7.7 - WTF!

Couldn't agree more, the first 30 minutes were literally PAINFUL to endure, the wooden performances, the trite dialogue, the utterly predictable story and the great BLAH in which the whole thing was presented! And I see these people saying "well if you shut it off halfway through you didn't even get to the good parts or the awesome twist ending!" unless the twist was it actually stopped being a terrible movie I don't care! Jeez this flick was awful! I could not get past that first half sucking so bad so I tried skipping around just to see if I did miss anything? Yeah, nothing there, just a solid crap movie from start to finish. So I'm with you, who the heck is giving this stupid movie anything more than a 3 at best and I don't even know what THAT would be for?!

The film is not meant - in any manner - to be an historical document. It is in fact a fairy tale; the fantastic "tale within a tale" of how the title character first met his mentor/muse sets the tone, and the "flashforward" opening that makes what is rolled out seem like a tale being told to you, perhaps by an unreliable narrator. This is not "Barry Lyndon" and the expectation that it should adhere to historical accuracy is basically absurd.

And I am not particularly a fan of Norton's: the movie is a pleasant, beautifully filmed, and surprising story of romance and deception. That is why I gave it an 8. You are free to disagree...

I was pretty dubious as to whether this film would turn out to be any good or not. It is cliched, but it works. The story is formulaic, but that doesn't mean it can't work. It's entertaining, and reminiscent of a sort of fairy tale.

It's not intended to be a historical drama. Look at all the films set in the modern day - are they all accurate in regards to world events and politics and so on? It was set in this time period because it works for the story - can you imagine the events of this story being able to unfold in a modern setting? Remember that just because something is set in the past, does not mean it must be a historical drama based on real events. Actually I really liked the way this film broke free from the historical mould and told its own story.

I agree to an extent with the criticisms regarding the acting and the accents. The acting was a bit wooden at times, and the accents could've been a little more consistent, but I didn't let it bother me.

Sometimes, for a story to be told properly, you need to suspend your disbelief and sit back and enjoy the ride, so to speak.

I liked it...what anyone thinks of that won't bother me or change my mind in the least, but it also doesn't bother me that some people don't like it. That happens. The world of entertainment is a big place, and there's room for alot of differing tastes. I find the things I like, and go from there.

Couldn't agree more.

I've just this minute finished watching it. What on earth was the point of this movie? Slow, drawn out, dull and flat. Even the ending was drab and predicable.

I would say the same thing: "7.7 - WTF!". It should get at least 8.5

Leopold was based partially off Rudolph, *Crown Prince* of Austria-Hungary, who committed suicide. Your outrage at the thought of this fictional Prince overthrowing his father in what you stress is a Constitutional Monarchy means you assume that he'd be actin within the bounds of the law. It's a time-period fiction.
I partially agree with you about the accents in the case of Norton (whom I do love), but these movies are marketed towards Americans, and Americans (most likely) would rather hear subpar British accents than subpar Austrian-Hungarian accents. It makes it easier to understand.

You disliked a movie because it wasn't historically accurate and you were bored by accents. Pretty cool stuff there dude!