john-k-1 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.

Mike_Flattley 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.

richard-1787 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.

oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx 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.