MovieChat Forums > Queen of the Desert (2017) Discussion > It's good - definitely worth seeing

It's good - definitely worth seeing


Just saw it, it's much better than some critics say...

Fantastic production values & locations, good cinematography, good cast, interesting story, good music.

It's such a beautifully photographed film, that you forgive the flaws.

Nicole Kidman is good in the lead, but it's not a showy performance because
Bell wasn't a showy person.

James Franco has a nice supporting turn. He seems a little too young (or Kidman too old) for their relationship,
but his performance is just fine.

I think, that some people have problems with the rather slow, classical style of the film and the little interest in psychology, but it's pure Herzog. I've seen nearly all his films and they are always told in this tableaux-style, one powerful image after another. He never was interested in people's psychology like Bergman. But it's all there, you just need to dig a little deeper, because it's more distant. The best way to watch this movie - or any film by Herzog - is to see it as a big book with breathtaking illustrations and some text, but you never want to read the text because the images are so compelling.

The difference to other Herzog films is that his lead here is a peaceful, educated, diplomatic lady - such a character is surely not as spectacular as "Aguirre" or "Bad Lieutenant". She's a 'sane' character in a foreign world, not an 'insane or naive character in an insane world' like in most other Herzog films. Insanity is probably more entertaining and memorable in movies, so Gertrude Bell is an outcast among Herzog's 'freaks' in that she's no freak at all.

But she's still an outsider in society - something all Herzogian (anti) heroes have in common.

Epic films about female heroes are rare and this one delivers the goods, but in a quiet way.
It's a rather meditative and peaceful film about exploring the unknown and building relations in another culture.
It's not preachy, but it has a political subtext that's relevant for today:
Like Getrude Bell people from another culture should try to understand 'the other' and build bridges.
Since most people are anti-Arabic or even anti-Islam these days and always find the solution in violence
instead of diplomatic negotiation, I found this different and respectful approach refreshing.

But Americans, who only associate with the orient ISIS or Al-Quaida or muslim fundamentalists,
will hate this movie, because it questions their prejudices.

I's not a political film, rather a romantic adventure.
It's never cheesy or kitsch, because even the romantic parts are told in a dry and humorous way.

In it's best moments it becomes visual poetry about desert life.

It's sometimes slow, but never boring.
It's sometimes stiff, but never theater.
The casting is a little off in some parts, but it doesn't take you out of the story.
It's an epic in a traditional sense, but it feels real enough to suspend disbelief.
The sand storms look real because they are real, not like in "The English Patient" where it's obviously FX.

The desert is attractive and deadly at the same time.

Like in all Herzog films (even "Bad Lieutenant" - The destroyed New Orleans reflects the corrupt anti-hero) the environment and landscapes are a metaphor for the inner world of the main character. Gertrude Bell's existential loneliness and desire for freedom can be felt in the desert.

It has some of the most beautiful desert images, I've ever seen.
(And I saw "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Sheltering Sky", "Gallipoli", "The English Patient"…)

Check it out, it's a good one.

reply

I stopped hoping for a decent film when reading that a Berlin showing was created with laughter by some and people walking out because it couldn't keep their interest.
If it ever makes it to "free" TV, I might check it out.

reply

Film festival are always harsh and the audiences can be quite brutal if they don't get what they expect.

But it's wrong to say that "Queen of the Desert" was badly received.

I read all the reviews and 1 third is negative, 1 third mixed and 1 third good to very good.

I enjoyed it for what it is.

reply

Dude..dude.....dude! It has a 6 on Rotten Tomatoes...a frigg'n six!

Just because you want to skin her and wear her like a coat, don't subject us to your insanity. Dirty Grandpa has a 7! Point Break has a 9! This is the kind of movie critics usually give 2 stars to even if it's horrendous and they're giving it 1/2 a star.

reply

Watch it Feb 16 and decide for yourself.

http://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/B014GQ829O/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1454076767&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=queen+of+the+desert+blu+ray&dpPl=1&dpID=51VSp%2BosAbL&ref=plSrch

reply

Dude..dude.....dude! It has a 6 on Rotten Tomatoes...a frigg'n six!


I was not talking about the American reviews.

This is a European style film.

The reviews in Europe were mixed, but not bad at all.

Some were very positive.

reply

Yes, a wonderful film. Kidman is such a terrific actress.

Great cinematography too.

reply

I completely disagree. Herzog has been one of my very favorite directors for years, and I've seen almost his full filmography, and Queen of the Desert hasn't nothing to do with his style. It's a terribly written film with average cinematography, loud theatrical music, choppy editing and inconsistent acting. While admittedly the first half-hour is awful, the film does get quite better from there, but the character's motivations are just completely ridiculous, all sorts of relationships are undeveloped, and it's ludicrous to depict such a legendary woman such as Bell and focus only, or mainly, on her two love affairs with men.

I'm extremely disappointed with Herzog, whose work I've adored throughout the years, but whose latest effort is without a doubt the worst film he's made.

______________________________________________
Live as you will wish to have lived when you are dying.

reply

I agree that it's a narrative mess and completely dead in the water, drama wise.

However, Herzog did create some amazing visuals with it and he did manage to create a portrait of an intriguing woman who Kidman plays really well, being charming and luminous. It's more like a poetic biopic, than an actual biopic, if that makes sense. I expected a lot more, but found it an interesting, watchable failure.

It's biggest crime is being boring, especially towards the end. 6.5/10

I could see myself watching it again though, for Kidman and the visuals.

http://napfilmcritic.blogspot.ae/

reply

I enjoyed the film, once I got over feeling that Kidman was too old for the part. I loved the desert vistas, too. I wish we had seen more of her travels, but I think for someone like Bell, it would take a TV series to do her justice.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Morgana0x

reply

the director is retarded, like americans he can't tell the difference between arabs and iranians, in the market in tehran, in the house, in the wilderness, you find iranians wearing arab headdress. and the fagos is not building bridges, he want to justify the savage nature of the christian european culture by claiming that arabs kill women and children too

reply

and the fagos is not building bridges, he want to justify the savage nature of the christian european culture by claiming that arabs kill women and children too

Say whaaaa? This is among the most incomprehensible of sentences I've encountered on IMDB, and I'm taking into consideration that English may be your 2nd language...

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

reply

Seriously disagree this film is worth seeing. Nicole Kidman does not have the gravitas to carry off a role befitting the real life character of Gertrude Bell. The writing is absolutely atrocious and a gross dis-service to the true story. It could have been really well done and it could have illuminated this period of history for our middle eastern friends but ... instead it was reduced to silly romantic notions. Just ridiculous. I shout-texted my friend the whole way through watching this film. How Damian Lewis got involved in this is beyond me.

reply

Fantastic production values & locations, good cinematography, good cast, interesting story, good music.

Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No. The story was incredibly boring, the score too much of an allusion to Lawrence.


Nicole Kidman is good in the lead, but it's not a showy performance because
Bell wasn't a showy person.


Yes, she was effective. The "broken glass" scene at the end took it.


James Franco has a nice supporting turn. He seems a little too young (or Kidman too old) for their relationship, but his performance is just fine.

I dunno, Franco seems way in over his head in a Herzog film. Herzog's direction finds actors doing very unconventional things, but Franco has either a) the most boring supporting role in the history of Herzog, or b) no way to play the role in that fashion


it's pure Herzog

I absolutely have got to take issue here. Being a major, major supporter and fan of Herzog's work (I think I've seen 95% of his output on IMDB) this seems the least "Herzog" of anything he's done. There are some gorgeous desert shots, but they seem to simply echo the brilliant final shot of "Nosferatu", the long train rides of "Fata Morgana", or even "Lawrence", than anything original. There was absolutely no edge at all to this film, nothing that gives it that quirky sense of the eternal so easily found in his other films. It's the odd nature of his lingering camera and obsession with peripheral imagery that turns so many mainstream filmgoers off Herzog. I was turned off this one precisely because I've come to expect some amount of signature present. There simply wasn't any to be found here.


But Americans, who only associate with the orient ISIS or Al-Quaida or muslim fundamentalists, will hate this movie, because it questions their prejudices.

Jesus, man, I was with you until you started in with the blanket statements. As an American I didn't "hate" this movie at all (6/10), but I was disappointed due to its lack of Herzog-signature. C'mon, you have some good things to say without needing to go there. What does this bit of stupidity have to do with the rest of your other well-reasoned arguments? There are 300,000,000+ people in America, my friend.


The problem with this film is quite simple: it's insufferably boring. I've never said that about a Herzog film before. I'll sit through 2 hours and 45 minutes of Fitzcarraldo over and over and never, ever be bored. I've gaze in raptured awe at "Heart of Glass" two dozen times. But nothing could make me sit through this thing again - there's zero depth, nothing to "untangle", no images that linger. It's no more complicated than that. What's left is a professional production with a decent cast and some pretty pictures. But where's the Herzog I know that would let the camera linger and wander, where "form = content"? I really didn't give two *beep* about Gertrude Bell or her uptight boyfriends.

I'll be first in line to see "Salt and Fire" when it comes out, for I'm always interested to see and understand the images Herzog so cherishes from around the world. This one, however, brought nothing new to the table. 4+ hours of "Lawrence" goes by like a bullet compared to 2 hours of "Queen of the Desert".

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

reply

dyahrmarkt,

I think you are too harsh…it's a slow film, but not as boring as you say.

Sure, it's a rather mediocre HERZOG film, but I enjoyed it for what it is.


Would I prefer a TV series with a big budget about Gertrude Bell ?

Sure, but this is not what it is:

It's a small, poetic portrait of a larger-than-life woman.

You have to see this in the right mood, as material for meditation.

It's not meant to be 'fast' or dramatic: It's Herzogian tableaux-style.



May I ask which version you saw ?

I saw the long 128 minutes version.


I will check out the 110 min. version next time to compare.


I think it's funny that the Herzog fans want to disown this film,

but it's still a Herzog film, only about a sane woman.

I guess that makes all the difference.

reply

You have to see this in the right mood, as material for meditation.
It's not meant to be 'fast' or dramatic: It's Herzogian tableaux-style.


I know where you're coming from. Again, I have been a major defender and proponent of Herzog's work through the years. Never thought I'd be at a point where I would so pointedly criticize a film by this most amazing of filmmakers, but there it is. I didn't know there were two versions - whichever one I saw was around 2 hours or so. I really don't need "fast" or "dramatic" - it was the lack of the opposite - serious, lingering meditative camerawork and the like - that I felt was needed.


I think it's funny that the Herzog fans want to disown this film, but it's still a Herzog film, only about a sane woman. I guess that makes all the difference.

I don't really think that has anything to do with it. Herzog has, yes, made a career making movies about rather insane men, but not every film goes this way. Many of his protagonists are sane people with simply a large canvas as their backdrop, like Bell. Really, my reaction to the film has nothing to with any innate prejudices against the regular Herzog protagonist, be it male, female, sane, or insane. Again, it was just insufferable to sit through. And, again, this is coming from someone who thinks every second of "Heart of Glass" is downright astonishing.


Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

reply

I also enjoyed the film and its drama. Visually very appealing, performances all 'round are good, great locations and excellent score. The film is certainly flawed but overall I enjoyed it.


He is not coming back. He has forgotten me.

reply