Thursday, Mar. 22, 2007 - 1:31 p.m.

"The Tudors"

Part I of my review of the Showtime series "The Tudors" (originally penned on Monday, March 19)

Soooooo, *I* just watched episode 1 of "The Tudors." I get the first two episodes free with On Demand video. My verdict is still out, but I do have a few comments...

The series begins in 1519 shortly before The Field of the Cloth of Gold. The costumes, which of course everyone who is not a Tudorphile will watch the show to see, are pretty to look at, but for the most part, not very accurate. Not once did Henry wear a hat. None of the ladies are wearing gabled hoods, and none of the French hoods have veils on them. Many times they are just wearing some kind of beading or pearls in their hair. Catherine is portrayed as much older than Henry and is brunette. At this time, Henry was 28 and they did do a proper job casting Jonathan Rys Myers for his age. However, as Henry was a redhead, Steven Waddington, who portrays Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham would have been a fine choice to portray Henry based on his looks even though he is about 10 years older.

One BLARING error is Charles Brandon is not married to Mary. In fact Mary is not even cast in the series. Another error I caught, but is not something you would notice unless you are truly geeked about these kinds of details, was Thomas More wearing the Chancellor's chain of office. Woolsey isn't anywhere NEAR dead yet. After I watch episode 2 tomorrow, I will probably have more of an opinion.

Part II of my review of "The Tudors" (originally penned Wednesday, March 21)

OK!! My verdict is in. I can overlook the "minor" costuming innacuracies for the sake of fun and intriguing historical drama, which, they have not really screwed up. I like seeing grown men cry when they are on the chopping block waiting for the ax to fall. Henry VIII as a borderline personality disordered scociopath? I LIKE IT! No really, I do because personally I don't think it's that far from the truth. A young, handsome, robust Henry in his late 20's is certainly a departure from the typically portrayed version, and speaking personally, it puts a more human face on a man who quite frankly was a monster.

If politics and global affairs interest you, then you will enjoy this series. It looks as if the producers are making a concerted effort to parallel current events with the current events of the day. There is even a moment where Henry stands on a balcony overlooking many people and fires off a gun into the air, a' la Sadaam Hussein, over everyone's heads. Woolsey is made out to be the saint in all of this and is basically only doing his master's bidding. And poor Thomas More, ..... he should never have accepted a position at court if he loathed it so much, and he is portrayed with every ounce of distain for such.

Insofar as episode 2 is concerned, its very nice to see The Field of the Cloth of Gold portrayed on screen. I just don't think any of us can truly imagine the splendor of the event without seeing a live visual. Bessie Blount.... Pam Hutton could rival her in her blond, Amazonian gorgeousness and sultriness ANY day.

And again, poor Mary Boleyn, kicked out of one King's bed into another, only to be kicked out again. Poor thing. But, it saves her in the end. But something got me to thinking..... Henry was extremely vain and EXTREMELY competitive with the King of France. Why would he want Francois' sloppy mistress seconds? What I am saying here is this, would Henry VIII really take Mary as a mistress knowing truthfully that she had been the mistress of the King of France and therefore having her as basically a hand me down from his arch rival? Think about it.

In a nutshell, I am now sorry that I won't be able to continue with the rest of this series as I do not have Showtime. If anyone would like to donate to my Showtime fund, I will gladly accept!! You that do have it, have fun with this series! Its going to be hotter, sexier and bitchier than Dynasty!