Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

If you believe every damn magazine on the planet that has put these two beauties on their cover, then THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL should have been a slam dunk. Two of the most desirable women on the planet (Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman) in a film in which they are at various times the object of desire for the notoriously libidinous King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Throw into the mix a screenplay by Peter Morgan (The Queen) and direction from Justin Chadwick, who did exceptional work on the "Masterpiece Theatre" production of "Bleak House," and you really have to wonder how they could go wrong. Allow me to explain: they made it boring; they drained it of all its potential sexuality; and they cast David Morrissey (BASIC INSTINCT 2; THE WATER HORSE; THE REAPING), who I think now officially qualifies as the cinematic equivalent of the kiss of death. Although to be fair, those films probably would have sucked without him.

I realize not everyone reading this saw Showtime's exceedingly well-done series "The Tudors," but THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL essentially covers the same timeframe as the first two seasons (if the commercials for Season 2 are any indication). And obviously this love triangle has been covered in films and television productions a great deal in the past. So not only does the film seem like retread to me, it skims over major events in the lives of these three characters. Plus, the series doesn't skimp on the sex, violence and other vices the king displayed during his long reign. But forgetting how much story the two versions of this tale tell, Bana simply doesn't convey the quality that Henry clearly had that made women swoon over him (beyond just what they were duty bound to show him). Critics often complain that they don't ever get to see characters at work because that somehow shows these people as more sympathetic or believable. I had the same complaint with THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL. Granted, the king dismantling religion in his kingdom simply to acquire a divorce from his wife, Queen Katherine of Aragon, might be considered "seeing him at work," but just comes across as a powerful man doing what he needs to do to sleep with a desirable woman.

But the key relationship of the film is meant to be the one between the sisters, who are clearly as close as two families members can be…when they're not trying to steal Henry from the other or turn on each other to gain some advantage in their social standing. They never really struck me as particularly close. Their father and uncle pimp them out to the king with hardly a second thought; even poor Mary's (Johansson) husband allows the king to sweep his wife off her feet so he may rise in the royal ranks. In other words, you may have a tough time finding people in this film to like. And in a movie that asks us to sympathize with some of its characters, particularly Mary who gives birth to the king's bastard child and is left to raise him alone (there is some doubt in history as to whether this child was Henry's, but it's pretty clear in the film that he is).

The biggest crime in THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is that it doesn't teach us anything new about these people, even if such teachings would have been pure speculation. It doesn't offer audiences a fresh interpretation or analysis on the events or of these characters. Worst of all, as I said at the beginning, the thing is just dreadfully dull. Costume dramas are always a risky endeavor, but without an engaging new perspective (on either historical dramas or new versions of classic literary works), they hardly seem worth doing. This film would be Exhibit A in my case against telling this story again any time in the next 50 years.

Capone