One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

--Slight Spoilers-- "On Guard" is the fifth French cinematic adaptation of Paul Feval's novel "Le Bossu" (The Hunchback), which was first published in 1858. While seemingly unknown in the U.S., the book and its chief protagonist, Lagardere are well-known in France. In fact, Lagadere's challenge to the traitorous Count Gonzague--"If you won't come to Lagadere, Lagadere will come to you!"--is a French proverbial saying now and most of its citizens appear to have some working knowledge of the tale. I believe that the director's supposition of some foreknowledge of the story is what leads to some bewildering twists for viewers that lack that orientation. This film covers a lot of territory in its little more than two hour running time and moves at a very sprightly pace. Some things whoosh by in the narrative, while others are implied to have been discussed off-camera by the involved parties. The result, however, is that there appear to be plot holes in the story for the uninformed. Why didn't the Duke De Nevers send back assistance to aid Legardere? Why didn't the Duke inform his father-in-law that there had been attempts made on his life? Why didn't Lagadere and Aurore discuss the slaying of a swordsman in a duel and the implications that the act had for them both? And most pointedly, what is the explanation of Aurore's behavior upon discovering that she is Lagardere's ward, and not his daughter?Despite these criticisms, this is a good old fashioned revenge, reward, romance and restoration yarn. It received numerous nominations for film awards and deserved them. The acting is quite good, despite the aforementioned script problems, and Daniel Auteuil, Fabrice Luchini, Marie Gillian and Vincent Perez give lively performances. Auteuil, despite being too old to play either the younger or older versions of Lagardere almost makes you forget it. Vincent Perez as the slightly comedic, and foppish De Nevers, strikes the right tone for the tale. Luchini as the slightly mad and gleefully evil, Gonzague is a satisfying villain. Gillian as the tomboyish, guileless innocent that events revolve around, hits all of the right notes, even if we cannot fully discern the melody that she is playing. The sets, art direction and the costuming are all first rate.In the end, if you just relax and go with this story and resist trying to apply contemporary values to a story set in the 17th century, you are in for a pleasant ride. Sit back and enjoy. This is the best swashbuckler that I have seen in recent years. I only wish that the novel was available in an English translation to fill in the blanks. Incidentally, Feval's son found fame and notoriety by writing prequels and sequels to this yarn, crafted around the Lagardere character. Other swashbuckling tales that featured D'Artagnan and Cyrano De Bergereac as the protagonists were also written by the son. Alas, none of these tales are currently available in English translations.

I first mistook Daniel Auteuil for Gerard Depardieu. The French, it seems, have a predilection for unhandsome actors the likes of Yves Montand and Jean Paul Belmondo. But I am not complaining. I like them because they are so credible.I highly recommend this movie if you liked Scaramouche, Cyrano de Bergerac, The Three Musketeers and other movies featuring dazzling rapier swordplay. The wonderful scenery, excellent choice of locations, intricate props and background really brings you back to France in the 1700s.A nice American connection is made when the villain Gonzague is shown to be selling shareholdings in a land venture in Mississippi which at the time was still in French hands. The armsmasters, fencing instructors and stuntmen did a wonderful job. The "Nevers attack," however, is dubious. A trained fencer can easily foil it.Did you feel like giving the Duke of Nevers a scuff on the head for being so careless with his wealth and his life? But there are real people like that.At times, the plot and dialog become maudlin perhaps as a sop to the ladies who would have to watch the movie with swordplay enthusiasts.

but look at the end of the count of Monte cristo. Doutbless the intimacy was not that intense.There is an ick factor, but considering he has saved her life countless times, in the grand scheme of things who else would she marry? She'd be dead eight times over if it wasn't for him.My problem was that Alteuil always appeared 50, he really looked wrong aged for the younger scenes. if a younger man than the duke could have been found, i guess those later scenes would not have worked because then that person would have been too old to play the concept of the older character...they say these feelings just dawned on them, a funny play on Aurore's name, sleeping beauty reference, etc.i consider Aurore's parental re-orientation to having a mother the key change, Aurore is then free to adopt a new figure in the parental role, freeing Lagardere to be a new, "other" role. Does his name mean "the guarding" or something? this movie was good clean fun, and the writing had me wishing so many other movies were as fun. When the Duc goes to knight Lagardere, he finds the knight to be has no Christian name. "Indeed, you lack everything". too funny.

I eagerly rented this DVD because I'm such an admirer of the workof Daniel Auteuil. I enjoy a good swashbuckling yarn and this onehas all the elements in place. A terrific basic plot, with most of thecontrivances well covered up, a marvelous and stylish cast,beautiful scenery, splendid costumes, exciting sword fights, andmost of all--Daniel Auteuil at the top of his considerable form. Thisgreat actor can do it all. So why did De Broca saddle the moviewith that icky kiss between a 16 year old girl and the man she hasknown most of her life as her father? There is somethingperversely French going on here, and don't tell me I'm a prude. Auteuil is de Nevers' servant and he give him a sacred mission--tosee that his daughter is safe. Once de Never's insecure brother,superbly played with a low-key insanity by Fabrice Lucini, arranges for his death and abducts his wife, Lagardere (Auteuil)escapes with de Nevers' infant daughter and joins an itinerantcommedia dell'arte troupe and raises Aurore as his own daughter. He teaches her how to fight with a sword. But as the child beginsto grow into a woman, there are sly indications that they mighthave stronger feelings for each other, or rather, she is moreupfront about her crush on him. He chooses to ignore it. Since we are in the world of Alexandre Dumas, the meticulous wayin which Lagardere engineers the revenge of de Nevers, restoringAurore to her mother and her fortune, is both ingenious and a lot offun. By in the last 30 seconds, the movie slipped badly intosomething approaching incest when Aurore plans an intense kisson Lagardere as the movie concludes. Eeeewwww! Lagardere issupposed to be a hero not a pedophile. Auteuil, who has agedwell, is near 50 here, and the lovely Aurore, played by Anne Gillaineis definitely looking well below 20. I was totally creeped out. Up to that moment, this is as enjoyable and fast-paced anadventure film as any I've seen and is without all the ridiculouscomputer-generated nonsense that mar to many contemporaryfilms. In the end, it is the always marvelous Daniel Auteuil that youremember. Without that ending, however, this could have been aclassic.