WTF is with this movie?

It's a lame movie and a costume porn-fest, but I can explain why it's getting so much attention.

1.) There have been a few cases of monarchs being gay in the past, but they were not common, and usually kept their madness a secret. In order to get heirs and satisfy their (97% percent hetero) subjects, they typically would have a proper consort that was the opposite gender and the right class, and have a few heirs with them. But in secret, they would have one or more same-sex lovers and carry out their bad lifestyle more freely.

I wouldn't say homosexuals were burned at the stake, but they were looked down upon by mainstream society and often shunned or even killed by the mob if they were commoners that were caught in the act. Burning at the stake was mostly reserved for witches. Nobles and royals could get away with it because they could bribe people working in the justice system, or their peers looked the other way and would snicker. They would also be as discreet as possible, and only certain friends (who might also be gay) would know about it. It was serious business to get rid of anointed sovereign just because of their sexual orientation, and most got away with it, save for Edward the IV (who was gay).

A rival king took the throne from him in the middle ages. He was imprisoned, and later executed. The new king demanded that no mark be left on the body, so his men executed Edward by having a red hot iron poker stuck up his anus. His screams were said to be heard all over England.

2.) That has to do with these lame attempts some movie-makers have done to try and make historical stories look more hip and interesting for the younger crowd. It fails miserably, does not interest most teenagers, and makes all the history fans squirm.

3.) That relates to the above reason.

4.) Depends on the person and who would allow them to do that. Usually only cowardly men slap women. A proper gentleman never lays a hand on a woman.

5.) Keep in mind that much of Show biz is not about who's the best actor, or who's the best singer. It's all about popularity among the snooty higher-ups. They don't care one whit about normal, everyday people who would watch their garbage. What we peons in society love is irrelevant to them. All they care about is our money in ticket sales. What the Academy lacks in taste, they make up for in their lack of class.

30% of Hollywood is represented by the Velvet Mafia, maybe more. They LOVE having people just like them in film, and they go NUTS when they see actors portray them in a positive or sympathetic light. Any time you want to win an Oscar, play someone who who is attracted to the same sex, or someone who is crazy.

It's one reason those "awards" and "honors" you hear about are pretty close to worthless in the real world, because they are.

And just so some people can't get away with deleting this, I'm copying and pasting it in digital storage so that you can't fully erase it. It's a pity when certain people get mad when told the truth.

They think swearing makes them edgy.

1) How about a basic Google search ? It'd show that Queen Anne was a lesbian.

And, um, no one had the right {or nerve} to even try to censure a Qeeen/King, much less hurt her.

1) The monarch was above the law in those days, or above that law.

2) Didn't bother me.

3) It certainly wasn't historically accurate, more of a demonstration that Anne couldn't participate in the regular entertainments of the court. Basically, the whole thing was meant to piss off Anne.

4) Oh please, since when has a patina of gentility ever stopped ambitious people from being the sharks they are? People like Sarah Churchill and Lord Harley were supremely ambitious monsters, the Steve Jobs and Donald Trumps of their day. It didn't take much to break the veneer of good manners and bring out the ruthlessness that was the foundation of their personalities.

5) Intelligent and perceptive moviegoers loved this movie!

Queen Anne = Donald J. Trump.....

"1) Why is the queen a lesbian, in those days gay people were burned at the stake, there's no way that the queen of England would be a lesbian."

Do you think people stopped being gay because it's illegal?

2) 3) The cinematography and sprightly style were the things I appreciated about the movie. Various odd angles express the mental state of the characters, or the suffocating environment at the court. The poor queen was often reduced to a mass of flesh that required external intervention to be moved, so it's pretty creepy to think that someone actually lived in there.
And the historical inconsistencies, such as the dance, are all part of the director's sense of humour.
Now if only he'd have had something more interesting to say with all that...

1. From the written records it does appear that she had lesbian lovers
2. Those unusual lenses did also "take me out of the movie," but they probably have a meaning if I were to look into it--and so probably fail for a mass movie audience, though maybe some "cinephiles" could appreciate it.
3. The dance was delightful. Of course it wasn't historically accurate, but I believe it was meant to "pile on" the poor Queen who couldn't dance at all and so responded by getting angry. I really wish I could have seen more of the dance rather than the queen's growing anger.
4. Grow up!
5. Because many people liked it (111,000 ratings on IMDB, avg. score of 7.6).