Nov 21 2007'Other Boleyn Girl' Trailer Raises Important Questions
Someone has, at long last, externalized the heterosexual male's deepest and most torturous emotional conflict: who would we rather do, Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson? Set in gorgeous 16th-century England, The Boyleyn Girl features a powerful performance from the talented Eric Bana as King Henry VIII that brings a nuanced reality to the absurd fantasy we've played out in our mind so many times.
On the one hand, Natalie Portman perhaps has the more striking features, and a delicately slim body that recalls the not-quite-matured girls of junior high, lusted for but never quite attained. One gets the impression that, on a particularly passion-filled night with the Garden State beauty, she may be broken along with the bed. But is that not part of her appeal?
But after one look at the ample bosom of the curvaceous Scarlett Johansson, our darling Natalie begins to look immature, even boyish. Like a ripe peach, ScarJo has blossomed into a soft and desirable woman. Who, after seeing the first shot of Lost in Translation, did not whisper to themselves the need to "get up inside them panties?"
With such tempting options before him, how is Eric Bana to choose? Is that even the plot? I sort of stopped paying attention when my mind asked the question, "What about both, at the same time?"
Reader Comments
1. Jim jetson - November 21, 2007 2:30 PM
Scarjo does look soft doesnt she. I'd imagine Natalie Portman is a nightmare to wake up next to after a drunk night in those horrible five seconds where you are unsure if you have broken the law. Once she woke up she would probably try and have an intellectual conversation as well. Scarjo would prbably just pout and maybe say something about breakfast in a hillariously deep voice. I know which one I prefer.
2. Herner Wartzhog - November 21, 2007 2:35 PM
The emphasis of this film seems to be alot of different people asking others "why are you doing this" I think the audience will quickly ask themselves the same question but with we and watching inserted in lieu of two other words. Guess which.
3. leelee - November 21, 2007 3:38 PM
oh my god-- how many times do we have to see Johansson play pre-18th Century Royalty?
4. gnu - November 21, 2007 4:39 PM
I think this half sucks and half doesn't... Some nice shots were in that trailer, also its editing is real bad.
I'd really prefer Portman, she has the better looks, and is probably smarter. Then again, I haven't seen Lost in Translation.
5. woodhorse - November 21, 2007 6:23 PM
Natalie Portman! No contest - Natalie can break my heart as easily as Hilary Swank can. Scarlett just doesn't act powerfully enough to suspend reality and make me a believer.
6. databody - November 21, 2007 6:37 PM
uh duh, if you don't know why you're watching this...let me use math to explain:
2 female leads = twice the sex scenes. hell yeah!
7. Tim - November 22, 2007 9:13 AM
woow! Is that chou? one of my favorite Chinese acton!gog! Natalie is also great, i love her performance in Leo! I believe you will drive all the men on http://www.naturistspace.org crazy!
8. BonnieBarko - December 5, 2007 5:56 AM
Nat & Scarlett have more in common than lesbian fantasies - they both seem to star in movies with good intentions but lame realisation. OK that's the fault of nowadays movie-makers, however.
about what's driving (male) thoughts about Boleyn: cliché or not, irl the fragile smart girls are the 'wild' ones by high chances. The obviously very female girls are often the ones who're fragile in mind and in bed.