Watch Queen Margot For Free

Expected more

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I love well done historical fiction and films. This one is excellently done, in it's acting, sumptuous sets, costumes, lively pace and adventure and occasional high violence. It's also sensually smoking, with the gorgeous and intensely passionate and feminine Adjani holding nothing back. She even manages at twice the age to look almost young enough to play 19 year old Margot at her wedding.It's a fairly easy film to enjoy if you don't worry too much about the plot turns and detailed historical machinations, and even more rewarding to watch several times or more seriously, especially if you do some background reading at Wikipedia or elsewhere.Its historical accuracy is however a decidedly mixed picture. The sense of 16th century French court life, the major historical events including the massacre, and almost all the major figures are quite accurately portrayed. Even such figures as the Protestant Admiral Coligny and Guise, Margot's principal lover at the time of her arranged marriage, are accurately portrayed. De la Mole seems to be either wholly or largely invented, but it's common for more wholly personal charters to be in historical fiction and that's generally fine with me. So too is it here, except in essence it portrays him as the love of her life – whereas she doesn't seem to really have had one.The film though seeks not merely to view Queen Margot and her voluminous affairs sympathetically, but to entirely lionize her for invented reasons. Given that she's the principal character in the film and not a trivial historical figure, that's not unimportant. While not hiding the fact that she never loved her husband and had many lovers, it did soft peddle her pronounced and highly indiscrete promiscuity, and largely invented both her "sisterly" loyalty to her husband, and tolerant and humanitarian heroic acts on behalf of him and the Protestant Huguenots more generally.Following Dumas it seeks to portray her as a woman who loyally and enduringly loved a man through thick and thin, just not the man she was forced to marry, but instead the minor Huguenot la Mole. In fact Margot's relationships seemed to have been if often passionate, also often simultaneous, overlapping, in quick succession, and not especially marked by enduring loyalty. If the contemporary portraits at Wikipedia can be believed, she while attractive was also not the transcendent beauty that is Adjani, though I hardly complain that Adjani was chosen. I'm not condemning Margot's sexual voraciousness but I am saying that the whitewashed, false and sanitized view of it here is rather in the nature of propaganda or myth. At one point for example la Mole says she's been fated to have lovers who die off on her, which seems to have had little basis.It was not unaccepted at the time for queens or female aristocrats in passionless arranged marriages to have lovers, but they were generally supposed to do so discretely, in a way that did not bring ridicule or dishonor to their husband, if honorable. Husbands too, though admittedly more universally tolerated in having affairs, were supposed to honor their wives. Both were also expected to try for some sort of marital love or at least a kind of intimate respect, and to attempt to produce legitimate heirs. Queen Margot seems to have never done any of this, or certainly not much. Most unreformed male libertines who accomplish little aren't so loved either.It's not clear she ever accomplished much, including having any children, not to mention any heir to the French throne – which she could have done (unless as seems likely she was, or became, barren - STD's?).More important though is the way the film seeks to portray Margot as a heroine to the persecuted Huguenots, not because she believed in their religious cause, but because she was a firm believer in tolerance and humanitarianism, or became both after witnessing the massacre. Both were true of her husband Henri, who acted upon them especially after becoming "the Good" King Henri of France, but I see little evidence they were of Margot. Instead I strongly suspect she was lionized by Alexandre Dumas, and likely by earlier Huguenot tales, traditions and perhaps lesser novels, in aide of gallantry, the Huguenot and liberal cause and their integration into French national affection. (There was after all, they said, at least one good French royal at the time of the St. Bartholomew's massacre.) This seems built largely on Queen Margot's being the one member of the French royal family who wasn't intent on persecuting the Huguenots, since her interests were rather elsewhere than religion, politics or idealism.As well her close personal, "sisterly", relationship with her husband seems to be almost or entirely invented by Dumas, in service of our sympathy for her. Instead Henri several times provided sanctuary to her when she had nowhere else to go, despite their at best strained and tempestuous and thereafter icy relationship. Henri did not in fact seek to bring Margot to Navarre with him when he fled Paris nor did she want to go, with or without her lover(s). Instead several years later she partly fled there from her brother King Henry III of France (who takes power as the film ends) and was partly banished due to her increasingly scandalous and heedless behavior. Again much later, when she had long been divorced from Henri and grown old, isolated and nearly penniless, in an act which speaks much more about Henri's character than their relationship, Henri brought her back to the French court, where she eventually had some role in helping care for his children by his second wife. I've also seen no evidence she helped Henri escape to Navarre or before that convinced him to convert to Catholicism to save his life.I can see much reason to understand and have some sympathy for Queen Margot, but little reason to view her as a heroine.

I can't recall ever being disappointed in a film written by Daniele Thompson who has gone on to prove herself a brilliant writer-director also. Nothing if not versatile she began with one of the biggest box-office hits in French cinema, La Grande Vadrouille, which is still being revived close to half a century later and continued in comedic vein with such titles as Les Folies de grandeur and The Adventures of Rabbi Jacob whilst along the way launching the career of Sophie Marceau via La Boum - if these two ladies were fillies rather than filles we could employ handicapper terms to note that Marceau has just released her own second film as writer-director - before turning serious as she does here and also with Those Who Love Me Can Take The Train. This time around she is working with historical facts as distorted through the prism of Alexander Dumas and giving them a new coat of paint before setting them before Isabelle Adjani, Virna Lisi, Daniel Auteuil, Jean-Huges Anglade, Pascall Greggory, Vincent Perez and, if you're paying attention to every frame, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi, all of which, with the possible exception of Perez, turn in fine performances modulating toward the exceptional in the case of Virna Lisi's Catherine de Medici. The plot has been discussed elsewhere so suffice it to say that as costume dramas go this is among the best even if the direction is the odd light year behind Thompson's screenplay.

if you haven't met Margot, if you haven't spoken to her then you know nothing of France... The queen who is said to be most intelligent and elegant and beautiful among greedy libertines and fools? The pearl of France? i could not believe my eyes when i watched this film.It was peculiar and very very bad. Perhaps it is because i have read the book and i love it very much. I saw so many blunders and absurd moments.(The Louvre was wooden. What's more you can enter it from the street!And everywhere it is described as elaborate...)The humor in La Reine Margot is irrelevant. Some of the actors were terrible. They were just reciting their lines nothing more. Their mimics had nothing to do with what they were saying...I know the characters are not saints but this movie is all about sex. Margot is described as a slut and a prostitute. There are so many missing moments-this movie has nothing to do with the book.Just the names.

Since I enjoyed reading Dumas' "Queen Margot" long before this film was made, I went to see it fearing a disappointment - usually it's hard to turn a good book into an equally good film. I was pleasantly surprised. The film follows the book a bit loosely, and maybe that was a good thing; too many times copying a book faithfully makes a film lose focus and artistic/dramatic impact. "La Reine Margot" is played by a great team of actors that turned in excellent performances. Daniel Auteuil, as Henry de Navarre is superb as usual, in his depiction of an intelligent king caught in the middle of the deadly politics of a religious war; Isabelle Adjani is perfect for the title role, so is Vincent Perez as La Mole, and the rest of the cast is just as wonderful, except I thought Virna Lisi was a bit too melodramatic in depicting the "evilness" of Catherine de Medici and I found the film's suggestion that there were some sort of incestuous relations between Catherine and her sons sensationalist, unfounded and a bit slimy for a film of this caliber). The costumes seem as sumptuous as French royals would wear in those times, without looking overdone; the decors and extras appear as real as if filmed in a time warp - dirt, mess and all; they are carefully done, yet without an over-manicured look; all this conferred the film an air of authenticity instead of just making it look too perfectly staged. The violence of the St. Bartholomew massacre looks quite realistic and non-glamorized, which apparently turned off many viewers. Hmmm... give us violence, but don't let us feel bad about it.The story is loosely based on historical truth, but is close enough to it. Apparently, Margot was indeed a victim of the politics of the time, and the whole business of her saving Henry de Navarre from assassination and helping him gain political momentum is historically true. Although she divorced him later and he remarried, they remained in friendly terms. The love affair with La Mole might just as well be true too, considering that Margot had a many lovers, not surprisingly, since all other aspects of her life were controlled or repressed by others... I was a bit sorry to see Catherine de Medicis portrayed so unidimensionally as the vicious, bloodthirsty queen mother. Her methods were not excusable, but considering the times, they were the typical "diplomatic tools" employed by everyone. Although Italian and married to Henry II against her will, she loved France and embraced her resposiblities as its queen, and her purpose was, besides keeping the House of Valois on the throne, to save the country from a civil war that would have exposed it to invasion by Spain and England. OK, back to the film: I thought it was great, with excellent dialogue, well crafted scenes, good suspense, the romance is not corny, yet dramatic enough. Historically accurate or not, it gives one a glimpse of how love, life and the politics of those times must have been. Lovely to watch.