kateryn) was never arrested for treason, never placed in a dungeon and was never nearly executed. As for the finale where she murders the king on his death bed, words fail me. The Queen is buried not far from where I write this, in a beautiful chapel at Sudeley Castle. She must truly be turning in her grave.

Adapting historical fiction may seem easy on paper, but "Firebrand" reminded me of just how big a challenge that really is. Elizabeth Fremantle's novel was already a rave when it was published way back in 2012. This movie seemed to have done justice to the book, which I enthusiastically added to my reading list as soon as the end credits started to roll. "Firebrand" went beyond just an empowered feminist story. It was one of human survival, particularly for women. Lest we forget, Katherine Parr was just the latest (the sixth, to be precise) in a line of wives who were done away for the whimsical or political satisfaction of the king they married, the notorious Henry VIII. Played masterfully by Alicia Vikander, Katherine Parr redefined what it means to be a woman, not just in her era but even today. Vikander's nuanced expressions and quiet intensity created a singular heat that was more than appreciable. Jude Law was stellar as Henry VIII. I have always enjoyed his performances, so to watch him play this legendary brute who served his own passions more than his people was a treat beyond words. Riveting and regaling performances from Erin Doherty (as Anne Askew; the reformist), Simon Russell Beale (as Stephen Gardiner; the bishop), Eddie Marsan (as Edward Seymour; Katherine's relative), Sam Riley (as Thomas Seymour; Katherine's relative), Patsy Ferran (as Princess Mary; royal non-heir), and Junia Rees (as Princess Elizabeth I; the one and the same) further enriched this script. "Firebrand" was a stellar study on the cancer of abuse, and how it silently thrives in an atmosphere of silence. It evoked a world of sentiments and hit every cinematic mark needed to make it a testament to fine filmmaking. Just as importantly, "Firebrand" gave voice to a major truth: how the suffering of some capable women can create a foundation on which other capable women can later stand tall and strong. It went on to extol the influence mothers have on their daughters, even those not related by blood. What Katherine Parr (1512-1548) believed and survived during the latter years of Henry VIII later defined the 45-year reign of her ward, the one and only Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603). In this lay the most profound message of all in "Firebrand". --- --- --- Notable and admirable moments from Patrick Buckley (as Prince Edward; the male heir), Amr Waked (as Dr. Mulay Al Farabi; the royal medic), and Jason Baughan (as Will Summers; the court fool).

source: Firebrand

It's a historical drama about the marriage of King Henry VIII and Catherine Parr set from 1544 to 1547 in England. The movie begins when Catherine Parr Alicia Vikander) acts as Regent for Henry VIII (Jude Law) while leading his army in France in 1544. We soon learn that Catherine is a longtime friend of Anne Askew (Erin Doherty), a radical Protestant preacher viewed as a heretic by Henry and Bishop Stephen Gardiner (Simon Russell Beale). Catherine is sympathetic to Askew's views but justly worries about Anne's future. Henry VIII soon returns from France, and the film follows the machinations at court as Henry's health issues worsen and his treatment of Catherine becomes more erratic. We see Catherine's relationship with Princess Elizabeth (Junia Rees), Princess Mary (Patsy Ferran), and Prince Edward (Patrick Buckley). And there are the Seymours, Thomas (Sam Riley) and Edward (Eddie Marsan). "Firebrand" is an entertaining movie if you love the history of the British monarchy or some of the religious history of that era. (You should know "Firebrand's" storyline doesn't adhere to history. If you don't, the film plods along as a costume drama. Jude Law provides an appropriately mercurial Henry VIII, and Alicia Vikander does a fine Catherine. Seeing more of Erin Doherty as Anne Askew would have been nice. Simon Russell does a good conniving Bishop. I enjoyed "Firebrand," even though it didn't include any Anabaptists, but it's for a narrow taste.

"Firebrand" is the type of movie that gets it right when it comes to technical crafts, such as production design, costume design and musical score. And there's nothing terribly wrong with the acting performances in the movie. Law as the villainous Henry is entertaining to watch. Vikander's is very good as Katherine. Even with these assets in "Firebrand," the movie's message is very misguided in how problems are dealt with at the end of the story, even if it's complete fiction. The prying gaze of the Church and Bishop Gardiner is too powerful to let her sneak past. Gardiner is manipulative, cannily planting ideas into the King's head that also further his agenda of ensuring his own formidable authority. If the tide of reformers is allowed to gain root in the realm, he is well aware he stands to lose everything. The Church draws its weight and influence from the language of instruction, Latin, which impedes direct, easy access between the commoners and the Bible, So, why the need to distort history to this extent? Any student of history knows that she was not locked up, and that Henry squashed the Chancellor's and the morally bankrupt Bishop's efforts prior to it going any further, so why the need to show her in prison, and why the need to make up her last visit with Henry? That was completely ridiculous, and even if you had bought into the film up until that point, anyone with respect for history would have to say that Hollywood had completely dropped the ball on this one, with such a lack of respect for facts and what really happened.

One star for the stars-Jude Law was incredible as an old, repulsive, and dangerous king, and Alicia Vikander did very welk as practical and stable Katherine Parr, Henry's sixth and final queen. Another star for the beautiful costumes-probably the most accurate representations of Tudor dress I've seen to date., even if some outfits were worn in the wrong situations. But the rest....how disappointing. I've no idea why filmmakers and writers have to take a story which is already fascinating, twist it around, and embellish it until the facts have been so distorted it's hardly recognizable-I think that most of us know that Katherine Parr did not strangle Henry VIII to death. (Yes, I'm afraid so-they really went there). This is revisionism at its worst, and what a shame that it had to be at the expense of one of Henry VIII's most interesting queens. I was looking forward to this film, because I've long thought that Katherine Parr merited a movie of her own, but this....really let her down. Hopefully someday a filmmaker who is actually interested in and respectful of history will take another crack at Katherine's story, and stick to the already interesting facts!

Sometimes heavy-handed, sometimes eerily subtle, this movie chokes us with an embroidered collar as we watch decent people trying to survive in a decaying dictatorship. Vikander's Catherine shows the depth of female resilience, trying to bridge the gap between patriarchal horror and familial intimacy. Jude Law's Henry VIII and a great supporting cast make this freaky chapter of history come alive and tackles the question mostly unanswered so far (to my knowledge) in film and TV: What was it like for Henry's children to grow up like this? While some of the premises may be a tad modern, the film stays close enough to historical accuracy for the emotions to feel entirely real.

Despite the good actors, the film is unfortunately laughable. I was expecting a historical drama, but the film is complete fiction, so historically inaccurate that it borders on parody. First of all, Henry is described here as a papist, even "Catholic lords" are mentioned in the film. Laughable. Henry severed ties with the Roman Catholic Church after the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from his first wife. After that, he persecuted the Catholics and took their property. After all that is taken into account, of course the film is pure fantasy. Historical accuracy, even approximate, is something we rarely see in today's movies. These days, it's hard to make serious historical drama, because the directors and writers must insert things that do not belong in certain historical periods. The costume design is good, the acting is very good, it's a shame that the script is hilarious. The directing is mostly mediocre, but watchable. At least there is no annoying "shaky camera". The very end of the film is a complete fabrication. Bishop Stephen Gardiner, played by Simon Russell Beale, is a cartoon villain, devoid of any nuance. Hilarious. And, let's not even mention some bizarre casting choices that only ruin the impression of the film even more. Jude Law is a great actor, and if the script and director were better, this could have been a great movie. Unfortunately, this is another pretentious historical fiction, which is also mostly boring, with no tension and comically bad dialogue. Yes, the film is even boring and monotonous at times, a complete disappointment. I give it 2/10, just for the good acting and costuming, everything else is unfortunately bad. It's a shame, with such good actors, the film could have been excellent. In the end, this is just another missed opportunity.

For most of the movie, I thought it was dull and very slow moving. The costumes and sets were beautiful. Scenery is gorgeous. It could have included far more details about what was actually going on during the period. However, to completely rewrite history is ridiculous. I get they the writers wanted a female protagonist, but she was one without having to become a murderer. She was never allowed to see Henry when he was bedridden, he forbade it. You can also bet he was completely surrounded by dozens of administrators and religious advisers when dying. You want to make a movie with this storyline? Make it about a fictional king. If this is someone's only exposure to Catherine Parr, they have now been misinformed. It always bothers me when people take creative license to misinform.

I had been looking forward to seeing this film since I became aware of it last summer. I read the book in preparation and tried not to listen to some of the negative reviews. I must say, the movie began with a strong start and really jumped into the portion with Anne Askew very quickly. I loved the scenery, the costumes are exquisite and sumptuous. I loved seeing clothing of which I am so familiar from paintings brought to life. The casting and acting are superb, and the movie does a fantastic job of depicting how terrifying and stifling life with Henry VIII must have been. Somewhere around the first hour, the movie takes massive departure from both history and the novel on which Firebrand is based. SPOILER ALERT: There are no documents suggesting that Katherine Parr was ever pregnant with Henry's child. Some documents may have been destroyed, and I was curious to see where the movie was going with a pregnancy and miscarriage scenario. After seeing the movie, my best guess is that this was inserted to teach the viewer about Henry's obsession with having a son. In my opinion, this is insulting to the viewer who probably knows about Henry's obsession with having a male heir. Furthermore, Henry destroying the lives of his wives for want of a male heir is something we have seen played out over and over again, as most movies about Henry take place during the time he is attempting to divorce Katherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Another MAJOR problem is the ending, which once again, departs from history and the novel to play out into a trope that has been seen over and over again. Part of what makes Katherine Parr so interesting is her incredible intelligence and the way she was able to use her personality, wits, and intelligence to stay alive. One of the best known stories about Katherine is how she saved her own life after learning of an arrest warrant Henry had signed. Yet, 40 guards came to arrest her while she was with Henry and he famously shooed them away. I was really looking forward to seeing how this scene would be depicted, but alas, it was never shown, and instead, Katherine was arrested, something that did not happen in real life. I was really hoping the critics got this one wrong, but the 6.5 rating is fair, maybe even a little generous. The run time could have been shortened by at least 20 minutes if some of the scenes had been removed. After a while, some of the scenes of violence and gore (Henry's legs, bowels, and a rat being dissected) began to feel gratuitous. While I feel that it was appropriate to include these aspects, removing a few of those scenes would have greatly improved the pacing while still demonstrating the grotesqueness of The King. Like another viewer, I will agree that you may want to save your money and wait to watch it from home. Hopefully, this will spark greater interest in Katherine Parr and will result in additional portrayals of her.