Henry's shrewd alliance with the king of Spain is also testament to his desire to have more influence over European affairs. But his even greater desire for another woman proves an obstacle there, too. Over the course of the ten episodes on The Complete First Season, Henry's confidence grows as a monarch while his self-interest undercuts his better judgement about making a difference to Europe's progress. While the series makes the historical events rich and captivating, it also makes Henry's love life a voyeuristic delight, full of candlelit flesh and romps in the royal bed. Some of the most fascinating characters in the show are those who figure out the link between Henry's libido and his exercise of power--including Boleyn's own father (Nick Dunning), who encourages Ann to keep up the good work. Sheesh. --Tom Keogh

Customer Reviews Average rating - 4.0

Rating - 5 Date: 2008-08-24
Content: Always a history buff of this period I have enjoyed the Tudors. Some of the facts have been skewed for dramas sake. All in all a satisfying and pictorially atmospheric series.
Summary: Engrossing saga

Rating - 5 Date: 2008-08-17
Content: I don't have cable at home so I bought this and watched each episode over a week's time period. Loved it! Knowing only a minimal amount about the history of this time period I knew that they took a lot of liberties and hollywood-ized it but I found it to be very entertaining and engaging. The actors are all amazing and they drew me in to the stories. I can't wait for the second season.
Summary: Incredible - can't wait for the second season

Rating - 5 Date: 2008-08-16
Content: Fascinating...intriguing...powerful....dynamic....rich.... this is how I would describe this series... Outstanding piece of cinema creation. A must see series. Excellent... can not wait for season no. 2
Summary: Tudors- review by Nick

Rating - 3 Date: 2008-08-07
Content: Aside from all of the historical inaccuracies (which Showtime obviously did not care about, since they were looking for ratings), I found much to not like about this series.

There were not just historical inaccuracies, but entire elements and people who were made up. Totally unnecessary to do this when the real people and events were so dramatic already. Other, far more well-informed reviewers have detailed all of the historical blunders, so I will not go into that any more. Suffice it to say that even a casual observer of British history would have a difficult time not laughing at what these producers did with a story that would have been far more interesting had it been presented as it really was.

Season One was soooooo dragged out. After all those hours, no divorce!! I much preferred the way the "Six Wives of Henry VIII" was done: one wife per episode.

Then there was the casting. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is great to look at but was horribly miscast as Henry. Among other things, he was way too young-looking compared to Catherine....and she aged but he did not! His portrayal of Henry was off the mark, but then again, he only acted the material that he was given. I do think his miscasting in this role is the reason he got no EMMY nod.

I cannot help but think that some other actor with larger stature could not have been found to play Henry. I also disliked the acting of the woman playing Anne Boleyn.

Then there were the American idioms that were used. I found myself re-winding just to be sure I had heard correctly!
Summary: Just okay

Rating - 3 Date: 2008-08-06
Content: I still recommend this as an excellent and fascinating viewing pleasure, but it is a guilty pleasure. That is because it's relationship to actual historical accuracy is far even from tenuous. I can ignore costume problems (of which there are many) and other things of that nature that the regualr viewer would not notice but this goes far beyond that. People are portrayed that did not exist. Henry Fitzroy has a touching death scene as a six year old when he lived well into adulthood. Henry VIII's sister Mary is called Margaret (a completely different sister who was queen of Scotland) and is sent off to marry the King of Portugal. Yet she was actuslly married to the King of France. Why why why? Was it because the writer was so invested in Henry hating the French king that marrying his sister off to him didn't make sense in the context of this series? Then why not simply tell it as it happened, why make up huge historical fantasies with no basis in fact? Princess Mary was betrothed to the Emperor Charles and that betrothal was delayed and betrayed -- but it was Henry's sister Mary, not his daughter Mary who was the intended bride in that arrangement. I guess since the author used up Henry's sister Mary as Margaret as bride of king of Portugal fantasy he just transferred the whole Charles betrothal to the little girl instead. Why is that okay in a historical drama such as this? It's too far from the truth to make it right. I daresay the vast majority of viewers will come away believing that these things actually happened when they did not. It's a real shame that the writer altered the truth to this degree. It wasn't necessary either, since the truth of the times doesn't require made up facts to render it fascinating. If you put aside any need whatsoever for actual facts to back up the story itself it is very well done and well paced, unlike 'The Other Boleyn Girl' whose historical inaccuracies are bogged down in a slow and boring movie that is highly disappointing. The Tudors is at least an interesting and quick paced, beautifully filmed piece of work. I just wish I didn't get jarred out of the tapestry of the thing so frequently by a sudden major historical fantasy substituting for a much more interesting truth. Again, a real shame here.
Summary: fun to watch but jarringly inaccurate