By no means do I consider myself a history buff. That said, I enjoyed AP European History immensely, and I frequently find myself researching various things from the eighteenth century on the always-reliable Wikipedia. And when it comes to historical films, there’s nothing that bothers me more than significant inaccuracies (or as my European history teacher once wrote on an essay of mine, “huge glaring neon flashing light problems”). The Other Boleyn Girl parades itself as an accurate depiction of the events surrounding King Henry VIII’s love affairs with Anne and Mary Boleyn, but it’s far from it.

King Henry VIII is commonly believed to have been a portly fellow, while the film portrays him as a strapping, athletic chick magnet. And Anne and Mary Boleyn are portrayed as stunningly beautiful, while all the women around them seem purposefully plain.

These are just further examples of Hollywood changing history for publicity’s sake. The producers clearly wanted the main characters to be incredibly attractive, while the supporting cast was supposed to fall into the shadows of the movie. They don’t want you to think too hard about the intricate plot involving far more characters than merely the Boleyn sisters and the king; they just want you to get lost in Scarlett Johannson’s and Eric Bana’s eyes. But maybe that’s for the best. Upon closer look, the actual story is told quite poorly.

The film opens as Henry’s first wife fails to give him a son, and Anne, the older sister (historically the younger of the two), is told to seduce him. Her father hopes to use her charm to attain greater wealth and status for the family. But while Anne attempts to win Henry over, the king ultimately finds himself more interested in Mary. The whole Boleyn family is invited to live in the royal palace, and within several days, Mary begins a not-so-surreptitious affair with Henry. Meanwhile Anne is sent off to Paris to learn from the Queen.

Mary soon finds herself pregnant with Henry’s child, but complications leave her bedridden for months. Meanwhile, Anne returns from Paris, presumably having learned the French art of seduction, and goes after Henry once again. This leads to an intense competition between the two sisters for Henry’s love.

Admittedly, there is a sort of inherent intrigue in the notorious love life of Henry VIII, so while Boleyn Girl isn’t a great movie, it’s never boring. However, the intricate love story quickly becomes incredibly melodramatic. It’s sad to see a movie with such possibilities diminished to the caliber of daytime television.

The melodrama is overwhelming because it’s not counterbalanced by more subtle storytelling and character development. This can be attributed to two key errors in the approach of director Justin Chadwick. First, the two women we’re supposed to care about in this movie are made out to be superficial and mean. Mary abandons her first husband for Henry without hardly batting an eye, but devastating her sister. Then Anne comes back and does the same thing to Mary. The two seem to act as if their actions have no repercussions. It’s hard to sympathize with either of them as they continually stab each other in the back.

Second, King Henry is one of the most fascinating figures in history, but the film barely spends any time on him. Yes, I am aware that the title clearly states the movie is about Mary Boleyn, but that doesn’t mean Henry should be entirely overlooked. Delving into Henry’s psychology would have added a far more subtle undertone to the movie that could have helped to balance out the drama.

The story feels dumbed down for American audiences, but it still tries to stay true to history. As the old adage goes, you’re either pregnant or you’re not – there’s no in between. Boleyn Girl needed to either stay completely true to history, or take a more Hollywood-ized direction. Instead, it falls somewhere in between.

Sadly, the weak story arc overshadows the performances of all three leads. Eric Bana plays what could have been a very dynamic King Henry VIII. Scarlett Johannson plays what could have been a sympathetic, long-forgotten Mary Boleyn. Natalie Portman plays what could have been an original and unique Anne Boleyn. The problem with all three is not their performances per say, but the roles themselves. All three have shined before: Bana in Munich, Johannson in Lost in Translation, and Portman in Closer. Unfortunately, their talents go under-utilized this time around.

The only noteworthy performance comes from Kristin Scott Thomas as Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, Mary and Anne’s mother. Unlike their heartless, power-hungry father, mother Boleyn strikes true as a caring, concerned mother who doesn’t like what bureaucracy is doing to her family. While her role is likely to be forgotten in the long run, it’s reminiscent of Diane Keaton’s Kay Corleone in the Godfather trilogy.

The film’s artistry is really its only strong suit. The costumes and sets magnificently create a sixteenth century atmosphere, and the cinematography gives even the grimmest of locations a flattering look.

In the end, The Other Boleyn Girl continues Hollywood’s recent trend of dumbing movies down for the United States. They seem to think that complex storylines are driving ticket sales down as of late, and not that whole internet fad or anything like that. Looks like hard times ahead for moviegoers looking for a little more substance. In the meantime, I’ll be curled up on the couch watching all my old DVDs before they become outdated by Blu-Ray or whatever other new technologies pop up in the next few weeks.