Okay, this calls for another kind of reviewing, doesn't it?

Rating: 8/10 (10 February 2019)

I guess I went through as many stages of appreciation as acid pills taken during the making. Did they try to make a punk version of 'Dangerous Liaisons' or was the director channelling Darren Aronofsky making 'The Madness of Queen Anne', I can't articulate my feelings in order to form a general appreciation, not now anyway. I have to enumerate all my key-reactions in chronological order.
1st minute:. It's got quite a nice look, the costumes are all right. I know like period movies, I like 18th century, Barry Lyndon, The Duchess, and all that. I think I'm gonna like thi.
1st minute 10 seconds: I'm suddenly not so 100% sure that it's gonna be your average costume movie. I should have figured that with the credits and titles' display.
2nd minute: what's with my camera-lens trick? Another "And Now For Something's Completely Different" moment and I'll be groaning.
10 minutes: (groaning)
15 minutes: feeling like that judge in the trial films: "this is better getting somewhere"....
25 minutes: the slap! finally, this got somewhere after all. Cool I waited for it.My faith is restored.
25 minutes, 10 seconds: Not so fast. Never mind the profanity but I didn't know the term "OK" was used in the 18th century England.
25 minutes, 20 seconds: playing with the wheelchair... what the bloody hell?!
25 minutes, 30 seconds: OK, they might as well kiss each other, nothing will surprise me...
25 minutes, 45 seconds: What did I say?!
30 minutes: at that point, I would see Weisz sticking her booger on a Stone's face, I wouldn't be surprised, seems like randomness is mistaken for pointlessness, or is it the other way around, I don't think I care anymore ... my brain is telling me "Mama, I wanna go home!"
40 minutes: OK, characters are well-established, Im getting used to the overall iconoclast tone and there were a few genuinely good parts (even genius at time) and the acting is truly Oscar-worthy..
1hour 20 minutes: OK if I forget about that naked man with the tomatoes thrown at his body, we've had almost an hour of cinematic consistency where I could appreciate better the performances of both Stone, Weisz and understand why Colman is credited as the lead.
1hour 40 minutes: my mind is processing, is it supposed to say something about women in power or the different layers of power with the favorite playing like consiglieri, is it about women power or just the way power corrupts everyone so there's no reason for women to be least corruptible... or maybe we have just a fantastic duel between two rivals who want to be the one who pulls the strings even if it means strangling the other with them. Seems like we already have a winner then, right?
1hout 55 minutes: that scene is dragging on and on, it'd be better be the ending... oh so it's finished. She did win but was it the "she" I expected? not really. Well, the film outgrew its initial bizarreness, was consistently interesting, made me think and had a satisfying ending. I can see the hype was somewhat deserved after all. But I can't say I had an instant liking, it's really demanding in terms of patience but maybe it's a film that takes time to grow on you.
Not for any taste or audience, but definitely a memorable experience, and so unpleasant at times you've got to admire its daringness, you can say it's over-stylized but that's the kind of thing you say about film that are all flash and no substance, this one has both and sometimes, flash and substance act like the two favourites in the film. And the story oddly enough acts like the Queen, it looks weak, flawed and flobby but it' got more strength inside and more personality than you'd think.
8 seems like the right rating, but it was a close call.