Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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

Armand the photography. the costumes. the cast. three pillars for a different adaptation of Anne Golon's novel. the romanticism has different level and nuances. Nora Arnezeder is not Michelle Mercier and Gerard Lanvin is different by Robert Hossein. but that fact is one of great good points because the story has as target a new public from a new century. and that fact does it credibility and force, a special charm, a new image about a story who seems be well - known. the wise manner to use the nuances - that is its basic virtue. the not passionate style, the delicacy for details, Angelique as fighter more than a victim or woman looking her protector. a beautiful film and an inspired project. and, sure, a new series. full of high ambition.

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!

Malgga I have recently watched the movie "Angélique" by Ariel Zeitoun and must say that I liked it very, very much, more than I expected. Admittedly, the plot differed much from the book and for fans of Anne Golon, who expect a rendition true to the novel this might be a somewhat irritating aspect. If my opinion on this thing is concerned, I think that films are always adaptations and works of their own. But that's up to everybody's personal preferences, of course. Coming to the quality of the original script, I can't say here anything, because I have watched the film in a translated version.The main strength of this production and people, who carry it on their shoulders, are the two magnificent main actors: Nora Arnezeder as Angélique and Gerard Lanvin as her husband Joffrey de Peyrac.To me Nora Arnezeder was the ideal choice for Angélique, she not only acted very naturally in this complex role and showed the character just like she was in the books by Anne Golon, as a strong, intelligent and independent young woman, but also looked exactly like I pictured Angélique when I read the books and had her aristocratic and fresh beauty. Coming to Gerard Lanvin, I had, before watching the film, my doubts concerning his age (in the book Angélique is 17 and Joffrey 29 years old, whereas in the new movie Angélique's age remains unchanged, but Joffrey is forty years older than her), but from the moment I saw his performance my doubts completely disappeared. For he played the character with great sensitivity, charm and charisma and made Joffrey de Peyrac a true grand seigneur that this personage was in the novel.Strangely enough, the big age difference between Angélique and Joffrey wasn't palpable at all and their love story very credible. I was indeed very surprised by this, for I thought that an age difference that big would be impossible to bridge, but Nora Arnezeder and Gerard Lanvin have done the impossible.Furthermore, there are in particular two very moving scenes, among quite many of that kind, where Nora Arnezeder and Gerard Lanvin reach the height of acting skill: the scene where Joffrey is arrested and says goodbye to Angélique and the scene, in which Angélique visits Joffrey in the Bastille. These moments brought tears to my eyes and I have never experienced that before when watching a movie!Also worth mentioning is the beautiful scene where Angélique and Joffrey make love for the first time. It was very sensual, but also full of tenderness and the viewer could feel the budding love between Angélique and Joffrey. Kudos to the director of photography, Peter Zeitlinger, to whom I will come later, who filmed that scene aesthetically and in good taste.The nature of the relationship between Angélique and Joffrey progresses however differently than in the book, i.e. Angélique realizes only much later what her husband really means to her.Coming to the visual side of the film, what is especially noteworthy to me is the fantastic photography by Peter Zeitlinger, shot almost entirely with the use of natural light!The realistic sets, decorated with much dedication and attention to detail, and the costumes, in case of which the designers, Edith Vesperini and Stéphane Rollot, worked with great care in regard to every single item of clothing, like corsets, stockings and chemises, caused that I felt like transplanted into the 17th century.In my praise I would like mention the enchanting music by Nathaniel Méchaly, which added much to the atmosphere of the production and to which I could listen with great pleasure, even with no picture, only with headphones on. To sum things up, I think that "Angélique" is a beautiful, engaging and immensely romantic rendition of the "Beauty and the Beast" fairy tale motive. I'm holding fingers crossed for next parts of and keep waiting for them impatiently!Update from the end of December: The movie was very well received by the critics as well as the audience in German-speaking countries and in Poland, where the DVD was such a success that within four months from its appearance in the stores it was sold out. Therefore I very much hope that funds of the producers will be sufficient to film a sequel e.g. "Angélique and the King". PS.: English-speaking viewers can buy this movie with English subtitles on Amazon.ca for CDN$ 20.00 or on Amazon.com for $28.99.