The Tudors

:

Season 1
  • Network: SHOWTIME
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
Season #: 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
6.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 132 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 92 out of 132
  2. Mixed: 15 out of 132
  3. Negative: 25 out of 132
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. D.W.
    Jun 13, 2007
    4
    I know this is supposed to be a rich costume piece and the clothes are wonderful. But how much hard would it have been to flesh out the characters, showing us motivation outside the stick figure obvious? There's no context for their behavior and the actors seem to be just moving through their lines, such as they are, without giving any reason to care about them. By the final episode, I know this is supposed to be a rich costume piece and the clothes are wonderful. But how much hard would it have been to flesh out the characters, showing us motivation outside the stick figure obvious? There's no context for their behavior and the actors seem to be just moving through their lines, such as they are, without giving any reason to care about them. By the final episode, only the set was interesting and that wasn't enough to prevent my attention from wandering from the screen to a more interesting book about Henry's six wives.… Expand
  2. JenniferH
    Nov 20, 2009
    4
    If so many viewers realize there is a lot of historical inaccuracy, maybe we are not as stupid as they think. Why not educate with historical facts which are quite juicy enough? The series lacks depth of character. So much overt sex can be tiring, as if we all had one-track minds and I don't believe we have.
  3. scottT
    Sep 24, 2009
    4
    Juvenile script, overacting (particularly Rhys-Meyers) and shallow. Fails to even bother exploring the enormous dynamics of the period. The sex is great, but essentially it's a soap opera.
  4. HélèneF
    Dec 16, 2007
    6
    The rating is mostly for the magnificent costumes and th e sets The show is slow & more like a soap opera with thin beauties pushing up their boobs. Obviously made to appeal to the masses leaving out all the best history has to offer us.
  5. JennT.
    Mar 28, 2007
    6
    The actors are wonderful, but the story is slow and plodding.
  6. CarolynS.
    Mar 30, 2007
    5
    Henry VIII for Dummies. Micheal Hirsh should've put a disclaimer in the credits. "Loosely based on the historical Tudors." Even the costumes are from another era.
  7. SusanL.
    Mar 1, 2008
    4
    I can't get over the non-Tudor hair. It's all just so wrong.
  8. Natalieo
    Oct 8, 2007
    6
    Nothing saves the fact that they get so much wrong historically
  9. FilipeNeto
    Feb 9, 2019
    4
    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 andThis 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.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

50
#50 Best TV Season of 2007
37
#37 Most Discussed TV Season of 2007
7
#7 Most Shared TV Season of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 27 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 27
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 27
  3. Negative: 2 out of 27
  1. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    70
    Less lurid than HBO's Rome, yet still quite the pageant of pomp and friskiness, it's a throwback to the old-fashioned miniseries of yore, spiced with pay-cable frankness.
    Read full review
  2. People Weekly
    Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    75
    The show is a lusty soap opera that aspires to the pulsating, cutting-edge glamour of Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth. It's a little ham-fisted for that. [2 Apr 2007, p.37]
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    60
    "The Tudors" is not the great series that it might have been, but it's certainly a watchable and diverting one.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »