Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

n-mo There is a lot to like about "Ridicule." Splendid costumes, gorgeous Versaillais architecture and painting, and a pretty historically accurate portrayal of the absurdity and the confusion playing out at the Versailles court on the eve of the Revolution (on the one hand, they will all maintain that they are devout Catholics; on the other hand, they court libertine philosophers and more or less openly engage in grotesquely immoral--often sexually charged--war games of wit). The premise is interesting, the acting is grand and the atmosphere is terrific.Where the movie loses points is in its philosophical moralizing. The film does not make it a point to distinguish the character of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette from that of their courtiers. Although the film does not actually portray them doing anything they would not actually have done (they were, indeed, deeply ingrained into the life of their court), by not holding them out the film does give us the impression that they were every bit as trashy and apathetic as the courtiers (in fact, they were most certainly not) and that they deserved their ultimate lot in the French Revolution (and any historian even slightly to the right of Karl Marx agrees that they most certainly did not).Near the end of the film the protagonist, the Marquis de Malavoy, countryside aristocrat who has learned the court games simply in an attempt to petition Louis XVI for help with his land and for his feudal tenants, castigates the courtiers for their hypocrisy. He cites their invocation of Voltaire, a man "filled with compassion!" as evidence. But anyone who knows anything about Voltaire knows that he was quite the snob himself.Moreover, the ending, which implies that Malavoy, the compassionate aristocrat, now lives well in Revolutionary France, gives the false impression that it was his openness to liberalism that had permitted him to stay rather than go into exile. In actuality, it was precisely in places such as Malavoy's holdings, where feudal ties were strongest and aristocrats remained landed rather than absentee, that resistance to the revolution was also the strongest--and most tragic. Anyone ever hear of a place called "Vendée"? The people there stood in defense of their patriarchs, their Church and the House of Bourbon--and hundreds of thousands paid the ultimate price for not wanting to recognize a Parisian regime they regarded as criminal as having the right to unilaterally redo the physiognomy of their socio-political landscape.And speaking of physiognomy, let me just comment on the... ugly faces. I don't know whether it's the makeup, but Fanny Ardent looks as though her face might kill as humiliatingly as ridicule does. The court of Versailles must have been teaming with fresh flesh, and I'm not at all convinced a priest would break his vow of celibacy for the likes of her. And, "My bedroom is known to lead to the throne room"? Uh... yeah, THAT line really makes up in charm what she lacks in looks. Uh-huh. And Judith Godrèche, who is normally quite lovely, is done up just horribly... her face and hairdo are so tomboyish that it's a wonder she survives at a place like Versailles. And while the makeup on the men may be historically accurate, it is not applied in a very charismatic fashion, as though the filmmakers were trying to give us something to laugh at.The ambiance is good, but the script is disappointing and nauseating. I think one can do better for a quiet evening alone.

susan-317 This is one of my favorite films. There are several story lines - the primary is about a young noble named Ponceludon wishing to drain his swamps in the Dombs, and seeking help from the Court of Louis the XV. What makes the film so memorable are the quips our hero makes. What a wonderful script! Although the film does not explain the differences between the peasants and the nobility which eventually led to the French Revolution, it does include scientific interests of the day and references to Pascal's writings, and the "discovery" of sign language for the deaf.See it for the sumptuous costuming, the script, the gorgeous art design and the beautiful leading ladies.

jonathanruano If life in high school was set in the 18th century French court, we would have "Ridicule," a movie about Gregoire Ponceludon (Charles Berling) who realizes that the best way to drain the swamps on his estate is not to ingratiate himself with the courtiers, but to insult them with one witticism after the other. Wit, a friend the Marquis de Bellegarde (Jean Rochefort) tells young Ponceludon, opens all doors and can win King Louis XVI's favor; and once you have the king's favor, he will give you whatever you want. Indeed, one comes away with the impression that the king's generosity towards the witty is so boundless that he seems oblivious to the reality that he is spending money that the state does not have. Only the finance minister knows how bad things are and he grumbles to Ponceludon that perhaps he could convince the king to stop spending so much money on his courtiers for the dignity of France. Well, as far as Louis XVI (Urbain Cancelier) is concerned, dignity can go to hell.Like all high schools, the French court is artificial, cruel, witty and a haven for endless sex. The courtiers subjected to ridicule are weak, insecure and tend articulate themselves rather badly. They could be popular courtiers who have misspoken, thereby providing an ambitious courtier with the opportunity to ridicule them. The women don't believe in love. They will have sex with any man who happens to be the most popular at any given time. When Abbe de Vilecourt (Bernard Giraudeau) falls into disfavor, Madame de Blayac (Fanny Ardant) turns to Ponceludon. She then finds another lover, when Ponceludon inadvertently ridicules her.Now all of this may seem very predictable, unless you were home schooled during your high school years, but it is entertaining most of the time in wicked sort of way. We enjoy hearing the witticism; we enjoy even more seeing people insulted, especially when it is the vile de Vilecourt. But this film also has a serious and a profound side as well. On being ridiculed, Ponceludon condemns the world of the courtier as a farce. It is not a witty remark. But Madame de Blayac realizes he is right. She realizes that she has been duped, because all her life was wasted on an endless struggle trying to be popular, pretty and charming. A life without love and indeed without meaning. It was not too late for Ponceludon, because he was still young and had only stayed in court for a few months. But it was too late for Madame de Blayac, because she had nothing else apart from that pointless life. Perhaps that explains her tears, when in her moment of victory Ponceludon leaves the court for good and the dancing resumes.I could go on about the film. At times it is boring, but on the whole director Patrice LeConte does an excellent job in maintaining our interest. The performances are good too, especially the one given by Fanny Ardant. Finally, the film has a brilliant baroque score which creates the atmosphere of a ruthless and uncompromising court. The sets and costumes are beautiful too, but what is decisive in films like these is excellent direction, a good screenplay and brilliant performances: this film has all three.

Vishal Agrawal An engineer just before French revolution is trying to find his way up in the court. He has wits and guts but the game is bigger than his assumption.The subject of the film is very good but the story line is very trite, banal, old, done a 100 times etc etc. Hope you know what i mean. Engineer falls in love with one girl and a countess fancy him as her next best ticket to court. Movie becomes a yawn because of this 4000000 years old plot and loses its novelty after 20 minutes. Except for a few scenes movie has nothing to offer. Technically even subject is not very original because if you get to see it 'Vanity Fair', 'Shree 420', 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' are based on the same concept but its a period drama and talks directly about cartoons of french courts so its funny. First scene is very powerful. I hope all french people did that on Louis 17th and his maniac wife. Back to film. Film doesn't hold any water. It goes haywire and becomes boring after 20 minutes. I wonder what this hoopla about 2 thumbs up three thumbs? Still!! rent it for the first scene.There are very few international films in which you are distracted by technical mistakes. This is one of those. Editing is very bad. Childish mistakes like a man looking in two directions. Camera work is artsy and very distracting. For example Camera is moving from a man's point of view while he is riding a horse but the swiftness of the camera is of airplane. Its worse than amateurish. I couldn't identify characters even until the end of the film. Prettly lame. All the actors are also just OK. In my opinion its very passable. Rent it watch the first scene and send it back. Don't bother about the rest because you know everything already.By the way why 90% of the poster is Judith Godrèche? I think thats just another inconsistency. Its like putting Karen Alens pic on the raiders of the lost arc poster instead of Ford. 7/10.