No disrespect to the honorable intentions of its creators, but this film is far from being a satisfying experience. Whether you are an aficionado for historical films or just a regular cinephile, you can't help but feeling a little irked by the film's mediocrity. No matter how impressive some palaces or costumes may look, they hardly make up for pompous acting, cliched dialogue and tiresome scenes. On television it could have made a fairly acceptable soap opera. The big screen, however, is a totally different story.
What's more disappointing is that major historical figures of Romania, such as Bratianu, Averescu, King Ferdinand, Prince Carol (future King Carol II) and others are depicted as poor caricatures of themselves. The same goes for personalities like Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Clemenceau. While it's common knowledge that cinema is definitely not a history class, we simply can't overlook the fact that the way in which the film adapts historical facts and characters to its narrative is an injustice to a whole era, both historically and artistically.
There is no depth, no other dimension to any of the protagonists. Apart from the leading lady, presented in a rather messianic light, the film overflows us with dozens of supporting characters and the minute we start taking a slight interest in them, it flatly abandons them.
Roxana Lupu seems to be more excited about getting to play the role of the queen than about the role itself. She tries her best to look convincing, but, being so heavy-handedly directed, she does very little in making us truly empathize with her character. A case in hand in this respect is the pompous manner in which her character (the queen) repeats throughout the film how much she loves Romania and how proud she feels to lobby for her country's interests. In my humble opinion, if you are making films and you want to convey certain feelings and messages to your audience, this ought to be reflected in your cinematic approach as a whole, not in just a few lines of dialogue (which in this film is infuriatingly repetitive). Cinema is, after all, a very powerful medium and, if one posesses the skill, one may be able to convey a thousand messages in just one frame without anyone having to speak a single word. However, making your actors repeat the same things for two hours and in a such overblown manner, is dull, uninspired and a little insulting to the viewer's intelligence (not to mention that it adds to the characters' artificiality).
All in all, the film leaves a great deal to be desired and that is really a pity, because an important figure such as Queen Maria and a major geopolitical event like the creation of Greater Romania deserve much better than cheap romanticism. I am amazed that, having such a great material in their hands, the creators of the film could offer nothing more than a series of heavily used clichés. They may be the safe option and guarantee tickets, but, at the end of the day, all they leave behind is an audience addicted to low-quality filmmaking and, on a second level, a number of misconceptions regarding Romania's modern past.
What's more disappointing is that major historical figures of Romania, such as Bratianu, Averescu, King Ferdinand, Prince Carol (future King Carol II) and others are depicted as poor caricatures of themselves. The same goes for personalities like Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Clemenceau. While it's common knowledge that cinema is definitely not a history class, we simply can't overlook the fact that the way in which the film adapts historical facts and characters to its narrative is an injustice to a whole era, both historically and artistically.
There is no depth, no other dimension to any of the protagonists. Apart from the leading lady, presented in a rather messianic light, the film overflows us with dozens of supporting characters and the minute we start taking a slight interest in them, it flatly abandons them.
Roxana Lupu seems to be more excited about getting to play the role of the queen than about the role itself. She tries her best to look convincing, but, being so heavy-handedly directed, she does very little in making us truly empathize with her character. A case in hand in this respect is the pompous manner in which her character (the queen) repeats throughout the film how much she loves Romania and how proud she feels to lobby for her country's interests. In my humble opinion, if you are making films and you want to convey certain feelings and messages to your audience, this ought to be reflected in your cinematic approach as a whole, not in just a few lines of dialogue (which in this film is infuriatingly repetitive). Cinema is, after all, a very powerful medium and, if one posesses the skill, one may be able to convey a thousand messages in just one frame without anyone having to speak a single word. However, making your actors repeat the same things for two hours and in a such overblown manner, is dull, uninspired and a little insulting to the viewer's intelligence (not to mention that it adds to the characters' artificiality).
All in all, the film leaves a great deal to be desired and that is really a pity, because an important figure such as Queen Maria and a major geopolitical event like the creation of Greater Romania deserve much better than cheap romanticism. I am amazed that, having such a great material in their hands, the creators of the film could offer nothing more than a series of heavily used clichés. They may be the safe option and guarantee tickets, but, at the end of the day, all they leave behind is an audience addicted to low-quality filmmaking and, on a second level, a number of misconceptions regarding Romania's modern past.