Charles Laughton won an Oscar in 1933 for playing Henry Viii of England. There was much anticipation in seeing this film that made the Laughton career, but I was never so disappointed in my life. Of course, one must remember it was made in 1933 and talkies had just been in a few years. So from the technical aspect it is pretty disappointing. But I move onward. The performance of Laughton and his wives, which included real life wife Elsa Lanchester, are so stagey, so hammy that I could barely get through the film. Laughton's Henry in view of the great Henrys through the ages including Keith Mitchell, Robert Shaw, Richard Burton and more can be considered ridiculously over the top. Henry Viii was not an easy person so the creation of his particular Henry was a mistake as far as I'm concerned. It is certainly one of ALEXANDER KORDA'S WORST FILMS.
Yet, the 1930's crowd in the U. K. and in North America must have thought this was the second coming so great was considered the Laughton performance. And the wives!!! Their acting was, to be kind, abominable! I often ask myself if this film was deliberately meant to be part comedy. I would say that most today would laugh at such a silly film. It does not hold up in any way. Better you keep the illusion of a great Charles Laughton delivering and winning a well deserved Oscar for a role that is pretty wretched. THE OTHER TWO NOMINEES THAT YEAR WERE: Leslie Howard for BERKLEY SQUARE and Paul Muni for I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG! Either one would have been a better Oscar choice. But the Laughton movie had every one in a buzz from studios to the average cinema goer. He could never have lost!
There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.
Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.
Your age and sex:
We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.