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. 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
  2. odahima
    Nov 28, 2014
    8
    Actually a critic score of 64 is a good evidence that critics are a bunch of old men with bone problems who spent too much time in the old world and can no longer understand whats happening,, this series is not great but it is good and very good actually.
  3. pmart4
    Oct 8, 2014
    8
    If its historical accuracy you're looking for then you won't find it here. That said the Tudors is still a good watch - some of the cast choices are not great and the look and feel of Tudor England is never quite captured. It has a 'generic ITV drama' feel more than anything else.

    Henry is well acted, but as the show goes on his famous historic look is also never really captured. It's    If its historical accuracy you're looking for then you won't find it here. That said the Tudors is still a good watch - some of the cast choices are not great and the look and feel of Tudor England is never quite captured. It has a 'generic ITV drama' feel more than anything else.

    Henry is well acted, but as the show goes on his famous historic look is also never really captured. It's close, but he is so iconic that close doesn't really cut it in this instance.

    All that aside I really enjoyed it and it was great re-visiting so many of my history lessons from school (albeit a tiny bit dramatised) - Ha!

    I'd still highly recommend this - it still draws you in and the story of Henry VIII is never going to disappoint    … Expand
  4. Bagger92
    Jun 6, 2014
    10
    It is like ... or actually my conviction is: Michael Hirst is trying to celebrate every cultures' 'greatness' ...
    And now he is expression my cultures' greatness, legends, mythes and much, much more!

    For me! Michael Hirst, and the actors, and the Co. behind ... proving top class "new morden" art!

    Deepest respect, if my conviction is true!

    (review's source: "Vikings", then "The Borgias")
  5. Happy_Himalayan
    Jun 17, 2012
    10
    Excellent production and cast! This is a beautifully dramatized series of the most well known British monarchs of all time. The political and religious turmoil of the period is integrated beautifully and the pace of the show is great.
  6. eddieblue
    Feb 17, 2012
    10
    This series is outrageously inaccurate, the l, therefore, unintenionally funny.
    Henry was a tall, red-haired, blue eyed man. He was famous for his fair complexion.
    As was his daughter Elizabeth. The actor portraying Henry is a small, dark-haired Jew - in fact, most of the cast appears to be Jewish. . Blatant falsification of history. Henry would have beheaded this little impostor    This series is outrageously inaccurate, the l, therefore, unintenionally funny.
    Henry was a tall, red-haired, blue eyed man. He was famous for his fair complexion.
    As was his daughter Elizabeth.
    The actor portraying Henry is a small, dark-haired Jew - in fact, most of the cast appears to be Jewish. .
    Blatant falsification of history.
    Henry would have beheaded this little impostor very quickly. Producers spent a bundle on costumes which is the only thing that is good here - photography ain't bad either.
    The sexual content is revolting - especially the scene between two men - This series was made for sexual and violent content, it has nothing to do with history and having Henry ask "Says who?" when it was pointed out to him that his horse couldn't jump over a wide creek was very funny.
    Not to mention some of his courtiers fleeing from one thing or another calling out to each other:" I'm outta here."
    This series is strictly fiction.
    Enough already!    … Expand
  7. Thug-Negus
    Apr 15, 2011
    8
    Despite some historical inconsistencies, this tv show is well designed, sometimes a little too slow and too much dialogue which can sometimes make lose interest of the viewer.
  8. Shearoff
    Feb 8, 2011
    9
    I have read some of the reviews of The Tudors, both good and bad and feel compelled to share my views. i have just finished the second series, in tears with my wife next to me watching the beheading of Anne Boleyn. We have been so compelled by this dramatic adaptation of the lives of Henry VIII and his court that we have forsaken precious sleep to watch an episode or two each night.I have read some of the reviews of The Tudors, both good and bad and feel compelled to share my views. i have just finished the second series, in tears with my wife next to me watching the beheading of Anne Boleyn. We have been so compelled by this dramatic adaptation of the lives of Henry VIII and his court that we have forsaken precious sleep to watch an episode or two each night. The story is so well written, and the characters so well portrayed, that we have actually researched the facts of Henry's court in order to further our understanding of the events that hold us at their mercy in this production. We have found that the authors have taken some dramatic license with the facts, but we don't mind because the Showtime production is simply so engaging. I have read that the costumes may not be exactly accurate, and that the dialogue may be sophomoric at times. Honestly, I cannot say that i noticed these faults. More importantly, there are moments of genius in The Tudors that one rarely sees on television. The final scene of the last episode of the second season is one of these moments: Henry, sitting at a banquet table moments after the decapitation of his wife Anne, is offered tented serving tray (that I assumed was the head of the Queen). He removes the elaborate tent to reveal a stuffed swan surrounding a baked pie. He rips the wing off the swan and plunges his hand with cannibalistic fervor into the pie, then stuffs his laughing mouth with the wet meat....
    The story is told in a Dickensian manner, each episode full of unfinished business. This is what I want to watch when I spend my precious time in front of the TV. It is accurate enough, beautifully costumed, well acted, and skillfully told. Visually it is generally well done, but some of the computer generated graphics are a bit obvious. I don't understand some of the critics who state that the characters aren't flesh out and that the motivation for their behavior is lacking. The Tudors took 2 seasons just to get through Henry's second wife. The characters are about as well fleshed out as a dramatic piece can make them, and they are generally not 2 dimensional at that. Watch a few episodes, read the "real" history so that you aren't caught in an inaccuracy at your next **** party, and see if you aren't compelled to watch more!    … Expand
  9. Kacky
    Feb 5, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Horrible. Barely covers anything historical, and even that is dumbed down so much that it becomes completely boring. Just an excuse to watch JRM having sex. Oh, spoiler alert, I doubt Henry VIII bothered with positions or doing anything for the girl. just sayin.… Expand
  10. Raptor
    Jan 11, 2011
    10
    Although the show may lack many historical facts, as interesting as they are, I enjoyed The Tudors for what it is, which in my opinion is an entertaining show, with beautiful (if inaccurate) costumes, beautiful stets and on the whole sterling acting and have been totally addicted to it. I am slightly baffled that when Steven Waddington (Buckingham, season 1) walked into the casting roomAlthough the show may lack many historical facts, as interesting as they are, I enjoyed The Tudors for what it is, which in my opinion is an entertaining show, with beautiful (if inaccurate) costumes, beautiful stets and on the whole sterling acting and have been totally addicted to it. I am slightly baffled that when Steven Waddington (Buckingham, season 1) walked into the casting room they chose not to cast him as Henry ( I personally think it would have been better than JRM - however good he may be) but then I suppose given the rest of the show, it clear the aim of it's creators wasn't to produce some sort historical docu-drama. But that aside (and the strange name swapping which confused me more than if they'd had two Mary Tudors) I think it's an entirely enjoyable series and well worth watching, providing you aren't looking for a history lesson in the Tudors, but then and again there are always books for that.… Expand
  11. Acriminal
    Aug 22, 2010
    7
    For what this show aspires to be, it does a good job. It isn't by any means a perfectly accurate portrayal of historical facts but it still follows the basic truths of who all the characters were with respect to eachother. They got all the names right. Of course they had to fill in the gaps with guesswork and falsehoods to keep people entertained. It is after all just a TV show, andFor what this show aspires to be, it does a good job. It isn't by any means a perfectly accurate portrayal of historical facts but it still follows the basic truths of who all the characters were with respect to eachother. They got all the names right. Of course they had to fill in the gaps with guesswork and falsehoods to keep people entertained. It is after all just a TV show, and not a historical biography. Overall I thought it was a pleasure to watch just for the performances of the characters. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was perfect for the role of Henry.… Expand
  12. LondonHerts
    Aug 16, 2010
    9
    Brillian Tosh...History is anachronistic at points and it was always clear that all Michael Hurst really wanted to write about was Anne Boleyn, so the series in Seasons One and Two could be better titled Henry & Anne - A Postmodern Romp. Seasons Three and Four fall off a little and it plods through three episodes beofre a good finale.

    Treat it as Dynasty with Cod Pieces and fun stuff    Brillian Tosh...History is anachronistic at points and it was always clear that all Michael Hurst really wanted to write about was Anne Boleyn, so the series in Seasons One and Two could be better titled Henry & Anne - A Postmodern Romp. Seasons Three and Four fall off a little and it plods through three episodes beofre a good finale.

    Treat it as Dynasty with Cod Pieces and fun stuff and its great. Treat it as a Simon Schama lecture and you are bound to hate it.    … Expand
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. CcHh
    Aug 15, 2009
    10
    Wonderful. Engrossing. Superb acting. Such attention to detail.
  16. donnab
    Jul 16, 2009
    10
    I love this show!!! I hope the 4th season isn't the last. Surely Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) must eventually die, but, keep the series going...move onto the rest of the family. Don't know if they would be as captivating as Jonathan Rhys Meyers or Hnery Cavill, but I'm willing to give it a shot! Love this show!
  17. bobbiepl
    Apr 14, 2009
    10
    I have read every book I could get my hands on abt The Tudors - This series is basically accurate to what respectible historians have written - I am in my 70's and totally in love w/JRM-so bad he's good!
  18. GabiC
    Apr 11, 2009
    8
    The actors are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the acting is great, but the historical inaccuracies and the overly done sex is a downer.
  19. TeenaP
    Mar 8, 2009
    10
    I find the Tudors fascinating - but if you are looking for accuracy well of course a made for TV miniseries isn't the place to start looking.... If you look at the portraits of the six wives none of them were what I would call attractive - but then how would Hollywood keep the short attention span of it's shallow viewers if they hired unattractive people with no sex appeal to I find the Tudors fascinating - but if you are looking for accuracy well of course a made for TV miniseries isn't the place to start looking.... If you look at the portraits of the six wives none of them were what I would call attractive - but then how would Hollywood keep the short attention span of it's shallow viewers if they hired unattractive people with no sex appeal to play these roles? Most of us know the story - this isn't a history lesson - what pulled me in and what I enjoyed most was the chemistry between Dormer and JRM. Now that she is gone I just don't know if the series will have the same appeal, although I do enjoy watching JRM; he is phenomenal actor. He may not be a look-a-like, but I think he has captured the quintessence of Henry VIII in his portrayal of that tyrannical misogynistic man and I think the director has captured the essence of the era as well.… Expand
  20. CarolineS
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    It's like Desperate Housewives with bodices. Anne Boleyn is sly and saucy but never brilliant. And "Margaret" Tudor because we're all too stupid to be able to comprehend that there were two different Mary Tudors? Everything out of order, so much invented for no purpose. This is horseshit, not history. The real story of Heny VIII is magnificent as it stands. There really is no It's like Desperate Housewives with bodices. Anne Boleyn is sly and saucy but never brilliant. And "Margaret" Tudor because we're all too stupid to be able to comprehend that there were two different Mary Tudors? Everything out of order, so much invented for no purpose. This is horseshit, not history. The real story of Heny VIII is magnificent as it stands. There really is no need to "fix it" for mass consumption.… Expand
  21. GabrielaL
    Apr 15, 2008
    7
    Great costumes, and setting; fantastic cast; but one can not ignore the enormous historical inaccuracy and Rhys-Meyers limited interpretation skills.
  22. LR.
    Mar 3, 2008
    8
    I've watched this series three times; first to see what happens, and then to think about the meaning of the story. Although the characters seem stereotyped, the details of the settings and some of the connections we are invited to make caused me to think about the significance of this period and how it still affects us today. I particularly liked the representation of Thomas More as I've watched this series three times; first to see what happens, and then to think about the meaning of the story. Although the characters seem stereotyped, the details of the settings and some of the connections we are invited to make caused me to think about the significance of this period and how it still affects us today. I particularly liked the representation of Thomas More as "not a saint." I did not know that he had burned six people for heresy (true). I'm not going to subscribe to Show Time, but I do want to find out what is going to happen next.… Expand
  23. SusanL.
    Mar 1, 2008
    4
    I can't get over the non-Tudor hair. It's all just so wrong.
  24. WIlliamD
    Jan 23, 2008
    7
    The first season seemed so protracted. In the end, Hanry still did not get his final answer nor his reaction to it. It was more of a study of Wolsey and maybe Catherine than Henry. The actor who played Henry was terribly miscast in an otherwise brilliant emsemble of actors making their roles believable. Wonderful re-creation for the eyes, however, of that time period wiht a little poetic license.
  25. 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.
  26. CalebC.
    Oct 9, 2007
    10
    A stellar start to what will be one of the best new shows. The acting and directing is perfect here.
  27. Natalieo
    Oct 8, 2007
    6
    Nothing saves the fact that they get so much wrong historically
  28. AlyA.
    Aug 22, 2007
    9
    I loved this show. The only problem was I don't have the network its on and therefore have not seen all of the episode, but I am trying to continue to see the rest of the season.
  29. ChristianO
    Aug 3, 2007
    10
    WooHoo! This was the show. I could not wait to see what was going to happen each week. Poor Woolsey.
  30. AlexandraB.
    Jun 28, 2007
    10
    Jonathan Rhys Meyers is totally hot. But beside that, the show is beautifully acted, staged, art directed and costumed. Cannot get enough of this type of show.
prev
Page:

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 »