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?!
10 Reviews
beautiful
Vincentiu9 June 2015
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.
Has the 2013 release date jinxed the success of this film?
ghostslut7 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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."
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."
Fans of Golon,beware!
dbdumonteil1 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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!
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!
The new look of the the old.
micule-ieva10 October 2018
I really appreciated the new film. It focuses more on the era (and now as well) issues - political, social, religious and personal. The choice of the actors are very good. I hope that there will be a next film (or several ones).
beware at all costs
martinobear24 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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
Horrible, nothing good
helsy-123 May 2023
What's wrong with French movie industry? That movie just should not exist. Beautiful story was jinxed with this nonsense. Angelique is terrible, definitely not Michele Mercier. Comte de Peyrac is old. Common, he is 30 years old in the book not 60+ weirdo. Nicolas is same age as Angelique, not boring dude in his 40th... Degre is ok but can't be compared with Jean Rochefort. I am very disappointed. Seriously, it was such a beautiful series of movies from 60th, still perfect even now. I watched it recently, whole series. Beautiful costumes, nature, personages. Nothing of that I can find in this movie: dark scenes, bleached colors, weird costumes... awful, just awful.
interesting
Kirpianuscus28 December 2015
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.
Very good story
mrmajewski8 February 2022
Bad movie in all ways
klocokowna11 May 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
