IMDb user comments for
"Rois maudits, Les" (2005)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Index

4 comments in total

---

7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Great text, lousy directing, 15 December 2005

Author: cl_champagne from Versailles, France

Doing a remake of Les Rois Maudits is a little like doing a remake of Citizen Kane. You've got an awful lot of pressure! The text is powerful but most of the actors can't get a hold of it. Mind you, the producers have mostly hired good actors, but in many instances (Philippe Torreton for example), they can't get inside their characters, because it's not in their range. Others, like Julie Depardieu or Jeanne Moreau in some instances, are just pathetic!

Josée Dayan, the director, has a reputation for not taking many shots, so that the actors play on their "first energy". The result is interesting in some scenes, but you often get the feeling that there isn't any actor direction at all, which is very dangerous with this text, which requires some kind of classical training for the actors (No wonder the best actor was Eric Ruf, of La Comédie Française).

No wonder why in most stores in Paris you see more space for the 1972 version than for this year's!

---

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Why did they remake the 1972 series?, 16 July 2006

Author: Benoît A. Racine (baracine@idirect.com) from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Basically, because they could. The original series was and probably still is the best and most literate TV series ever made on this planet. The producers of this remake kept, for the most part, the very same dialogs, which is a very good thing, but have also shortened and simplified them (a.k.a. dumbing down), which robs the characters of their individuality and make them into soap opera nimrods. They also "glamourized" many parts and replaced the very stylized, evocative and economical sets of the first series - which gave precedence to the acting, the character development, the story and the costumes - with impressive 3-D sets and some amazing CGI work and special effects. What they couldn't replace was Jean Piat's and Hélène Duc's talent and presence. The new cast is stellar but today's actors just pale by comparison with what came before... Whereas Hélène Duc was malevolence incarnate, Jeanne Moreau just aged badly and is scary to look at... They also couldn't replace Georges Delerue's genius in the music department and they used every opportunity given them to show every execution, rape, hanging, torture scene, burning at the stake, etc. in lurid and sadistic detail, something they learned from the so-called euro historical dramas of the last decade, which I call the history-as-a-series-of-body-fluids school and which owes more to Quentin Tarantino than Maurice Druon. What was only suggested is now shown without any shame or embarrassment. I'm not sure this is progress. But you'll certainly get a great many people riveted to their TV screens and maybe get a few of them to actually buy and read the book when they are sufficiently recovered from the shock...

---

Solid entertainment, but why doesn't anyone talk normal?!, 6 August 2007

Author: johannes2000-1 from Netherlands

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Mine is not as negative as most comments, I rather enjoyed this miniseries. It has much to offer: a fascinating (and historically true) story filled with wars, deceit, treason, adultery and murders among some of the famous medieval kings and queens of France and England; great settings; beautiful costumes; and a very colourful and lavish photography. I read in some comments that there was a prior adaptation in 1972 of the same book, but I didn't see that one so I can't compare the two and have to judge this one on it's own merits.

Next to my positive comments, I also have some doubts. First of all the dialogues, someone obviously thought that it would add up to the weight of the story to let everyone speak as if they were the president of the French Republique addressing the Nation: in heavy bombastic rhetorics. This gets a bit on your nerves after some 10 hours.

Then there's the rather complicated storyline, with many genealogical links between all these historical persons, spouses that I confused with lovers, and all kinds of political factions. The script takes too little time to make all these goings on properly understood to a viewer who is not too educated in the historical backgrounds.

It didn't help that scenes changed back and forth from England to France and from one year to another without warning or a written text in the image (like they do in most other historic movies: "London, 1380" for instance, that would have helped me a lot!).

Furthermore I was a bit taken aback by the art direction, which seemed to take the historical context as an excuse for a rather free and eclectic interpretation of how interiors, furniture and costumes could (or should, according to the director?) have looked like in those medieval days. The ominous countess Mahaut walks around in wide robes of shocking purple and poisonous green (probably illustrating her murderous mind), that could as easily have been worn on a ball in the roaring twenties. Thrones, beds and cradles would not have seemed out of place in Tolkien's halls of Middle Earth, and some of the palace's interiors were so sized up with CGI that they looked more like scenes out of Flash Gordon or Batman's Gotham City. It did work, I have to admit, but don't expect any historical authenticity on that account, it's all for the (presumed) medieval, more or less Gothic effect.

The acting is okay, for as much as one can overlook the weird dialogues. I didn't know any of the French actors, apart from Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu of course, the latter only has a small part and ends on the stake in part I, where with his dying breath he cries out the curse that sets in motion the story of the movie.

Jeanne Moreau on the other hand plays her crucial part in almost every scene, she is like the indefatigable focus of the story. She never was a classic beauty and now, at age 77, with her worn down face, she all the more shows how character and charisma can create their own kind of beauty. It's absolutely fascinating to watch her face and see her act with an almost youthful buoyancy, and she plays the part of the manipulating, devilish and murderous countess Mahaut to perfection, her false angelic smile sends shivers up your spine.

The other protagonist is played by Philippe Torreton, who has a great screen-presence and the panache of a young dark-haired Rutger Hauer. The rest of the cast is adequate, with special mention of the stunningly beautiful Julie Gayet as queen Isabella.

All in all, I liked it, it's good and solid entertainment, I rank it 7 out of 10 (and a heartfelt 10 for Jeanne Moreau).

---

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The life and death of the King of France starting from Philip the Fair, 28 December 2005

Author: stella_yumi from Italy

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This co-production of Italy and France is simply unique, the photography is good, the music is excellent. Depardieu family works pretty good: in the initial part when Gerard Depardieu doesn' t play anymore, you have the feeling that there will be no more story to be seen. Instead Guilleame (Luis) and Julie Depardieu (Giovanna) play very well, they' re so intense. Also Serena Autieri is a perfect Clemence. Luca Barbareschi is the other Italian actor. People know him as a bad actor but in LES ROIS MAUDITES he' s better than always. This masterpiece is able to let you remember the names of all the kings. Just a note: in Italy the title is LA MALEDIZIONE DEI TEMPLARI, not the prophecy.

---

---

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history