setareh-salehee She was a woman with so many accomplishments when women were next to nothing. In the film all you hear about is single lines stating this accomplishments and the rest is she doing childish argues to go somewhere new and let man save her from everything and show her everything!!! The small periods of romance are so hytened in the movie that left no place for her personality and it seems like they tried to show that she did everything for her lost loves! I am not much of historian or anything but as an Iranian I am sure what they show as Tehran (Iran) was totally wrong. You see people in Moroccan/Syrian/Arabic clothing which definitely does not belong to Tehran, you hear people speaking Arabic then you hear actors and actresses trying to read poems in Farsi. It is even a pity that they did not learn a few lines of farsi and pronounce everything with a not very accurate translation (as far as I could read the texts) even locations featured in the movie are nothing like Tehran, the palm trees that you see in some scenes can not be found by hundreds of kilometer from Tehran which means that the love birds cannot go for a short ride to such places. You also see a ton of actors and actresses that enter the plot and they have such a short appearance that their dialogues become silly. Take the 1 year love story of the daughter of consul in Tehran that ends with her crying, leaving dinner table and nothing more... I cannot get why this was necessary and many of Gertrude Bell's achievements were not! Was it necessary to see that the man she loved was loved by other women? What does it tell us? Should we compare her personality to a spoiled teenager who is only care about fun and shopping? Do not let me start with Robert Pattinson's role! Who chose him to be Lowrance and how silly he was depicted here... I really don't understand! 5 star to me was for them trying and some how some accurate scenes...

James While modern events conspire to ensure that we understand at least a little of the Arab world, it needs to be recalled that - for centuries confined within the Ottoman Empire - that world was very much a closed book to Westerners, and all the more tantalising for that. In the Late Victorian and Edwardian eras, that was all beginning to change, as the Ottoman Empire began to collapse and British and other Empires were muscling in. British aristocrat Gertrude Bell (1868-1926) fell into that period and was - by some near-miracle - at the heart of the process referred to. And no matter how hard it tries, this film cannot really inform us how Bell came to be regarded by Churchill as the most influential woman in the British Empire. And, since documentaries and biographies can do that, the film must be seen as something of a failure in its own terms.However, (and this is a big however), where Herzog wins us over is with the amazing way in which Nicole Kidman's Bell (admittedly better looking than the original) carries all before her, clearly proving so stunning, awe-inspiring and irresistible to most of the influential men she meeets (be they British or Arab) that they a) mostly cannot help but take her seriously, b) end up respecting her and c) fall for her romantically in a big way! Pictures of the real Bell suggest she was not lacking in magnetism in her looks. but she clearly must also have had something far more imbued by her personailty, and this movie goes at least some way to showing us that, if not enlightening us properly as to what it entailed.And, stunningly, we are shown how the regal nature of Bell develops in line with her growing joy and delight in everything the East has to offer. This is interesting, given that her desire to be there, to have that adventure, came before her expertise. Hence in her first scenes in Persia, Bell is wide-eyed and still rather ignorant, but also entirely open and willing to any influences that come her way, absorbing all of that and growing in stature as she does so. Since this first part of her education in things eastern comes in a package with head-over-heals romantic love and intellectual oneness with James Franco's (admittedly cumbersomely-accented) British diplomat Henry Cadogan, the first half of the film works extremely powerfully as a romance.At this stage of the film, we in the audience empathise powerfully, as we also gasp at the sheer wonder of Persia - its birdsong in scented gardens, languid pools of water, its poetry, art, architecture and ancient civilisation. We are also drawn strongly into the developing attraction between soulmates that is portrayed, and are thus hit severely when Bell learns that she will never see Cadogan again, much as she still adores him. I nearly lost control of my emotions at this point, I'll admit, so potent was the empathy inspired with the character's emptiness and misery. Fortunately, this was not to be the last love Bell experienced, though tragedy again struck; but by this part of the film - Kidman's Bell is astounding us with her utter lack of fear as she goes on exploring deeper and deeper into unknown Arab lands. Again it is entrancing scenically, though here we fuly encounter the film's failure to make us understand how Bell achieved what she did. This is then a much less successful second half, despite it's unquestionable beauty of production, and the amazing separate situations it depicts. What is lacking is the flow of narrative that enlightens us more fully. The dots are just not connected here.Robert Pattinson's take on TE Lawrence is more down-to-earth than Peter O'Toole's all those years ago, but the portrayal is satisfying enough, though the film scarcely touches on how it must really have been to have two such powerful personalities working together. Given that both came together with Churchill and others, as the film hints, we need far more than Herzog is able to offer us in this respect. Hence, for neither the first nor the last time a biopic leaves us longing to learn more about its hero. Clearly, that is as much a failure of a film as it is a success; but in the end I've opted to give "Queen of the Desert" a 9 for what it hints at, if failing to fully present.

Bob An This film was on TV last night, so I decided to watch it as the theme is set in the desert, which I like. Plus James and Nicole as leading roles promised a good film + that Twilight guy. But... it turned out that the film was not really that great as the names in it.My main problem with the film is that it is set in the middle east - Syria, Iraq and other countries around, but as someone who has been to Morocco 4 times, I could tell that all the places are in Morocco: Marrakesh, Ait Benhaddoun, Ouarzazate, Merzouga and so on... So that definitely killed any authenticity to the film.I have no idea about that lady. Her life seems interesting, so will read more about her.Not a bad film, but nothing extraordinary either. If you like the Orient, North Africa and the desert, you will enjoy the scenery6 from me.

Bill Phillips Phooey with all the comments that this is not "Lawrence of Arabia," or that it doesn't have the passion of other Herzog movies like Fitzcarraldo. I loved it. And, I say nay to the reviewers who praise the cinematographer, but say Herzog, the director has lost it. As I see it, Herzog is the guy telling the cameraman what to do, and Herzog has the last say in film editing. And, visually, this movie is stunning. AND, the musical soundtrack is awesome, even better than Lawrence of Arabia (except for that unforgettable theme.) Then there's Nicole Kidman. She certainly does it for me. I was with her all the way. Never did I think, "oh, she wasn't right in that scene." It all felt right all the way to the final shot of the "back side" of the camel with Nicole riding into the sunset. A couple of things, I haven't seen anybody mention: First is another dimension to this movie and a possible reason Herzog did it. It provides a dramatic perspective on what the Middle East was then, and what it is now. It's an antidote to the Western "crusader" perception of Middle Easterners. The second comment I haven't heard is that this movie at times comes across as a documentary, which is why I think some label it as "dull." But, the line between documentary and "movie" movie is getting blurred these days. I'd rather see a "movie" that comes across as a documentary (which this one does) than a "documentary" that appears to try to be a movie. "Queen of the Desert" is very "educational." I learned a lot, as if that's the kiss of death for a real movie. No problem for me. I was highly informed (I had never heard of Gertrude Bell) and highly entertained.