Customer Reviews
As good as I remember!!! - By: P. CHING, 11 Aug 2008 
I first watched this film as a 13 year old girl at school & i loved it then & sitting down today i was as good now as it was then. I was amazed by the acting of a young Helena Bonham Carter. Well wotha watch if you enjoy period films!!
A watchable enough period piece that loses almost everything of interest in the true story - By: Trevor Willsmer, 01 Feb 2008 
"You will be tried... & naturally you will be condemned to death, but, of course, I have the power of reprieve, which at present I intend to use."
"With no conditions?"
"Well, it would help if you promised not to steal my throne again!"
While such direlogue is thankfullyin the minority, Lady Jane is still a film that some of its makers still seem to pretend doesn't exist: a very undistinguished debut for Helena Bonham Carter that she never talks about & enough of a financial disaster for director Trevor Nunn to later claim that his 1996 version of Twelfth Night was his screen directorial debut. Made during the British film industry's dark days of the mid-80sin a failed attempt to recapture the audience for the likes of Anne of the Thousand Days & A Man For All Seasons, it was one of only two films made by Paramount's much-hyped British production arm before they shut up shop (the Ralph Fiennes-Juliette Binoche Wuthering Heights was the other). It may have opened to even more public indifference than Elizabeth: The Golden Age but it's rather better than you might expect even if it is never quite good enough.
Lady Jane Grey's brief nine day reign as queen of England had been given a much-fictionalised screen treatment beforein 1936's Tudor Rose, but this version had some (almost entirely unrealised) aspirations towards historical accuracy even if it does turn Jane & her wastrel husband Guildford Dudley (a name that sounds more like a bicycle race than a possible king) into doomed lovers when they hated each other all the way to the executioners' block. Both were very much puppets of their parents' ambitions: the dying young King Edward's protector Lord Dudley wanted to ensure the elevation of his own family from commoners to nobility to royalty under the guise of ensuring the succession of a Protestant monarch to protect the fledging Reformed Church, & the social-climbing Suffolks rather liked the idea of becoming royalty (though it was actually Jane's mother who had precedencein the line of succession) while their offspring had no sayin the matter even if it was to cost them their lives. The film is at its bestin showing the conflict between a young generation that had embraced the then-excitement & new ideas of a religion rejecting Rome & without arcane ritual & an older generation that had either profited handsomely from the dissolution of the monasteries or had suffered grievously & wanted to restore the old religion & with it the old status quo, although it never makes the obvious link between Jane's ferocious religious fanaticism & the unhappy, unloved childhood that appears to have driven her towards itin much the same way that the ostracised Queen Mary was drawn to her fanatical Catholicism.
Unfortunately, Nunn's direction is even more of a major problem than a watered-down script. He's fine when people are talking, even if they're walking at the same time, yet any more complicated form of action seems completely beyond him. Andin this case action doesn't just apply to a pub brawl that's shot like badly blocked & under-rehearsed 50s television but scenes like Lady Jane throwing a fitin a room & knocking the silverware on the floor while supporting players very, very slowly try not to catch up with her & stop her: the camera isin the wrong place, the timing wildly misjudged, the actors' movements horribly unconvincing. They're the kind of mistakes you'd expect from an amateur movie maker's first efforts, not someone with a decent budget & a cinematographer with as much experience as Douglas Slocombe to advise him, & they make you half-glad that the modest budget didn't stretch to filming the story's offscreen battles. He also gives away his theatre background by framing many shots as if for the proscenium arch, never really embracing the possibilities & freedom of the movie camera.
Nor does he get the most out of some of the cast. Old pros like John Wood, Michael Hordern, Jane Lapatoire & Joss Ackland are fine (though most of the older actors have little, if anything, to do), as are Warren Saire as the dying young King Edward and, for the most part, Cary Elwes as young Dudley, but Bonham Carter's performance is particularly problematic. Looking even younger than her character's 16 years & nothing like the freckle-faced redhead of history, her performance is often awkward & fairly consistently unlikeable, making Jane less a tragic figure & more of a petulant Catholic-baiting little madam who got what was coming to her, a Tudor Wednesday Addams rather than a Tudor Rose. At times she looks less like a lost soul than a panicking inexperienced actress deliberately cast adrift without being told what she's supposed to do, desperately looking to the sidelines for help that's not forthcoming, all too often leaving you feeling sorry for the actress but nothing for the character. To be fair it seems to be more a problem of direction & it's not hard to guess which scenes were shot first from her awkwardness, although she visibly gains confidence as the film progresses.
Yet it's not all bad. It does show what a disastrous queen she would have made, although the film does give the impression that Jane & Guilford were a pair of hippie libertarians - indeed, with its Romeo & Juliet love story & bucolic romantic montage sequence you almost get the impression that this was intended as a Franco Zeffirelli film a la Brother Sun, Sister Moon. Bonham Carter's brief scenes with Hordern's Dr Feckenham where they pit their faiths against each other are the bestin the picture & it's a pity there aren't more of themin David Edgar's screenplay, while the end is touching despite being almost as clumsily staged as the real execution (it's a tastefully bloodless affair here, though, quite unlike the reports of the real thing: one observer was moved to note that he couldn't believe so much blood could come from such a small body). Stephen Oliver's excellent score is good enough to make it a genuine shame that he never got to write any more, adding him to that list of talented British composers like Marc Wilkinson & Raymond Leppard who never got the breaks their gifts deserved. At the end of the day it's a watchable enough period piece for a Sunday afternoon, but one that probably plays better on TV than it did on the big screen.
The widescreen 1.85:1 DVD transfer is acceptable, though the stereo track impresses more. The only extra is a decent black & white stills gallery.
They lost their heads, but not their hearts! - By: Dud Dudley, 02 Nov 2007 I've not actually seen this film, but having a familial interestin the Dudleys & Greys I was intrigued by the subject matter. Reading the other reviews, however, I'm not sure I want to see it now, much that I admire Helena Bonham Carter for her other roles & acting generally. The point is, historically, there never was a romance between Lady Jane Grey & Guildford Dudley. It was John Dudley Duke of Northumberland's scheming which brought the ill-fated pair together & nothing more. If the young Jane had had her own way, Guildford Dudley would have been the last person she'd have chosen as her husband. Guildford, for his part may have been smitten with Jane, but Jane did not reciprocate... & who could blame her. Having said that, it might be worth a look just to see how well Jane's villainous father-in-law is portrayed.
disappointing - By: D. Cottam, 02 Oct 2007 Strong cast but poor screenplay & irritating characterisation.
Locations were excellent. Could have been much better with this cast & lavish production with a better script & less romantic license.
A good drama but it adds pointless romance. - By: little_miss_sunnydale, 20 Aug 2007 'Lady Jane' concerns the life of Jane Grey whoin 1553 was briefly placed upon the English throne after Henry VIII's will of succession was altered, 'reigned' for little over a week, then deposed & eventually came to a tragic end. The film beginsin 1552 & finishesin 1554.
Certain aspects of this drama is good; they include little events that are believed to have occurred, for example Jane's refusal to bow to the consecrated Host & the horrified reaction by one of Mary I's ladies due to this; her seclusion from the hunting party by reading Plato & then being discovered by Doctor Feckenham & later her dismay over her proposed marriage. So on the surface the film appears to be highly informative.
However the main mistake of the film is probably the aspect of the film that many viewers actually like the most; the love story between Jane & Guildford. At first appearance there is nothing to dislike about this; after all, we know what is going to happen to Jane & Guildford so it is comforting to see thatin their last years they found marital bliss. But this comfort is actually on reflection slightly inappropriate as it takes away the real tragedy that was Jane's life. We know from contemporary sources that she decided to seek comfort,in her last days,in religion, rather than her husband. They actually did not bond & she prevented a meeting between them before their executions. So it is disappointing why the producers chose to create this love story. While religion is certainly coveredin this (and often very well), it would have been better if they decided to actually show Jane's story & her increasing fascination & comfortin the Protestant faith. Instead they went slightly 'Hollywood' & stuckin a romance.
Casting though on the whole is good. Helena Bonham Carter, a superb actress, gives yet again a dedicated performance as Jane. It's great to see Patrick Stewartin this & Doctor Feckenham & Frances Grey are casted well. The main disappointments are the casting of Mary I & John Dudley. While it is a pleasant change to see a sympathetic & compassionate Mary, the actress is too old to play her. John Dudley is portrayed as slightly sinister & it a shame to have to vilify him yet again, even though opinion on him as been revised by historians for over thirty years. But when you are watching something on Jane Grey chances are that the man who is believed to have dragged her into the whole mess will tend to be viewed as the villain.
Overall the drama is fantastic about getting little details correct & (mostly) is effective at fully discussing the controversial issue of divisionsin religionin 1550s England. It even mentions economic problemsin the 1550s which is slightly adventurous for a movie. Takein mind that the film was madein the late 1980s so compared to modern dramas on the Tudors this production may seem slightly old fashioned to some. But on the whole it is a good drama. The main disappointment will remain the pointless love story that the producers have added that has ended up taking away a vital element of Jane's story.
