I have to be blunt. Reading Gertrude Bell's Wikipedia entry arguably provides more thrills than watching Werner Herzog's misfire of a biopic. Although a contemporary and, as this film suggests, a likely friend of TE Lawrence, Queen of the Desert, doesn't even come remotely close to telling Bell's story with the same sort of grandeur and vision that David Lean achieved with Lawrence of Arabia.

Bell led a life of adventure and achievement, in a range of diverse locations and across a variety of disciplines that Herzog doesn't really even attempt to explore. Hell, the woman even had an interesting death (as far as deaths can be interesting I suppose). He only focuses his cameras on Bell's middle eastern travels. But then makes the mistake of trying to define much of Bell's life through a couple of failed and unfulfilled love encounters with men associated with diplomatic posts. A great deal of onscreen time is spent in various embassies and at different functions, that I'm afraid I consider time just wasted.

When Herzog finally decides to turn to the desert, we are presented with some breath-taking, but often quite brief scenes. We see her begin to interrelate with a number of Bedouin tribes in abrupt, fairly forgettable exchanges, which never succeed in portraying how she ended up being such an influentially historical figure in the region, whose reputation rivalled that of Lawrence himself. Then there are factual inaccuracies that Herzog allows/makes for no real artistic objectives. Basic things such as her being confined to Ha'il for 11 days, not over 3 weeks as mentioned in the dialogue. Occasional years and dates are mentioned onscreen, but shouldn't be taken too seriously. Using the film's timeline, the film appears to begin in 1902, when an obviously young Gertrude first achieves her ambition of travelling east due to her influential father. The only trouble with that is, by this time she was actually 34 and had made copious trips to the Middle East.

Queen of the Desert was both a critical failure and a rather huge commercial flop. It's such a shame that $36 million should be wasted on a movie that doesn't really begin to explore what made this independent, intelligent woman ahead of her times tick.

That is the unanswered question here. Why? Why exactly was Gertrude Bell so fascinated with the desert states she explored. She rode camels a lot. She walked a lot. She appeared to be tall. All superficial things about this character. But we all that camel riding and walking got boring after a while...and not a very long while at that. Clearly there must have been a fascinating woman there...but you'd never know it by this film. 128 minutes is not too long for most films...but it was too long here.

That's not to say the film has no redeeming qualities. Oddly enough, I can't stand James Franco. But here I found his performance very engaging...although it took me a while to realize who he was. Of course, as one of the good things about the movie, we only see him in the early scenes of the movie.

Nicole Kidman did a fine job as Gertrude Bell. That wasn't the problem with the movie. The problem was the script and the directing. The most interesting casting may have been that as Robert Pattinson as "Lawrence of Arabia"; quite interesting...but he's no Peter O'Toole. And I found it interesting to see Jenny Agutter, who I lost track of since 1976 in "Logan's Run" (I know I just dated myself).

The film wasn't bad enough to turn off, but it did take me several sittings to wade through the plodding plot. It's a shame...I have a feeling there was a fascinating story here.