User Reviews

This costumer drama is set against the savage Catholic/Protestant wars that ripped France apart in the 16th century , the French Wars of Religion (1562–98) is the name given to a period of civil infighting and military operations, primarily fought between French Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots). The story takes place in the French aristocracy during the 'Wars of Religion', the conflict involved the factional disputes between the aristocratic houses of France, such as the House of Bourbon and House of Guise (Lorraine), and both sides received assistance from foreign sources , focusing on a young woman named Marie De Mezières (Mélanie Thierry in the title role) who falls in love for her dashing cousin Henri De Guiseis (Gaspard Ulliel) but she is forced into marriage with the well-connected nobleman Philippe De Montpensier (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet), who she has never met , while she falls passionately in love with another man . When Philippe is called away to battle , she is taken in the care of Count Chabannes (Lambert Wilson) , an aging aristocrat , and soon later becomes involved to the sexual and political intrigues of court , including the throne heir , Duc d'Anjou (Raphaël Personnaz) and Queen , Catherine of Medicis (Evelina Meghnagi).

This historic drama contains romance , intrigue , swordplay , spectacular battles and wonderful outdoors . It's a sweeping and romantic historical epic with a simple message : passion destroys everything . The film packs a French all-star-cast , as it stars model turned actress , Melaney Thierry , Lambert Wilson as Comte De Chabannes , Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet as Prince De Montpensier , Gaspard Ulliel as Henri De Guise and Raphaël Personnaz as Duc D'Anjou . Evocative and imaginative Original Music by Philippe Sarde . Gorgeous and luxurious Cinematography by Bruno De Keyzer . Impressive Production Design by Guy-Claude François , showing breathtaking outdoors , luxurious palaces and rousing Chateaus . The picture was well directed by Bertrand Tavernier, based on the short story by author 'Madame De La Fayette'. Bertrand is a good French director who has been making from the 70s notorious films such as The clockmaker 1974 , The judge and the assassin 1976 , 1280 souls 1981 , A Sunday in the country 1984 , Round midnight 1986 , law 627 , Daughter's Dartagnan 1994 , Captain Conan 1995 , All starts today 1999 , Laissez-passer 2002 and In the electric mist 2009 .

The flick is inspired by historical events , though predominates the passional drama . The actual deeds were the following : The long conflict involved the factional fights between the aristocratic houses of France and Catholic and Protestant ; specially St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (1572) , as the Queen Mother , Catherina of Medicis became increasingly fearful of the unchecked power wielded by Coligny and his supporters, especially as it became clear that Coligny was pursuing an alliance with the Dutch Protestant rebels. Coligny, along with many other Calvinist nobles, arrived in Paris for the wedding of the Catholic Princess Marguerite de Valois to the Protestant Henry of Navarre on August 18. On August 22, an assassin made a failed attempt on Coligny's life, shooting him in the street .Amidst fears of a Huguenot coup, the Duke of Guise and his supporters acted. In the early morning of August 24, they killed Coligny in his lodgings . Coligny's body was thrown from the window into the street, and was subsequently mutilated, castrated, dragged through the mud, thrown in the river, suspended on a gallows and burned by the Parisian crowd. For the next five days, the city erupted as Catholics massacred Calvinist men, women and children, and looted their houses, which was neither approved of nor predicted by the king. Over the next few weeks, the disorder spread to more than a dozen cities across France. Historians estimate that 2,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and thousands more in the provinces; in all, perhaps 10,000 people were killed. Henry of Navarre and his cousin, the young Prince of Condé, managed to avoid death by agreeing to convert to Catholicism; both would repudiate their conversions once they escaped Paris.Some assert that the Edict of Nantes in 1598 concluded the wars, although a resurgence of rebellious activity following this leads some to believe the Peace of Alais in 1629 is the actual conclusion. However, the Massacre of Vassy in 1562 is agreed to begin the Wars of Religion and the Edict of Nantes at least ended this series of conflicts. During this time, complex diplomatic negotiations and agreements of peace were followed by renewed conflict and power struggles.At the conclusion of the conflict in 1598, Huguenots were granted substantial rights and freedoms by the Edict of Nantes, though it did not end hostility towards them. The wars weakened the authority of the monarchy, already fragile under the rule of Francis II and then Charles IX, though it later reaffirmed its role under Henry IV.

The Princess is sumptuously filmed, with a great eye for setting and costume. The eponymous princess is very well acted.

So why is there a slight air of disappointment when you get to the end. Partly it is because her husband and the pretty boy who would be her lover, are just a trifle wooden; the great weakness though is the fight scenes. They are filmed well but lack credibility. You can sense the rehearsals and guess what will happen next. The battle scenes are just confusing, not in the fog of war sense, but in having no explanation why a soldier would jump off an unwounded horse to fight on the ground. It may have looked exciting, marginally, but verged on the ridiculous.

That aside, the story bounds along quite well and will take your mind off the next banking crisis.

Basically everyone falls in love with the Princess. That's the underlying premise, along with how the Princess herself, a superb performance that outshines many other aspects of this movie, has to deal with each new challenge/suiter as they present themselves. The story itself is a melodrama essentially, brightened, ironically, by a very chivalric spirit that imbues all the main players. The boys truly are dashing. In that regard I can see this movie being popular. For me though, it fell down on things such as very conservative lighting throughout, and inconsistent cinematography. Some of the outdoor shots were beautifully framed, but others were a little drab or repetitive, and overall it could have had more colour. The action scenes were way too tame, though I'd admit by keeping them so the movie may have wider appeal. Lots of sword fighting was consistent with the overarching chivalry, true. It's a very long movie. As a sort of feminist piece it probably has more value than I honestly understand. To be sure, women of the 16th Century were not well-handled, and perhaps that is the better way to view this piece, because, at a minimum, you can't say the Princess doesn't have pluck when it comes to asserting herself. Perhaps, in that, there is a true romance here.

What I think was done very well in this film by Tavernier was the decors. Tavernier being a very gifted and talented director when faced with the challenge of recreating the middle ages succeeds like no other director in very recent memory. The exteriors, interiors and costumes are presented convincingly. He shows the nature without overdoing it. We are in the middle ages without being shown cliché after cliché.

There was one fact which may or may not be hard to swallow. I think there may be a divide amongst spectators in regards to the young cast, the exception being Lambert Wilson who in my opinion was exceptional as he was in the other film of this year Des Hommes et Des Dieux. While I could tolerate the young cast I didn't by no means fall in love with them, which could have affected my slight detachment from the action on screen. The weakest in my opinion, and I'm sure there will be some who disagree with me and they are right to do so, was the princess herself. I can't explain it but when she was on the screen I was almost at the point of irritation. Admittedly this is quite subjective and I didn't find her looks and full lips as my ideal of beauty, moreover I found her insatiable in her desires but I think I was suppose to believe she was passionate. If I didn't believe that the Princesse was a creature of passion but more-so a selfish materialist how could I fall in love with the story? Aside from minor nitpicking, I found the sparse battle scenes excellent! It was such a refreshing experience to see battles treated in this way. I almost wish there was more.

What I take from this film was a real master class in how to render a medieval world. As I predicted a director of Tavernier caliber would not get this wrong.

Yes, it is a good movie from Bertrand Tavernier, my only critic: I am french and some actors like the Prince and even De Guise at time, not only they are poor actors but it was often very difficult to understand what they were saying, they never learned to speak and use their respiration, it was incomprehensible.The fights and the duels are not the best Tavernier knows how to shoot, but it is not so important, they were accessories to the plot.

The costumes, the sets...all without any special effects are beautiful, even if the story fits perfectly the french country with its castles still standing like they were at the time of the story, Tavernier has had the right eye to capture the beauty of it. Melanie Thierry et Lambert Wilson were perfect.

My love affair with cinema started as a teenager with a chance viewing of Patrice Chéreau's La reine Margot (1994) late one night on TV. It's a lavish costume drama set at the same time as The Princess of Montpensier including some of the same characters, both with key scenes set during the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572. So this felt like a return to the beginning for me, a special occasion.

I feared it may have been a wasted ticket at the start as it opens with a rather bombastic action sequence that looked too staged and was drowned by Hollywood "big music", ludicrous percussion-heavy seat-shaking stuff. Perhaps Tavernier caught a bug working in the States on In the Electric Mist. Of course such antics may be right up your street if you are a Gladiator fan. By the way I felt the first scene portrayed the Comte de Chabannes and cohorts as being too reckless with their lives, unrealistically so.

However the film improved, and Chabannes cut an iconic figure in his odd Spanish hat. The film was based on the short story of the same name by Madame de La Fayette, which I definitely intend to read now.

The drama concerns the Princess of Montpensier (Mélanie Thierry) who is loved by four very contrasting men. Will she choose the right one? Haha, that would not be very interesting now would it? I think it's somewhat of a breakout role for the stunning Mélanie Thierry, who has been in some potboilers as well as having a very gamine role as the passive object of Danny Boodmann T.D. Lemon Nineteen Hundred's affections in Giuseppe Tornatore's The Legend of 1900 back in 1998. She is the very essence of the type of woman that a man develops amour fou for. The best casting decision I've seen all year for sure, though it would have helped if Tavernier had been a better director of actors.

I did feel there was a strange lack of pathos in the movie, I think generally a director requires actors to emote, to show what they are thinking on their faces. This is the great artifice of cinema. I've seen a few Tavernier films and I don't think he likes to get them doing that. In a way I think that makes the movie quite abstract. The plot is so sheerly powerful by itself that I was enraptured.

I like the way the movie quotes the sentiments from Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is something that we've lost to a degree in western life, making life seem a pointless charade. Good watching. 10/10 as I'm a sentimental fool.

To Claire, impertinently.

This period film needs some contextualization to be perceived by the public. Set at the end of the 16th century, the film portrays a romantic drama and a love triangle amidst the religious wars that opposed Catholics and Protestants, tearing France in half. To understand the film is, therefore, to know a little of this historical period. The film portrays quite well the internal struggles that the country experienced, the division of political power into religiously militant factions, the efforts of the regent queen Maria de Medici to try to save the Valois dynasty and the notorious Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

The main character is Marie De Mezières, very well played by the beautiful Mélanie Thierry, a capable actress, who did a very competent job here. Her character falls in love with her own cousin, the powerful Henri de Guise, who is played by Gaspard Ulliel, but ends up being forced to marry Prince Philippe De Montpensier, a military man who is played by Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet, and leaves his wife in the care of the Count of Chabannes, (played by Lambert Wilson), an experienced nobleman who will act as a guardian and confidant, as he secretly falls in love with the young Marie. The four actors were able to do a great job, which made the film very enjoyable and appealing, allowing you to stay interesting until the end. This, in turn, may disappoint those who simply seek only a happy ending. The moral of all history, in fact, is the destructive character of passions and not just a "happy forever", pink and pleasant.

Technically, the film does not commit great sins. Cinematography did her role very well, the sets and costumes are excellent and automatically transported to the time and the post-production and editing work seems to have been done with competence. The soundtrack also fulfils, without deserving attention.

I wanted this to be good! I spent the money! I tried to watch it several times but couldn't get into it. This movie is SO SLOW AND extremely BORING!! I want my money back! None of the characters are developed or interesting enough to pull you in. The plot is boring. Etc. sorry but don't bother

I'm a sucker for period pieces and this one delivered on all the parts that I love. Great costumes and art direction. Breathtaking scenery complete with castles set among hills ablaze in autumn colors. And oh, the fabrics!!! French is always beautiful to listen to, but this film was simply music to the ears. Gorgeous use of language. Thundering horses, clashing swords, unrequited love. Shamelessly romantic while showing how tough life was. War was miserable. No escape from the rain and cold. Women's lives sucked, even if rich. Catherine de'Medici was superb. The acting was good enough for the characters to be convincing which is what I care about. I was transported. That's what I want. Lots of films about Tudor England which is same time period, but few about Catholics and Huguenots. I'd see it again.

It is a film of the French Protestants versus the Catholics--both Christians and killing each other just as in Northern Ireland to this day. Throughout the film there is no mention of either faction by name except that the Guises were Catholics. The movie is an adaptation of a short story by Madame de La Fayette. More than a story of a beautiful lady, who cannot be in control of her life but at the mercy of her parents and later her husband, the tale is about a Protestant (Francois de Chabannes), well read and educated, who decides to stop being a soldier killing Catholics who also believed in his God. The role is played by Lambert Wilson, an actor who played roles Fred Zinnemann's "Julia" (his debut) and "Five Days One Summer," and two Matrix films and the third Matrix Resurrections (yet to be released), This Tavernier film appears to be a historical tale but in reality is a lovely work of fiction very well acted. This is not the best of Tavernier but it still lovely on a second viewing. The final shot of the Princess in close-up was remarkable. The lead actress Melanie Thierry made an impact in her debut feature film, Giuseppe Tornatore's "The Legend of 2000," one of my top 100 films.

This is a vapid costume drama set out in the French renaissance. It features some decent cinematography, beautiful photography and gorgeous costumes. Mélanie Thierry looks incredible, almost edible in her robes of velvet satin, and the movie makers don't miss a chance to reveal her luscious forms.

However, the film bursts like a bubble gum anytime you take the pain to look a bit deeper. The war scenes are totally unhistorical, with armies fighting without any battle line, like drunkards in a tavern brawl, and the top commanders hacking and slashing on the front line instead of organizing the battle from behind.

Most of all, there is little character development and the main character is portrayed in a superficial, contradictory way. On one side she appears as an intelligent, considerate young woman; on the other she betrays a loving and faithful husband and dishonors her name and her family's for a fickle teenager love, after stating several times she won't ever do it. She behaves more like a 14-years-old in love with some pop star. If that's emancipation, we can surely live without it.

In another unlikely scene, the husband's life-long friend, who owes him his life and fortune, betrays his trust and allows the lover in the princess' rooms, with no apparent reason and against his own expressed judgment.

Watch this movie if you like flashing swords, wondrous velvets and vapid, shallow love stories with not much of a plot. Yet if you are a thinking person chances are that you won't get much out of this paltry flick.

I am a big fan of historical dramas and have always thought that French directors do them very well. This, however, was one of the poorer efforts I have seen. I wouldn't be as hard on it as the reviewer who gave it 1 (awful). I found it absorbing enough but rather too long. The battle scenes seemed authentic in showing what it probably was like back then. The portrayal of life in the 16th century was good. The problem was with the characters who didn't have much depth in my opinion. To Richard I would mention that it was not uncommon in those days for masters and servants to sleep in the same bed. It had no sexual connotations. I think it was just for warmth.

... she just has that 'something'... smouldering-sensuousness... whatever else surrounds her, the character-roles she creates are timeless... there's not loads otherwise to be impressed by this production... good, but not up to what her portrayal brought to the story

... it-does-reasonably-benefit by more than just-one-viewing.

Set amidst the intrigues of Catherine de Medici's French court, this follows the young "Marie" (Mélanie Thierry) who is set to marry "Henri" (Gaspard Ulliel) from the powerful Guise family when her father does a deal and promises her to "Philippe" (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet) instead. This sets the families Guise and Montpensier at each other's throats and leaves her in a loveless marriage with a man she doesn't even know, much less like. Meantime, the chivalrous "Chabannes" (Lambert Wilson) has had enough of the brutalities of war, deserted his post, and is returning home when a very timely intervention from "Philippe" - his pupil of many years ago - saves his life and takes him to the castle where "Marie" is now living. She's a bright and intelligent woman and with her husband now sent off to fight, "Chabannes" is charged with being her tutor too. She is a quick learner and is soon aware of just how to play her own game in a world where manipulation - especially at the hands of the Duc D'Anjou (Raphaêl Personnaz) is the only law to be reckoned with. What now ensues is a typical period adventure with treachery, lust, romance, swordplay and it offers us a good looking, if a bit of a light and fluffy, look at the politics in a 16th century France beset with wars between Huguenots and Catholics and ruled by a succession of the queen's weak and indecisive sons. It's got the look of a television movie and the actors seem largely - Thierry and Wilson notwithstanding - to have been selected on eye candy value, but it's genre I like and in the spirit of Alexandre Dumas it's quite an enjoyable historical costume drama that I quite liked.

Sad because it reminds you what french cinema once was and what it could still be today. Sad also because it gets only 6 out of 10 which reminds you french cinema is not about to get better. I'm even fairly certain that if this had not been directed by Tavernier who made his notoriety in a very different time, this movie would not even have been financed.

If it can be called bad, the only bad aspect of this movie is that the story isn't important nor interesting in a general way. Then again this is the usual with Tavernier and to me this is the most obvious aspect of his genius. Nowadays you give someone the billions dollars empire of Disney and the Star Wars story and they'll make unwatchable movies. While Tavernier can make an amazing movie with a banal story. Yeah, basically it's only about this girl everyone is in love with. Like the cover image shows, four men looking at one girl. If it sounds like something you'd hate, don't let prejudices prevent you from discovering this treasure. As they say, don't judge a book(or movie) by it's cover.

What makes this movie so great is everything else than the story itself. Characters, dialogues, cinematography, scenery, acting, costumes, historical context and last but not least the exquisite quality of the french language. This movie is like something you'd see in the 1960s but with a modern touch. This is like this a rare bottle of wine that you will only taste once in your life and spend the rest of your life hoping you'll find the taste again. You can savor every words they say in this film, every scenes, every costumes. I could go on but seriously I was baffled at how good this movie is.

The girl does a good performance, true she is not to my liking so I wasn't impressed. Yet the passion the men have for her makes the whole thing credible even if you think she's not that special. The four men after her all did an outstanding performance. Specially her husband. The husband is so good you always hope he will be in the next scene. The dialogues are smart and serious. This is a serious movie to be enjoyed by serious people or people in a serious mood. Like a good wine, this is something you give to someone who can appreciate good wine.

I also liked how this movie was free of any propaganda. I didn't feel any criticism of gender roles of the time, religions, wars or nobility. There was no politically correct bias or anything. This movie was very understanding of the time it was depicting. This was so refreshing. They showed that the men were forced into marriage as the women were. As one of the character said "we pay dearly the privileges of our birth ranks". There was the Catholics against Protestants wars going on but it was merely a background story. There's no sides or ideologies or messages. The only morals you can find in this movie are morals you can apply to any place at any time. So we could say this movie is universally great. You can be absolutely certain that for example, if it could be very well dubbed in english, the anglophones would adore this movie. Even the British don't do similar drama of this era of such quality and they try very hard to.

Finally, French people need to be reminded that they have a great historical, cultural and architectural heritage. In some way, like the British, you French have a duty to provide quality movies like this one. You owe it to all the "francophonie" and the rest of the world. No one else but you can do it. The state takes your money in taxes to provide vile entertainment. The least you can do when by miracle an outstanding movie like this is made is to give it a good rating... I mean how is this not a great movie for it's type ? When they make really good stuff french people don't even watch it and the rest of us french speaking people get to see it years later only to be told it didn't make money in France... I mean... Dear France, please get your **** together !!!

Thanks.

There is so much that is good about French cinema, but if you are about to see this movie, you have just wasted eighteen to thirty dollars, presuming you are either being dragged to or are dragging some sort of romantically-inclined partner, consort or comfort worker to this sorry eruption of art-house dross from the bowels of the French export industry. Like a vast wheel of mass-produced industrial brie, this inferior national product is ensconced in flag-waving packaging surrounding its bland core. "Hello, I am a French period drama," it screams, beating you with a vast stick of bread, then gets on with the pressing business of documenting the unremarkable life of some wilful yet vacuous aristocratic twit who for some reason warrants two hours of our undivided attention.

For audience members with the good fortune to have escaped internment for crimes against humanity, I must question your enduring decision to watch this movie. It is a travesty of filmmaking, a cynical act of reflux by an industry that recognises anything in a period costume set in the French countryside anytime over the last millennium will attract the vapid attention of culture drones who delight in hollow, costumed eye-candy so much they need to be forcibly restrained less they mount the stage to perform lewd acts against the screen. In fact, it would be a sensible exercise in self-preservation to simply sit silently in a dark cupboard for two hours imagining this very scenario unfolding instead of watching "The Princess of Montpensier."

I would caution that these are two hours you will never get back, however the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder the movie will precipitate will involve audience members reliving this experience again and again through a series of distressing flashbacks. This is not just two hours. It is a life sentence.

In 1961,Jean Delannoy ,helped by Jean Cocteau ,transferred Madame de la Fayette' s "la princesse de Clèves "to the screen :it was slagged off ,, certainly unfairly ,for though it was by no means a masterpiece ,it remained a very estimable work with a fine performance by Jean Marais as the prince de Clèves and a dazzling cinematography (an impressive last scene I've never forgotten).

Bertrand Tavernier,arguably the best post NV French director ,was a scholar (on his blog, I would often marvel at his huge culture ) and historical movie was one of his fortes : see "que la fête commence" "la vie et rien d'autre" "le juge et l'assassin "and even his tongue-in -cheek "la fille de d'Artagnan ".

First thing to bear in mind is that La Fayette's novella praised virtue over everything ,like "la princesse de Clèves" :see the motto written on the wall towards the end of the movie; all the characters but one are historical ,even though the writer took liberties with their real-life characters ;only François, masterfully played by Lambert Wilson , was invented from start to finish and he represents all the moral the writer stands for : he is in love with his master's wife ,but unlike this princess and both her other suitors, his passion must remain platonic ; the moral is that finally ,had the heroine (an excellent Melanie Laurent ) not listened to her desire, she would have led a happy life: a romantic writer , La Fayette was not :it was the seventeenth century and the sense of duty was pivotal .

The action starts circa 1567 and ends just after the Saint Bartholomew's day massacre (although it did happen at night); François ,consumed with remorse after killing a pregnant woman , redeemed himself in 1572; like in "la princesse de Clèves ", the main character is not the heroine ,but the virtuous man who suffers (the prince de Clèves , here François de Chavannes , much more than the colorless husband).

Bertrand Tavernier was a convinced feminist (Freda's"le fils de d'Artagnan " became "la fille de d'artagnan" ) and it's obvious he does not disapprove of la princesse's longing to be with the man she was first engaged to ; marriages of convenance were de rigueur at the time an the parents did not care about their sons' and daughters' happiness. But he was faithful to the writer's tenet.

This is first-order costume drama , with a wonderful rendition of the troubled time of the religion wars -one reviewer mentions the Middle-Ages ,but it's actually the Renaissance !- between Catholics and Protestants (here again François urges them to admit their God is the same,to no avail of course),and a remarkable attention to detail : the coming of the pedlar who brings his fancy goods as well as the newspapers , the marvelously precise picture of Catherine De Medicis with her passion for astrology in only one scene .

Tavernier's death ,this very year,was a major loss for the French cinema.

This movie is well acted, and some of the outdoor shots are beautiful to look at. I don't know how much sense a lot of it would make to someone without a decent knowledge of 16th century French history, as the dialogue doesn't explain a lot of the political background. I enjoyed this movie, but wouldn't have any desire to see it again.

The one part that I felt unexplained is why, late in the movie, Chabannes lets de Guise in the château so he can spend the night with Chabannes'boss's wife. Why would Chabannes betray his master in that way? Also, a very minor question: when Montpensier hears a sound outside - it is one of his dogs being killed by de Guise - he gets up out of bed. Someone else gets out of the other side of the bed. So Montpensier sleeps with someone other than his wife. But the scene was too dark, and too fast, for me to catch who that other person was, or even if it was a woman. Just idle curiosity there.

Basing a long film on a short story is usually a risk; the story often runs thin before the long film is complete. This is most assuredly NOT the case in Bertrand Tavernier's decision to adapt (with François-Olivier Rousseau) the short story 'La Princesse de Montpensier' written by Marie de LaFayette (1634 - 1693) and published anonymously in 1662. Of note, La Fayette's most famous novel was 'La Princesse de Clèves' (1678), first published anonymously in March 1678. An immense success, the work is often taken to be the first true French novel and a prototype of the early psychological novel. This film is one that both entertains in the manner of the great epics of the screen, but also teaches us about the religious differences between the Catholic and the Huguenots (Prostestants) during the 16th century while at the same time addressing from a near feminist point of view the manners of courtly versus passionate love in that fascinating period.

Very briefly, Princesse Marie de Montpensier (Mélanie Thierry) is married to Prince Philippe de Montpensier (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet) in a marriage of convenience arranged by Marie's father: the rare beauty of Marie attracts the attention of all men, a fact that drives Philippe to rages of unfounded jealousy. France is in the midst of religious war and Philippe is off at war with his tutor Comte de Chabannes (Lambert Wilson): after a particularly grueling battle in which Comte de Chabannes kills a pregnant woman and a child he informs Philippe that he can no longer stomach war and asks to return to the palace where he will continue being the tutor of Marie in Philippe's absence. Marie and Chabannes become close as he teaches her to read and write - during which time Chabannes secretly falls in love with Marie. But there are other men who would woo her: Duc d'Anjou (Raphaël Personnaz)- the youngest son of Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici (Christine Brücher), the man history books have described as gay and who courted England's Elizabeth I unsuccessfully, and Marie's childhood friend, the handsome but battle-scarred Henri de Guise (Gaspard Ulliel). The story successfully eaves the course of the war between the religious factions and the drives and promises and desires of the four men to win the affection of Marie. Court intrigues, duels, secret meetings and the power of nobility push the story to a surprising but well designed end; passion of the heart can be destructive.

Mélanie Thierry is brilliant as Princess Marie de Montpensier and is supported by equally fine performances by Wilson, Ulliel, Personnaz, Leprince-Ringuetand a very strong supporting cast. The period costumes and customs are perfectly realized, the cinematography by Bruno deKeyser and the musical score by Philippe Sarde enhance the rich tapestry of this Tavernier masterpiece. In French with English subtitles.

Grady Harp

My hopes were pretty high for this movie and yes, the imagery is nice, the costumes too. But overall, the story is pretty boring, mostly due to there being no chemistry between any of the characters, which is a shame.

I don't think it's exactly a ten star picture, it's a modest film, despite the wide-screen, but I'm giving it ten because I think it is being undervalued here for failing to be what it's not trying to be. For example, the opening sequence is pretty strange action, I guess. No blood. A bit unrealistic in a way. But then suddenly, there it is. Real blood, real pain, real horror, out of nowhere. My feeling is that the "unreal" prior action exists to make the contrast hit home hard, creating a spiritual (to call it that) turning point out of butchery as usual. It's making a point.

But then I like Tavernier a lot, and I've learned to accept his way of coming at a story. Like his laid-back, almost lethargic version of Jim Thompson's brutal Pop. 1280, Coup de Torchon. The first time I saw it was frustrating; I thought he'd missed the book. Seeing it again, I just watched what was on the screen, and had a real good time.

Queen Margot, this film's more romantic twin, is one of my favourite movies because it pulses with so much colour and movement and life. The Princess of Montpensier is pulsing with something else. Pulsing with limitation? I don't know. The characters are all so trapped -- in the situation, in the era, in themselves. It's more sad than full blown tragic, and in that respect perhaps truer to life as it's lived and later understood, rather than dreamed. More like a Rossellini history film, say, than a contemporary, high production values epic.

Beautiful to look at and lovely to listen to though, no doubt about it. And yet, at the same time, dry (the way that wine can be) and philosophical, in the sense of resigned. A song of experience, and quietly sustained anger, that tugs at your mind rather than your heart strings. Which appealed to me. In the right mood, allowed to do it's own thing at it's own pace, it's really good. I didn't even want to return it to the library, I kept putting it off until I started getting emails.