gabriela-zayas In reality that happened: the royal mother in law and father in law lunched with the couple the day after the wedding and gave her the money in public. This troubled young Elisabeth so much that she never forgot the issue. We must remember she was only 16. She was so embarrassed that she kept a fear for sex all her life. Perhaps this began to appear as a trauma. Also the constant meddling of her aunt and mother in law. As you say, she kept all her children away from her, critiqued her teeth and manners (which she considered inappropriate for an empress), and when Sissi finally went to Venice with her husband and children, her eldest daughter died, and the mother in law blamed her for that unfortunate and premature death. She never recovered.

Marcin Kukuczka The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. "Once women will wear trousers" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of cliché.Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a "femme fa tale" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3/10

claude432001 Arielle Dombasle had only one great moment in that movie. The scene shortly before her murder when she is walking along with Countess Staray...Maybe we have here a glimpse what the real Elisabeth of Austria looked like (Arielle Dombasle having the same figure)...but...There were so many erroneous things...ex: Sisi singing (she did not...her sister Sophie, Duchess of Alencon, had a singing voice...The death of Crownprince Rodolph...A) it took place in winter (29th January 1889)...Sisi was not present in Mayerling...(I think that makes the whole film look not serious) The death of the the emperor s mother (Erzherzogin Sophie) She was present alright and stayed till the end but I doubt that you have that sort of discussions with a dying woman (ok might have been in her thoughts) and many other things...No, that movie is not worth looking at....Sorry

Ana Careci It may seem a dramatic, beautiful movie if you have no idea of Austrian history during the period of the First World War and before it. The main character, Sissy, reminded me of an innocent victim, who stirred up a hornet's nest without her own will, and is sentenced to never ending sufferings: too sentimental and not true-to-life. While watching "Sissy" I was constantly waiting for the moment when the famous Count Andassi finally comes in sight - and that disappointed me much: they made one of the most outstanding and clever people of the time, and (without any doubt) the best Hungarian Politician a mediocre noble from some Far-Away district of the vast Austrian Impire, not more than that!!! And the film-Sissy's altitude towards Andrassi didn't coincide with the reality. Not a word was said about the situation in Europe in 1989(and this is the year, when the events take place). And it's rather difficult to judge, when you have only the free interpretation of history and of the impress's life. Too many thing are exaggerated, too many curious features are forgotten(Well...for me they're curious, because my own life is connected with historians and history, and that reveals many secrets of the past:) ), but on the whole, the film's worth watching if you're ready not to pay attention to the part of the plot, that deals not with Sissy's reminiscences. My vote is 6!