Les rois maudits

she is the pillar of this admirable adaptation.a series who preserves the flavor of novel and create the best picture for discover the roots of a period. who has the energy to seduce in better manner than many history movies and who gives to fascination splendid form. and that fact is result of a cast who seems create a kind of circle around Jeanne Moreau. heart of story, soul of film, using the experience of a long career, she creates a role who is not only good or convincing but who becomes, episode by episode, a form of embroidery of nuances. it is not exactly the case of lead actress who gives sense to show but the precision of exploration the script possibilities and the geography of character. a film who reminds high level Shakespeare BBC adaptations and remains loyal to Druon masterpiece. that is its secret. and the basic motif for see it.

Firstly I must state I have only seen part 1 of an apparent 5 part series.

And I am glad I did. I have great interest in this period of history and - told by the French - in French - made it all the more enjoyable.

The production is sublime with modern ... improvements like the lighting in castles sometimes obviously artificial (ie: not mere torches) and some racy female costumes (for the period).

The acting was excellent and includes long time favorites like Gerard - and the actress that plays Queen Isabelle is so pretty.

Generally this story is based on fact.

Unless part 2 is awful (doubtful) I am hooked already.

Recommended!

Doing a remake of Les Rois Maudits is a little like doing a remake of Citizen Kane. You've got an awful lot of pressure! The text is powerful but most of the actors can't get a hold of it. Mind you, the producers have mostly hired good actors, but in many instances (Philippe Torreton for example), they can't get inside their characters, because it's not in their range. Others, like Julie Depardieu or Jeanne Moreau in some instances, are just pathetic!

Josée Dayan, the director, has a reputation for not taking many shots, so that the actors play on their "first energy". The result is interesting in some scenes, but you often get the feeling that there isn't any actor direction at all, which is very dangerous with this text, which requires some kind of classical training for the actors (No wonder the best actor was Eric Ruf, of La Comédie Française).

No wonder why in most stores in Paris you see more space for the 1972 version than for this year's!

Basically, because they could. The original series was and probably still is the best and most literate TV series ever made on this planet. The producers of this remake kept, for the most part, the very same dialogs, which is a very good thing, but have also shortened and simplified them (a.k.a. dumbing down), which robs the characters of their individuality and turns them into soap opera nimrods. They also "glamourized" many parts and replaced the very stylized, evocative and economical sets of the first series - which truly channelled the spirit of medieval illustrations while giving precedence to the acting, the character development, the story and the costumes - with impressive 3-D sets and some amazing CGI work and special effects. What they couldn't replace was Jean Piat's and Hélène Duc's talent and presence. The new cast is stellar but today's actors just pale by comparison with what came before... Whereas Hélène Duc was malevolence incarnate, Jeanne Moreau just aged badly and is scary to look at... They also couldn't replace Georges Delerue's genius in the music department and they used every opportunity given them to show every execution, rape, hanging, torture scene, burning at the stake, etc. in lurid and sadistic detail, something they learned from the so-called euro historical dramas of the last decade, which I call the history-as-a-series-of-body-fluids school and which owes more to Quentin Tarantino than Maurice Druon. What was only suggested is now shown without any shame or embarrassment. I'm not sure this is progress. But you'll certainly get a great many people riveted to their TV screens and maybe get a few of them to actually buy and read the book when they are sufficiently recovered from the shock...

A lot has been made of the sets and backgrounds.. Philippe Druillet, the artist behind the sets, is an iconic sci-fi graphic novelist. He created 'Lone Sloane'in the mid-60s; unlikely, then, that he is much influenced by the Riddick franchise as suggested above. Anyway, he was never going to come up with anything conceptually accurate to the 14th Century, that's for sure! Not a good idea to get hung up on historical accuracy of plot or costumes, either. Druon wrote a novel loosely based on historical fact. The curse on which the whole premise is based is folklore, even the eye-watering demise of Edward II may be urban mythology... It is a wee bit like remaking "I Clavdivs" but with a Giger/Lynch vibe going on. The stylised acting and shoogly sets of the original with some seriously dodgy Goth overlays. It didn't impress me as much as the original, but French TV in the 70s was truly awful and expectations are so much higher....murderous Moreau worth the price of admission!