The Princess of Montpensier

to a bizarre and fascinating world. a kind of fairy-tale. charming, tender, delicate. a remarkable director, a beautiful text by Madame La Fayette and nuances of acting. nothing else. it is not a great film. it is only perfectly French. it is not an event or revelation. it is slice of a time - gray, cruel, ambitious, selfish. but not the period is the axis. essence is the nice performance of Melanie Thierry, the precise definition of character potential by Lambert Wilson and, of course, Gaspar Ulliel . result - a form of delight. all usual ingredients. and little more. history, love stories in different forms and Evelina Meghnagi in a real fascinating role. good work of master Tavernier.

Some of the best things in this lusciously mounted historical ramble are the battle and fight sequences. They are exciting and convincing, as is the picture's milieu. Some of the relationships sporadically command interest,despite the central character consistently failing to provide any spark. The Duke of Anjou is the most watchable; a wonderfully slimy character, whose complicated duplicity and arrogance is highly entertaining. The actress who plays the princess may have superficially attractive qualities, but she has no personality. She's a sponge, who gives almost nothing and inspires only restlessness and tedium. Had she been at least interesting this may well have been an exciting film. After a while this viewer couldn't care less what happened to her. A shame because everything around her is designed to make for a stimulating story. It should be shorter, and it should be re-cast. The real princess was supposed to be a beauty. Mlle Thierry is quite good looking, but I suppose, at the time of going into production there wasn't an available attractive actress who is also vivacious, and/or interesting, and not too expensive. Heigh ho.

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.

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.

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.