Chevalier

I looked forward to seeing this VERY MUCH, but when it was over ........ I wondered exactly what I had seen - story-wise. It felt empty.

Seems that I don't know much more about Joseph Bologne (Chevalier) than I did prior to watching this. And I feel cheated - because here is an historical character that has to have one hella story! And not just what I saw in a couple of hours however beautifully shot it was. :(

You had bad guy (he's ALWAYS the bad guy) Marton Csokas as Marquis De Montalembert. Say that fast three times and you have your 600 characters. I like Marton Csokas, but it seems to me that he tries to be Ray Stevenson who played Titus Pullo in Rome - someone we loved. He's the same bad guy all the time, just in different clothing. Literally.

Minnie Driver was BRILLIANT as the bad guy female. What a treat!

But this wasn't about Minnie Driver.

And I still do NOT know what Chevalier was really all about.

I felt cheated. There was so much more to this man and his story - and this movie didn't give me even a hint of it!!

Am in hopes someone makes a mini-series about him! Two hours is not long enough!

Was really looking forward to Chevalier - so disappointed!

What should have been an amazing film chronicling Bologne's talents and story, is instead a CW channel type movie with an "agenda." The films spends too much time on Bologne's affair and making contemporary "political" statements.

A bad script with anachronistic dialogue; events presented that did not happen and could not have happened; and inaccurate and misleading depiction of 18th century life (gee - no one bowed to the Queen, aristocratic women somehow were able to walk around by themselves and their absence at home was unnoticed, etc).

The cast is British with the exception of the lead Kelvin Harrison Jr, and his American accent is jarring and does not make sense. There are many young British actors who could have played this part beautifully

Incredibly Hollywood seems not to understand that willfully fake presentation of history does not educate - it just creates more ignorance.

Mind-boggling.

A fantastic life story, and great piece of history, that is relevant today, presented with impressive music, in nice sets (except CGI) and pleasant costumes. Should be great.

Yet a childish story and similarly childish storytelling, and the overwhelming abundance of barnstorming scenes removes this film from the realm of cinematic art. Uneven acting does not help and the anachronistic dialog (and make up) adds to the feeling of a B movie or propaganda piece, especially that what was meant to be character development is decisively cartoonish.

I am not sure what else to say to hit six hundred. I was not bored and neither I resent that we watched this movie but am not thinking back to it with appreciation.

I am so disappointed. 1. I love the Chevalier de Saint-Georges. 2. His life story is fascinating 3. It's a shame we don't learn about him like we do his friend and contemporary Motzart, who was slightly less famous in their lifetime (this erasure of his history was systematic by Napoleon, who wanted to re-engage France in the slave trade). 4. Stephanie Robinson, the writer, kills on 'Atlanta' and 'What we do in the Shadows.' So I was excited about this! And it failed.

Just historically inaccurate, which made it less exciting and interesting. His relationships with every historical character in the movie, including his parents, were totally false. His relationship with the French Revolution was inaccurate.

I don't understand why you'd lie to make a story worse. His actual life story is so captivating. Skip the movie, put on the Chevalier de Saint-Georges' Spotify, and read his Wikipedia page instead.

Apparently, one of the (main?) drivers of the French Revolution was racial equity. Who knew? This is a new Hollywood trend: you transpose current (broadly accepted) societal views into different geographies, cultures and historical periods, basically to prove that they always were eternal. Women Talking, The Woman King are two recent examples of this trend. Art has always been used to convey the ideas of its time, and there's really nothing wrong with it. Except when you pretend that what you're depicting is historically accurate, in which case it becomes revisionism or cultural imperialism. As a violinist and a person who lived in Paris for four years, the cultural imperialism in this film may upset me a bit more than most. But I could actually go with it if the movie were good. But it's not.

The story is actually amazing. Imagine: a black violinist and composer in 18th century France. A man of color who was a contender to become head of the Paris Opera under Louis XVI, and who then became a leader in the French Revolution. One can only dream of what this film could have been in the hands of Spike Lee, Jordan Peele or even better Ladj Ly. It could (should) have been an exploration of the character, his motivations, what it was like to be a person of color in the court of Louis XVI, how he truly embraced revolutionary values and how they reflected on his own condition. What do we get instead from Stephen Williams? An attempt to remake Amadeus with a black character. The plagiarism is so overt that many times you feel as if you were watching segments of Amadeus again, with a few dashes of Kubrick's Barry Lindon here and there. Except that Williams is no Milos Forman and no Stanley Kubrick. His film, weighed down by its narrow program of easy answers we all knew before going into the theatre, is dull and empty, and the characters, without the freedom to exist in their own right, increasingly feel like figures at a wax museum.

One can only hope that a real filmmaker will retake this story and turn it into the film of relevance that it should be.