best movie i've ever seen.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Malformed original story with absolutly tragic acting performances. C-grade soup opera. Cant compare with original movie in any way.

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.

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."

I have recently watched the movie "Angélique" by Ariel Zeitoun and must say that I liked it very, very much, more than I expected. Admittedly, the plot differed much from the book and for fans of Anne Golon, who expect a rendition true to the novel this might be a somewhat irritating aspect. If my opinion on this thing is concerned, I think that films are always adaptations and works of their own. But that's up to everybody's personal preferences, of course. Coming to the quality of the original script, I can't say here anything, because I have watched the film in a translated version.The main strength of this production and people, who carry it on their shoulders, are the two magnificent main actors: Nora Arnezeder as Angélique and Gerard Lanvin as her husband Joffrey de Peyrac.To me Nora Arnezeder was the ideal choice for Angélique, she not only acted very naturally in this complex role and showed the character just like she was in the books by Anne Golon, as a strong, intelligent and independent young woman, but also looked exactly like I pictured Angélique when I read the books and had her aristocratic and fresh beauty. Coming to Gerard Lanvin, I had, before watching the film, my doubts concerning his age (in the book Angélique is 17 and Joffrey 29 years old, whereas in the new movie Angélique's age remains unchanged, but Joffrey is forty years older than her), but from the moment I saw his performance my doubts completely disappeared. For he played the character with great sensitivity, charm and charisma and made Joffrey de Peyrac a true grand seigneur that this personage was in the novel.Strangely enough, the big age difference between Angélique and Joffrey wasn't palpable at all and their love story very credible. I was indeed very surprised by this, for I thought that an age difference that big would be impossible to bridge, but Nora Arnezeder and Gerard Lanvin have done the impossible.Furthermore, there are in particular two very moving scenes, among quite many of that kind, where Nora Arnezeder and Gerard Lanvin reach the height of acting skill: the scene where Joffrey is arrested and says goodbye to Angélique and the scene, in which Angélique visits Joffrey in the Bastille. These moments brought tears to my eyes and I have never experienced that before when watching a movie!Also worth mentioning is the beautiful scene where Angélique and Joffrey make love for the first time. It was very sensual, but also full of tenderness and the viewer could feel the budding love between Angélique and Joffrey. Kudos to the director of photography, Peter Zeitlinger, to whom I will come later, who filmed that scene aesthetically and in good taste.The nature of the relationship between Angélique and Joffrey progresses however differently than in the book, i.e. Angélique realizes only much later what her husband really means to her.Coming to the visual side of the film, what is especially noteworthy to me is the fantastic photography by Peter Zeitlinger, shot almost entirely with the use of natural light!The realistic sets, decorated with much dedication and attention to detail, and the costumes, in case of which the designers, Edith Vesperini and Stéphane Rollot, worked with great care in regard to every single item of clothing, like corsets, stockings and chemises, caused that I felt like transplanted into the 17th century.In my praise I would like mention the enchanting music by Nathaniel Méchaly, which added much to the atmosphere of the production and to which I could listen with great pleasure, even with no picture, only with headphones on. To sum things up, I think that "Angélique" is a beautiful, engaging and immensely romantic rendition of the "Beauty and the Beast" fairy tale motive. I'm holding fingers crossed for next parts of and keep waiting for them impatiently!Update from the end of December: The movie was very well received by the critics as well as the audience in German-speaking countries and in Poland, where the DVD was such a success that within four months from its appearance in the stores it was sold out. Therefore I very much hope that funds of the producers will be sufficient to film a sequel e.g. "Angélique and the King". PS.: English-speaking viewers can buy this movie with English subtitles on Amazon.ca for CDN$ 20.00 or on Amazon.com for $28.99.