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

Kirpianuscus an interesting and courageous project. to present to a new generation, after almost half of century, a story who represents a great success for its period. but it is not only ambition. the new Angelique is real different. for the cold tension, for the new dimensions of the lead character, for the admirable cast, costumes and grace of details. it reflects the expectations of the contemporary public and that fact does it interesting. the romanticism is not the star and Angelique seems be more credible as country girl who fights in a pragmatic manner for her purpose. a film who could be the first from a series. or only signal for remind an old brand. each of possibilities are good point for a courageous project.

Martin Zajic 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

dbdumonteil 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!