The Tudors

:

Season 4
  • Network: SHOWTIME
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 1, 2007
Season #: 4, 3, 2, 1
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 6 Critic Reviews

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

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    60
    At times, the opening night of season four gets almost that silly, though at other times it returns to its strongest suit, which is illustrating 1) the coexistence of powerful, conflicting forces inside the same person, and 2) the idea that absolute power corrupts.
  2. Slant Magazine
    Reviewed by: Aubry D'Arminio
    50
    It's now little more than a puppet act bouncing through history to get to its end.
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    40
    What's really missing are the kind of big conflicts and geopolitics--the king's war with the Vatican, say--that gave "The Tudors" what little heft it possessed. Lacking that, the focus falls more squarely on Rhys Meyers, who isn't convincing enough in either appearance or bearing.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 42 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 42
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 42
  3. Negative: 14 out of 42
  1. odahima
    Jan 28, 2015
    2
    A very bad excuse for a season. Jonathan Ryhs fails to act as an old man, great lack in direction and production, the story contains smallA very bad excuse for a season. Jonathan Ryhs fails to act as an old man, great lack in direction and production, the story contains small plots enlarged to fill the gap. It feels as if the were forced to end the series but never had the material to make a new season.… Full Review »
  2. JennetP
    Aug 31, 2010
    10
    As the tyrant approaches death, the gap between the grotesque historical figure and the appealing actor who plays him becomes a problem. IAs the tyrant approaches death, the gap between the grotesque historical figure and the appealing actor who plays him becomes a problem. I don't necessarily miss Henry's swollen physique, but Meyers should have found some other way to register the effects of the king's vast appetites, as he should be grandly repugnant in his old age. With a limp and a hoarse whisper, Meyers has simply made him feeble, leaving repugnance to the makeup crew in charge of Henry's ulcerous leg. Fortunately, several supporting cast members step up to fill the void at the center. Cavill does his best work in the series as the guilt-ridden duke surprised by love in the depth of horror. His astonished gratitude for such a gift so late in life, after so much evil done in service of his king, is genuinely moving, and, in some ways, underscores the evil more than the hand-wringing of earlier seasons. O'Hara shines as Surrey, the warrior-poet obsessed with his ancient name and his own glory. Swaggering around the court swollen with arrogant contempt for the "new men" Henry has elevated to the peerage, he seems to have picked up the energy Meyers discarded, making his inevitable execution a palpable loss for the series. As for the queens, Merchant is perfect as Katherine Howard. Young and foolish without being stupid, she regards Henry's infatuation as the just reward of a very pretty girl and an endless, delightful game in which she gets to make all the rules. More naive than arrogant, she fails even to see the other games at play in the court, much less avoid them, giving her fall unusual pathos. At the end Merchant's Katherine proves profoundly human, and her execution stayed with me like no other. Both the princesses make me wish the show would continue into the reigns of Edward and Mary. Watching the long-suffering Bolger begin to manifest the intolerant vitriol that would eventually produce "Bloody Mary," I feel the waste of a promising actress abandoning a great role. Moreover, all the principal players in the opening struggles of Edward's reign are in place and ready to rumble; it seems a shame to cut them all loose, even with the Borgias on the horizon.… Full Review »
  3. 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 »
See all user reviews »