SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

monimm18 I liked this film, but I think it could have been better. There were three things that, in my opinion, weakened its impact. The first thing was the presence of a narrator. I happen to believe that using a narrator in a film with characters and dialogue, although sometimes justifiable, is many times a sign of script or directing weakness; usually, if both the screenplay and the director are good enough, conveying all the information should be possible (and would be more powerful) without a narrator explaining what's going on.The second thing that bothered me was the acting. I found it impossible to connect with the characters, however poignant I found their story (OK, Liotti's looks grabbed my attention quite a bit, but I wouldn't chuck that up to talent...). I felt that de Ayala's acting lacked a certain depth and had a narrow range (most of it consisted of numerous infantile fits of rage in between scenes where she eagerly spread her legs). Liotti seemed lifeless, although I was told his voice was dubbed in Spanish, which usually lowers the power of a performance quite a bit (apparently, he originally delivered a lot of his dialogue in Italian).The third thing that bothered me was the film's (director's?) incapacity of explaining the roots and justification of Juana's mad love for Phillip. Yes, I know it was a powerful combination of lust and emotional dependency, that Juana was a passionate woman and apparently Phillip was quite a fiery lover, but I never felt the characters' passion.The film focused too little on Juana's personality/character and the way the chemistry between her and Phillip developed. I realized how powerful her passion for him was, but it was only thanks to the dialogue, not to the acting, neither to the filming style (does anyone else think the film needed more close-ups, mostly during highly emotional scenes?). In my opinion, the film scratches the surface emotionally and artistically, but fails to go deep.Having said all that, let me assure you that, overall I think it's still a film worth seeing, although definitely not for historical accuracy. The story, loosely based on the Spanish queen Juana de Castilla's life, is quite moving, maybe more for those who have experienced the kind of passion that Juana had for Phillip. A woman so passionately in love with her man, so consumed by her love and so anguished by his philandering and growing lack of reciprocity to her love that she becomes obsessed with possesing him and forgets she is a queen and that her first duty is to her people. I was just sorry to see such a passionate love story idea being presented in a bit of a lethargic manner.

suze072 If you like overwrought historical dramas, not particularly good ones, I'd say this is the film to watch. We see Joan at the beginning as a young woman who is uncertain of being married for political reasons. After that, I'd say I'm at a lost as to what the hell this woman is doing or feeling. She is called mad several times in the movie over, even before she displays any sort of crazy behavior--so I'm likely to think it was just her fulfilling some prophecies. And when she does, that's the ONLY thing she does in the entire movie except deliver her own babies and spread her legs. Not that that is a bad thing. There is quite a bit of leg-spreading in this film--just little else to see after that. The camera cuts away to some monotonous meeting of parliament or if it lingers, the scene isn't particularly sensual or erotic--just boring and full of business talk.Some have been saying that she was ahead of her time, being such a sexual woman. I didn't think so. Were she to be empowered by sex and not driven to erratic behavior, I'd say she was ahead of her time. Her husband--played by Daniele Lioti, whose two expressions are "I'm going to rape you" and "I'm going to beat you"--seems to be someone to run away from, not love with a fiery passion. The love scenes between this silly long-haired eye-candy and Joan actually made the audience laugh instead of sympathize. Nuh uh, Vicente Aranda, I don't think so.Overall, I liked the costumes.

ccmiller1492 True story of "the mad queen of Castile" focuses on the innocent daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella contracted into marriage with the infamous Hapsburg heir of the Holy Roman Empire. Juana becomes so enamored of her young libertine husband that her jealously makes her emotionally unstable. Between the faithlessness of her husband and the treachery of her unscrupulous father King Ferdinand she is declared mad and forced into incarceration for most of her life. For a clearer understanding of the events leading to this, read Lawrence Schoonover's intriguing biographical novel "The Prisoner of Tordesillas." How ironic that Juana's younger sister Caterina (Katherine of Aragon) was also betrayed by a ruthless philandering husband (Henry VIII of England) and incarcerated unto death.

Markark What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's "madness" was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction.