The Tudors

:

Season 2
  • Network: SHOWTIME
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
Season #: 4, 3, 2, 1
Metascore
68

Generally favorable reviews - based on 16 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 16
  3. Negative: 0 out of 16
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    60
    Mixing equal parts court intrigue with Calvin Klein ad, the series falls short of greatness.
  2. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Ginia Bellafante
    50
    The paradox of The Tudors is that it takes on one of the most powerful and protested institutions in human history--the Catholic Church during the Renaissance--and provides little sense of what the English people have to gain or lose by breaking with it.
  3. Time
    Reviewed by: James Poniewozik
    50
    The tumult of Henry VIII's reign, especially the schism between him and the Catholic Church, is rich material, and the soap opera of his multiple wives is naturally absorbing: it's just a crime that Showtime couldn't do better with the material than the thinly written eye candy it came up with.
  5. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Gillian Flynn
    42
    Henry and Anne nag and harp and tongue each other. It's like asking us to root for a particularly vapid reality TV couple.
  6. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    40
    This is one historical drama that takes itself far more seriously than it deserves to, given the quality of the writing and the flatness of many performances.
  7. Salon
    Reviewed by: Heather Havrilesky
    40
    While the show's portrayals of King Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey and Lady Anne Boleyn feel reasonably vivid, there's a flatness to them, as if it's enough to merely tell the story convincingly and make everyone look damn good in corsets and puffy sleeves along the way.

Awards & Rankings

41
#41 Best TV Season of 2008
30
#30 Most Discussed TV Season of 2008
42
#42 Most Shared TV Season of 2008

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 83 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 59 out of 83
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 83
  3. Negative: 22 out of 83
  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 notableThis 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.    … Full Review »
  2. [anonymous]
    Mar 22, 2009
    3
    Really guys? Whats with the 10s? Henry the 8th wasn't some whiny twerp. He was a big powerful dude. The acting in this is sub par at Really guys? Whats with the 10s? Henry the 8th wasn't some whiny twerp. He was a big powerful dude. The acting in this is sub par at best. The show goes nowhere fast, and focuses on the most boring crowd pleasing aspect of the story. Don't believe the myriad high scores. I watched a whole season and I don't know why. There is zero payoff.… Full Review »
  3. seanf.
    Aug 16, 2008
    10
    Great writing. absolute fantastic writing all round especially king henry. Very engaging series. Cant wait for the next one.
See all user reviews »