Firebrand

You should never mistake a film for a history book. However, this film is so bizarrely divorced from anything resembling historical fact that I feel compelled to find the authors and make them take a course in Tudor history, and also to simply ask them “Why?”. Other than to take one of Henry’s lesser known wives and make her a semi-Lady Macbeth with a dash of girl boss thrown in, there is no apparent point or reason for this film to exist. Decent cast and acceptable design can’t help an almost totally fictional story.

A movie that started out well with great acting, costumes, and locations. That being said, quickly lost traction and fell into a web of creative licensing.

Artistic license aside, Vikander and Law entertain in the historical genre. His nasty rotting legs and all.

Ok, basically what’s going on here is that the film establishment is so desperate to elevate women in history that they’ve been forced just to make crap up. Like the other reviewers have already pointed out, Katherine did not kill Henry VIII, and Katherine Parr was not some amazing leader of Protestantism. Martin Luther, John Calvin etc… hold those titles , not Parr. The film was slightly entertaining but no one should assume any of the important details ever happened. Women, word of warning, once you start needing to make things up to enhance your significance in history then in reality it only diminishes you further.

Historical nonsense. Katherine Parr was not put in a dungeon and she did not kill Henry VIII. Don't get why they turned a good true story into this rubbish.

The wonderful Alicia Vikander and Jude Law work wonders with a script that appears to have been written by a frustrated 6th-form schoolgirl. As for the conclusion to the story, oh dear, never mind the history feel the width....

The opening line of this movie should tell it all. They start out by completely invalidating historiography outside of ‘men and war’ the rest being ‘wild’ conclusions. What utter rubbish. Watching the movie is quite telling of this statement in practice as it is evidences a writer/producer that has not read any historical works outside of what was published in the 70/80s and their wild conclusions show.

Crítico en audiencia: La manera en que se desarrolla la historia es inteligente, ya que cualquier punto importante, se explota y se desmenuza para lograr causar intriga a los eventos que probablemente ya pudimos conocer y no se deja llevar por acontecimientos con poca relevancia; todo esto genera una apreciación visual por la parte de la ambientación y el vestuario que logra remontarnos a aquellas épocas.

The lack of any historical accuracy is what kills this, not the strong work from the cast.

It portrays skillfully the terror of being at the mercy of a madman's whim