2013 [FRENCH]

Adventure / History / Romance

Plot summary

Uploaded by: FREEMAN

Top cast

Nora Arnezeder Photo
Nora Arnezeder as Angélique de Sancé de Monteloup
Simon Abkarian Photo
Simon Abkarian as L'avocat François Desgrez
Mathieu Kassovitz Photo
Mathieu Kassovitz as Nicolas / Calembredaine
David Kross Photo
David Kross as Le Roi / Louis XIV
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1.01 GB
French 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 52 min
P/S 30 / 55
2.08 GB
French 5.1
23.976 fps
1 hr 52 min
P/S 17 / 63

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by martinobear1 / 10

beware at all costs

I have just finished watching the original movies...classic cinema...this version is nothing but travesty...changing plots ( like how they found out about the box with poison) was not necessary.. the one is likable.....Angelique was a famous beauty...this actress is..plain to say the least tho the original movies have plot holes..mostly to cut the movie time- tho as sequels followed they did alter some events- but let's face it...they would have to make 10 movies... but ultimately a classic.. I have read the books 4x..started at 14 (forbidden literature by my mother) till ripe age of 50..regretably not the last volumes coming back to France.. my advice..just read the books..and you will get tremendous pleasure or watch the original movies in spite of the flaws..the cast (Mercier)...the production..the score as with all movies based on books- stick with reading the books

Reviewed by dbdumonteil2 / 10

Fans of Golon,beware!

As a very big fan of the great historical novels by Anne and Serge Golon,I was expecting much from a remake .Anne Golon herself told that it was the movie she had been waiting for since the sixties.

One thing for sure ,the sixties movies did not do the novels justice .But they had a decent screenplay ,two excellent actors (Robert Hossein and Jean Rochefort ) a gorgeous actress ,a superb score by Michel Magne -which is used for the king's arrival in Zeitoun's film .The critics did not speak highly of Borderie's works,but the mainstream audience loved it and today it is screened at least once a year on TV (or satellite TV).

What can a Golon buff say when confronted with artistic disaster?Issue a warning and try to accentuate the positive? Yes ,they reveal (like in the book) why Joffrey became crippled and disfigured ;yes,the love scene is hotter than in the previous version ;yes ,Joffrey 's scientist side is not passed over in silence ;yes , the dog named Sorbonne plays his game well;yes, introducing Monsieur De La Reynie alongside Desgrez is a good thing for both were historical figures notably in the poisons affair and the ending of Cour Des Miracles (area of Paris famous for its disreputable population)

But ,no ,it's not the Angelique the novels' reader was waiting for,definitely not.I would go as far as to write that Borderie's rendition was better ,if no masterpiece by a long shot,and much more faithful to the books.

Like in the first version,the beginning of the book is botched :for instance , we hardly know Angélique's childhood friend Nicolas :unlike Giuliano Gemma ,Matthieu Kassovitz -who could have been his character's father-has only a very short scene in the flashback and his reappearance as Calembredaine may have puzzled people not familiar with the story.

Plenty of scenes were invented from start to finish by talentless writers including the director: Angélique leaving her husband's castle, the explosion,the visit in Joffrey's dungeon in La Bastille,all that concerns Philippe's father;and the king and his court visiting the quarry,it has to be seen to be believed.

One of the major characters ,the fanatic monk called Becher ,is reduced to a walk on ;the king is insignificant (and it is the future Sun King),and the actor cannot hold a candle to Comedien Français Jacques Toja ;the screenplay is a muddled affair ,the plot against the king is undecipherable and most of all we forget the very reason for which Joffrey is persecuted: treated with suspicion by the Church ,convicted of sorcery ,of trying to be a law unto itself by the king who finds it hard one of his subjects should be wealthier than he -Golon was inspired by Fouquet's fate- ,and a king who covets Angelique too ,it's obvious when she comes to implore his help (a scene replaced here by a meeting with the Prince of Condé ,which is absurd,considering what Angélique is supposed to know about him.)And as the movie knows only one tempo,accelerated,I dare someone who does not know the story to catch up with the plot.

The trial,which was perhaps the climax of the novel,and was relatively well directed in the first version ,is a disaster here ;like in the 1964 version,elements are borrowed from the second volume:Angelique does take refuge in the Cour Des Miracles; to be fair ,let's mention that the failed attempt to save Joffrey from the stake-itself invented by the sixties screenwriters- is ruled out and that Calembredaine's final words ring truer than the romantic ones of the sixties.

One will notice that the part of Philippe Du Plessis-Bellière has been fleshed out ,not for the best;his Relationship with Angélique was ambiguous:he despised her (a peasant girl!),and never came to her rescue ,never in a month of Sundays ;his role in the first volume is minor,compared to the prominent part he plays in the second and third volumes.Besides ,Tomer Sisley has no screen presence.

"Fin De La Premiere Partie ",we read ,before the final cast and credits:but will there be a part 2? Given the disastrous box-office and the unanimous thumbs down it got from the critics,it is highly dubious.

I have always thought that,considering the length of the Angelique saga,only miniseries could do the (I say it again) absorbing novels justice .

I know a lot of people will disagree....But let them read the books first!

Reviewed by Simon-Rogopag1 / 10


The new Angelique to me is a sign of everything that's wrong with the French TV of last 20 or maybe even 30 years. French art-house cinema is still pretty strong, and they often produce quite good commercial movies too , but TV is a different story. French TV used to produce some nice, immensely watchable (if not particularly profound) literary adaptations that used to be very popular with viewers far beyond France, especially in many eastern European countries and former USSR. What we get now is absolutely unwatchable, inconsistent, and pretentious. There are good exceptions like Engrenages or Les Revenants, but these are more like French takes on popular US TV models. When it comes to material based on the history of France, the French TV is churning up things like faux-arty but completely incomprehensible new version of Accursed Kings after Maurice Druon, atrociously amateurish new version of La Dame de Monsoreau after Dumas and this dud - Angelique, Marquise of Boredom. The original film series is often criticized for the turning the source material into some Alexandre Dumas- Lite period adventure pieces, but that is exactly why I loved them. In all honesty, the source books are not masterpieces. I have read almost all of them and I believe that at best they are just a cape and sward adventures in lush period settings told from a woman's perspective (kind of precursor of The Outlander),at worse (and every subsequent book is getting worse and worse) they are just your average romance novels that are supposed to have Fabio on the cover (ok, maybe slightly better researched and written than your average romance novel, but you know still a type of book where the titular lady hero spends pages objectifying various sexy studs, still holding a candle for a love of her life and simultaneously getting in touch with her inner goddess...). The original film adaptations (5 films) were made by Bernard Borderie who few years before that made perhaps the most satisfying (yet still imperfect) adaptation of The Three Musketeers. He treated Angelique in the same way, making it a rollercoaster of fast paced adventures of the beautiful heroine with swordfights, poisonings, exotic locales, and a little bit of sexual titillation. The quality of films varied - I consider 1st and 3rd films excellent, 2nd and 5th are OK and 4th is even worse (though its worst part - a hilarious "torture by cats" scene comes directly from the source material). Now, there are certain dedicated fans of the books that consider that these films don't do justice to the source material but sorry, in my opinion they mostly improve upon the books (and in my opinion there are very few films out that improve upon the books). I wonder what these critics think of this new take that manages to make the France of Louis XIV look as a completely unattractive and unpleasant place, has the ladies and gentlemen behave like street thugs, and turn the titular character into some kind of swashbuckling tomboy. I did not like anything about this series from casting to costume design. The old film had a gorgeous leading actress - Michelle Mercier, whose popularity for a while even rivaled that of Brigitte Bardot. Nora Arnezeder seems to be a beautiful and talented young lady - and maybe with a right material and presentation she can become a prominent star - but the way she is directed, dressed, even lit in this series make her look completely plain and forgettable. As to the gentleman around her? In addition to charismatic Rober Hossein as Joffrey, almost every suitor of Angelique was drop dead gorgeous: Gulianno Gemma, Sammi Frey, Jean-Louis Trintignant, and many more. Here they all look drab and boring. However, the worst offender is the director - the directing is simply inept, from time to time even amateurish. And am not speaking about artistic choices, I am speaking about simple things like setting up a scene, transitions between pivotal events, built up of tension or rather lack of thereof. I read some reviews praising the costumes and sets, come on, you can't be serious?!

Read more IMDb reviews