Not enjoying this

Rating: 3/10 (2 September 2014)

I'm usually discreet when giving bad reviews for a film, because in front of a work of joint collaboration by many professionals I should learn to understand and appreciate. But this one, really? Frankly I can hardly think of any film that's worse than this, and I've even watched Movie 43.
After the beginning of the film my mind already began to drift: as an empress well celebrated as "the Virgin Queen", why would a film dedicate as much as 30 minutes on her love life? Surely she had quite some suitors, but that's not what made people interested in her. The whole Robert Dudley line is completely inconsistent and mostly unnecessary. Am I suppose to buy the theory that when someone is loved by the Queen, he's risking himself being torn apart inside and forced by his shredded heart to plot her assassination, especially when just 5 minutes ago on the screen he tried to marry her to the King of Spain? This being my first Joseph Finnes film, I might never be able to like him anymore, thank you very much.
Besides, judging by what I learned from this film, all Elizabeth can do is to dance, to lie back laughing like drunk, and rely on Walsingham for everything, and her hair seems to contain some active components of onion. She lacked the resolution for a Queen, and the history of England would hardly have changed without her. And that's far from the truth.
The details are no more well-organized than the plot.
1. When Monsieur de Foix delivered the marriage proposal to the Queen for the second time and she said she would meed the Duke of Anjou in person, Dudley stormed away angrily, and the Queen went off to chase him immediately. Is that at all appropriate? Will a Queen of England be chasing the first Earl of Leicester during a conversation with the Ambassador of France? If that's the English way, I accept it with deepest respect.
2. The speech by the Queen in the church debate might be the worst speech ever displayed on screen. You can't just introduce a solemn background music and say the speech is convincing (which really happened in the film, and I'm offended).
3. The Daniel Craig part killed me a bit inside. How on earth would the director think that will fit in the film?
4. If the film was overall better in quality, the character of the Duke of Anjou might be fun/funny. But in crappy film like this it just sinks it deeper.
5. The intelligence department of the Elizabethan government seems to be desperately in need of hands, because Walsingham had to act as counselor, muscle, detective and assassin all by himself. I would have thought that you don't have to grope on the wall for a secret door when you are a Sir.
6. Is the Duke of Norfolk being killed right after sex supposed to be artistic? Besides, as an unessential role the Countess of Norfolk got too much screen time. Is she a niece of the director or something?
If I were to watch the film again I would be able to find more weird stuff like this, but I always try to avoid such traumatic experience. I'm fairly disappointed that actors as brilliant as Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush themselves would appear in such low-quality film. I think Cate Blanchett(or Naomi Watts perhaps?) said in an interview that one has to be lucky to get good roles, but that's hardly any consolation.