The Tudors

:

Season 3
  • Network: SHOWTIME
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
Season #: 4, 3, 2, 1
Metascore
74

Generally favorable reviews - based on 6 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 6
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 6
  3. Negative: 0 out of 6
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    60
    The Tudors remains lush and bejeweled, so much so that at times one fears it will simply collapse under its own weight, and, you know, we still have a few wives to go.
  2. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    60
    It makes for lively drama, and, given what was at stake for religion and royalty, its historical significance remains legitimate. It just gets hard to watch sometimes, because even though most drama is fueled by its villains, The Tudors needs a few more characters we could actually like.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 41
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 41
  3. Negative: 12 out of 41
  1. AdamW
    Nov 28, 2009
    3
    Its just not The Tudors anymore, Anne Boleyn brought such life to the show that is now lost after her death at the end of Season Two.
  2. 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 »
  3. mm
    Dec 21, 2009
    9
    The liberties taken with the true history are surprising, its a good story without any 'editing'.
See all user reviews »