Highly Overrated But Still Good

Disappointment for a huge fan!

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The first must-see film of the year.

Malformed original story with absolutly tragic acting performances. C-grade soup opera. Cant compare with original movie in any way.

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 cast...no 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

Was 2013 a bad year to launch the new re-imagined version of Book 1? I am superstitious and I'm not a fan of the number 13 but can it really have impacted so negatively? Seemingly the film was only a success in Germany - it might have succeeded in the UK but it was never shown here; not even to a limited audience, or if it was, then it was a very limited audience indeed!Despite the fact that the storyline has been re-imagined, I found that there was an awful lot to like about this film and very little to dislike and most of that, only cosmetic as I'm a bit picky about visual stimuli. As a purist in terms of reading the books I should be jumping up and down and stomping my foot at the deviations from the original - but, for a film which has to traverse through a storyline in around 120 minutes, the deviations complimented the storyline.No doubt much of this was due to the 'guardian' of the scripting - Anne Golon's daughter Nadine who was credited as a co-script editor. Anne herself pronounced that she was happy with the cast and the film, so if she is happy, why isn't the rest of the world? The rest of the world that is in a position to see the film that is. And, even if you are able to see the film (the DVD is available) you will need to know French to follow the storyline - once again a version has been released (like the 1960s films) in French only and in this case with sub-titles, but only in French for the hard of hearing. Where is their marketing department? The world is waiting for the new Angélique, but apparently she is not waiting for the world. Here is a resumé of the review I posted on Facebook:"I'm delighted to tell you, that I have just had a fabulous finish to my birthday week! It started with the canonisation of two Popes and ended with watching the new Angélique film. Anything I write from here on in are my own thoughts and observations influenced by no-one. First of all I found that there was an awful lot to like about this film and very little to dislike. Being a purist, I found some of the deviations from the book not to my taste, however I will say that as I have not read the entire series in French, it is possible that the English and Polish translations have a slightly different slant and that the films deviations are appropriate to the original. On the other hand, some of the innovations were very cleverly thought out to keep the film running smoothly. The use, at first, of misty b&w for flashbacks helps to keep the action moving forward quickly. The twist right at the start is very clever, but it took me a while to appreciate it! The dialogue and body language of Angélique and Joffrey as equals from the start helped me never to notice the real age difference between Nora and Gerard it worked so well! The scenes at Joffrey's mines are truly innovative and worth the investment of time the action takes place there even though this is an area where liberties really have been taken with the storyline! So, as I've made a critical observations, there are four things I take issue with - Phillipe as a hero, two exterior shots looking as if they were straight out of a computer game, the lack of attention to Joffrey's coiffured head of which Anne Golon gives such a detailed description at all times and Angélique's wedding attire. Back to the good bits, the music is fabulous, the introduction and minimal use of the original theme in one section only is welcome and appropriate, the costumes and interior locations are perfect and it is apparent much research was employed to achieve this. This really is an homage to Anne Golon. Credits acknowledge and attribute the basis of the film to Anne and Serge and Nadia is credited as co-writer of the screenplay. Bonus features include the interview with Anne Golon and a real bonus at the completion of the film states that this is the 'end of part one.' Roll on part 2! What I like about the conclusion of this film is that it has the exact tone of the end of Victoire d'Angélique where the focus is purely on Angélique herself. This film and tone of the film, the death of Joffrey is particularly dark and evisceral, is nothing like the films made in 60s and that in itself was the biggest and most welcome surprise of all."

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!