TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

thismango An interesting and original attempt to reconstruct 16th century French court society. The atmosphere is grimy, violent and claustrophobic, with repeated outbursts of extravagantly expressed, uncontrolled emotion. The power structure of feudal society is clearly shown as distinctly different from today's, being more of a network of explicitly violent threats than an ideological legal framework, a theory which was also expressed quite well in the first of the recent Elizabeth films (the second one is excremental). If our rulers today were expected to prove their prowess by fighting large fierce mammals, politics would look rather different.The film portrays an extremely important episode in French and European history, a major step towards the establishment of Absolutism which then led to its own downfall in the Revolution. However the major political developments are left in the background. I was barely able to sketch them in with my own vague knowledge of the time, so this film might be a bit difficult to understand with no background knowledge at all. Hopefully this will stimulate viewers to find out more! There is prominent sexual content in this film. In my opinion it was neither excessive nor gratuitous. Sexuality was an important part of feudal court politics, and the emotional content of all the sex scenes forms an integral part of the portrayal of the characters' complex and conflicting motivations.There is also explicit violence. Again, this is integral to the development of the plot, characters and atmosphere. Perpetrators of the massacre are shown to be traumatised by what they have done and seen.This is an ambitious film, skilfully made, whose greatest strength is a vivid expression of an interesting theory about the nature of society in the time in which it is set.

hilguera I am at a loss to explain the high rating of this film.For such a long film there is surprisingly little character development or contextual information, so that much of the characters' behaviour appears ridiculous and the significance of the people and events is lost. The film jumps from event to event, via periods of gratuitous gore and nudity, without any real flow. Too much is crammed into too little time, probably also for the even longer original cut. The performances are fine (considering what they have to work with) and it does look fantastic but that's about it. I can overlook taking liberties with history but not terrible film-making. French melodrama of the very worst kind!

ccmiller1492 "La Reine Margot" should delight history buffs even though the portrayal of its central character makes her far too important. The princess Marguerite is remembered mostly for her life of dedicated whoring right up until her death. However, three of the characters are masterfully depicted: Henri IV (Auteuil) Catherine de Medici (Lisi) and Charles IX (Anglade), who account for most of the film's veracity. A more accurate portrayal of Henri III who for a time occupied the client throne of Poland in a travesty more like its Queen than its King, would have been welcome. Only a very slight hint of this is given when he is shown kissing his mignon (a bit part played by Thomas Kretschmann, who has lately developed into an impressive actor.) It might also have been interesting seeing the attempt to capture the throne of England by sending the youngest, Duke D'Alencon, to woo Elizabeth I. For a better understanding of Catherine de Medici's character, her youthful life as the scorned and betrayed Italian queen of Henri II is portrayed by Marisa Pavan in the 1956 film "Diane" and the early part of her Regency and the prophecy concerning her children's dire fates in the 1994 film "Nostrodamus" in which she is played by Amanda Plummer. The parallels with her troubled reign and that of her contemporary Elizabeth of England are many. Elizabeth had the Babington plot to deal with and (all the usual glorification of her aside) had many Catholics executed and the remaining Catholic nobility taxed into eventual penury. Not to mention the terrible persecutions she visited (like her predecessors) on Scotland and Ireland. So don't be too quick to judge Catherine de Medici as a monster. Expediency made both of these women ruthless but successful monarchs in very adverse situations. Despite some inaccuracies, this film has a genuine feel for the period that should be greatly appreciated by historical cognoscenti.

monimm18 Since I enjoyed reading Dumas' "Queen Margot" long before this film was made, I went to see it fearing a disappointment - usually it's hard to turn a good book into an equally good film. I was pleasantly surprised. The film follows the book a bit loosely, and maybe that was a good thing; too many times copying a book faithfully makes a film lose focus and artistic/dramatic impact. "La Reine Margot" is played by a great team of actors that turned in excellent performances. Daniel Auteuil, as Henry de Navarre is superb as usual, in his depiction of an intelligent king caught in the middle of the deadly politics of a religious war; Isabelle Adjani is perfect for the title role, so is Vincent Perez as La Mole, and the rest of the cast is just as wonderful, except I thought Virna Lisi was a bit too melodramatic in depicting the "evilness" of Catherine de Medici and I found the film's suggestion that there were some sort of incestuous relations between Catherine and her sons sensationalist, unfounded and a bit slimy for a film of this caliber). The costumes seem as sumptuous as French royals would wear in those times, without looking overdone; the decors and extras appear as real as if filmed in a time warp - dirt, mess and all; they are carefully done, yet without an over-manicured look; all this conferred the film an air of authenticity instead of just making it look too perfectly staged. The violence of the St. Bartholomew massacre looks quite realistic and non-glamorized, which apparently turned off many viewers. Hmmm... give us violence, but don't let us feel bad about it.The story is loosely based on historical truth, but is close enough to it. Apparently, Margot was indeed a victim of the politics of the time, and the whole business of her saving Henry de Navarre from assassination and helping him gain political momentum is historically true. Although she divorced him later and he remarried, they remained in friendly terms. The love affair with La Mole might just as well be true too, considering that Margot had a many lovers, not surprisingly, since all other aspects of her life were controlled or repressed by others... I was a bit sorry to see Catherine de Medicis portrayed so unidimensionally as the vicious, bloodthirsty queen mother. Her methods were not excusable, but considering the times, they were the typical "diplomatic tools" employed by everyone. Although Italian and married to Henry II against her will, she loved France and embraced her resposiblities as its queen, and her purpose was, besides keeping the House of Valois on the throne, to save the country from a civil war that would have exposed it to invasion by Spain and England. OK, back to the film: I thought it was great, with excellent dialogue, well crafted scenes, good suspense, the romance is not corny, yet dramatic enough. Historically accurate or not, it gives one a glimpse of how love, life and the politics of those times must have been. Lovely to watch.