writers_reign Tavernier hit one out of the park with this, his second At-Bat. With the not inconsiderable help of Jean Aurenche, his co-writer, he offers one of the most accurate and dazzling evocations of French History ever put on film. The trio of heavy-hitters, Philippe Noiret, Jean-Paul Marielle and Jean Rochefort are outstanding as Regent, Rebel and Abbe respectively and it's interesting to find Thierry Lhermitte making an early appearance as a Nobleman which is more or less casting against type. The Sun King is dead but the intrigues with which his Court was riddled lives on and it is the nuances which delight rather than any set-pieces. This is definitely one to savour and will surely stand up to repeat viewings.

didiermustntdie well, the film directed by auteur Bertrand Tavernier did win 3 awards at cesar, Tavernier who a former assistant to french crime master Jean Pierre Melville who died 2 years before the cesar award came out(1975)(so obviously unable to make his name into the cesar history) now could be touched in his grave since his prestigious student did it for him or in his namewell, the man who directed this decent film----Bertrand Tavernier, suddenly became a director after his master's death in 1973 and who I admit is a good director all the way , deserves his wins , but that doesn't mean the film is superior to those films made before 1975 when there were no awards to honor them. after all from today's point of view, 1975 is sorta the weakest year in all time french cinema, so we hope if cesar could have been launched much earlier than 1975I also noticed that some people,Michel Blanc ,Christian Clavier,Thierry Lhermitte,Gérard Jugnot who later became very famous here were all under the direction of tavernier who i actually didn't consider a star maker at all before this timecould have won more cesars if Tavernier was a better student

MartinHafer Considering that there have been very few films made about the regency period of the rule of Louis XV, this is an important film. However, as nothing of any particular significance takes place, the film itself seems to have very little to say. Yes, it makes clear that the Regent was a sexually obsessed guy and the courtiers were all pretty worthless. As a result, there is a lot of nudity in the film. It's rare to see a historical drama with so many small-breasted nymphs running about the sets. And, it implies that the young Louis is a depraved little kid--but it never follows through with this most interesting aspect of the film. I really think they should have either tried to make the movie MORE significant and involving or just thrown in the towel, so to speak, and made it a porno film. I half expected to see Sylvia Kristel as one of the extras. As it was, the movie just didn't seem to have much of an audience.

jos-destrooper It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution. The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation. The mentality of the Noble of France is well described. There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!. All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again.