User reviews

This is certainly a film that does what it says on the tin. The sole focus of the film is the death of Louis XIV the Sun King and it is interesting that the sun is notably absent from the film which for the most part resembles a series of Rembrandt paintings in its lush tones surrounded by darkness. This is not an exciting film, in fact it is quite boring in parts. But then that is death, as anyone who has sat watching over an aged relative will know. It is quiet, it is slow, drawn out over hours and days in hushed tones. This is the king of France, one of the most noted kings of France, and here he is fading from life like any ordinary person. Attended and fussed over but unable to stop the enevitable decline or gain much comfort. If I have a quibble it is that the dialoge is often painfully slow and dull in a manner that is, I feel, a bit of a cliché in this type of film. It fits the mood but was, I felt, somewhat overstated.

I totally agree with the assessment of the first reviewer: it is a beautiful, claustrophobic film with very little "drama". One thing I would like to add is that the film depicts the dying king with great respect and dignity. Having touched by death of elderly family members in recent years, I appreciated the film's compassionate and dignified portrait of Louis XIV and the people who served him closely. There is no political intrigue or ugliness in the film. It quietly and matter-of-factly tells a story. So even though the film's main theme is death, it is not a depressing film and you leave the theater marveling the fine acting of Jean-Pierre Léaud.

The biggest wonder of this film is that it had most of its audience sitting all the way through. For almost 2 hours of every minute detail of the last days of Louis the 14th, the greatest king France has ever known. Truth is though we do follow every minute detail we don't really see every thing. In fact what we do see is mostly close ups of the faces of the protagonists (mostly the face of Jean-Pierre Leaud who does a superb work as the dying king betrayed by his body, but keeping his mind sharp to the very last moment), we often only get to hear whats taking place while we keep on seeing these close ups. The result is a very beautiful, claustrophobic film, with very little plot development and very little action. Theatrical in the most cinematographic way - namely it's very theatrical but we always get to see it through the eye of the camera, did I forget to mention loads of close ups. So I did stay focused all the way to the end. And I do appreciate the technical mastery of the director and the cinematographer. And the acting was first class. But there's too little of any other element that could make it into a real masterpiece.

It could be defined as experience. slow, precise, dark, bitter , sad, pictorial with accent on acting and cinematography than on story, it is inspired support for reflection about power and fragility and the efforts to save a life who change the West European history. film of details, atmosphere and small gestures, it is , in high level, usefull. for understand a period. for the accuracy of the end of a legendary reign . for the admirable performance of Jean - Pierre Leaud , who propose a so realistic Louis XIV , like his early brilliant Antoine Doinel. a film for history class. for discover the essence of power. for the basic traits of each reign. for the unique beauty. for dialogues and for the splendid manner to propose a subtle fresco of the end of entire age .

I'm not going to remember Louis's grunts and moans as he lies in bed, attended by far too many doctors to be of any use. No, I will remember the disputes--polite but still angry--between the doctors, sometimes involving a faith healer who has been called in, God knows why, to administer some foul elixir to Louis. The joke is that the doctors know hardly more than the quack about how to treat the sick. An inessential film, but it was good to see Leaud again.

I was wondering, as I watched this, just how the last few days of Queen Elizabeth II - herself reigning for almost as long - might have looked in comparison with this depiction of the last few days of the acclaimed 'Sun King". Somehow, I doubt she would have been surrounded by quite such a grouping of acolytes and sycophants. Such a collection of quacks and hangers-on riddled with an obsequiousness that would have made "Obadiah Slope" blush. The King has taken to his bed, at the age of 76, suffering from acute pains in his leg. Perched, rather uncomfortably, and adorned with a wig that would not have looked out of place on a lion, we spend the next few days watching this once great, stylish, flamboyant and shrewd man edge towards his meeting with his maker. Jean-Pierre Léaud doesn't really have a great deal to do here - occasionally sip some wine, or eat a biscuit, or take a short stroll around his couch. For the most part he lies there, breathing heavily, allowing the establishment around him to gradually unravel. His long-term lover Mme. De Maintenon (Irène Silvagni) is his principal source of comfort, Marc Susini his valet - a far grander role than the title suggests, tries to keep him contented and a collection of doctors all busy themselves about him - largely without the faintest idea of what is actually wrong much less how to treat their ailing monarch. If you are looking for something with pace, then this is certainly not for you. What Albert Serra delivers here is almost like a fly-on-the-wall documentary depicting the decline not just of the man, but of everything his life has stood for. The costumes look great and film relies on a lighting regime that is entirely plausible - if a little lacking in lux at times. The audio could maybe have been doing with a bit of a boost, but the serene effort from Léaud and the scenario itself provides adequate compensation as we, quite literally, watch the end of an era. On balance, I reckon the late Queen probably had a more private, and medically more competent, time of it....

The French film La mort de Louis XIV was shown in the U.S. with the translated title The Death of Louis XIV (2016). The movie was co-written and directed by Albert Serra.

The film starts the with the realization that the King Louis is very ill, and ends with his death. Louis XIV was called the "Sun King." The Greek sun god Apollo was immortal. Louis never claimed to be a god, but he certainly acted like one during his extremely long reign from 1642 to 1715. It's not surprising that the people of his court found it hard to believe that he could really be dying.

We watch the king dying during the course of about a week. Director Serra gives us many, many details about his last days. The film was shot with a small cast and only the one interior setting--Louis's chamber, and the room directly outside it.

For artistic and financial reasons, director Serra doesn't attempt to "open up" the movie. There are no scenes that take place outside the palace. No Three Musketeers. No Paris streets with beggars, filth, and noise. It's all quiet interior. The actors are frequently filmed in closeup. In order for a movie like this to work, the actors must be superb.

Two of the three leading actors are: Patrick d'Assumçao, as Fagon, Louis's personal physician, and Marc Susini as Blouin, Louis's chief valet. Both actors are highly experienced professionals and they play their parts very well. Actually, the people they portray are also highly experienced professionals, who are dedicated to serving—and saving—the king.

A movie like this will rise or fall based on the actor who portrays Louis. Jean-Pierre Léaud is perfect for the role. Not only is Léaud a immensely talented actor, but he even looks like portraits of Louis XIV. He was born to play this role, and he will be remembered for playing it for many years to come.

After the movie ended, people had very different thoughts about it. Some said that they were tired of it after the first five minutes. Others said it was too long and/or too dark and/or too quiet. I can see, understand, and respect their point of view.

However, my wife and I found the film profoundly moving and truly fascinating. We happen to enjoy long, quiet movies. We enjoy great acting. We were pleased to watch a great actor starring in a great role, being directed by a masterful filmmaker.

We watched this movie at the wonderful Dryden Theatre at Rochester's George Eastman museum. If you're able to see this film, even on the small screen, I'd suggest you see it. Remember that it's long and slow. Remember that it's a masterpiece.

Is it really Louis XIV who is dying? Behind this picture of dark shadows, for whom are these simagrias surrounding this already slumped body intended? The obsequiousness of the courtiers, incapable and stupefied in front of the death that is coming, echo those who will hold our limbs when the moment comes. Gloomy and sumptuous, this marmorated agony of Louis XIV, is first of all that of each one of us.

This film features stunning period accuracy and exquisite silence until, bafflingly, the Kylie from Mozart's Mass in C minor comes blaring across the soundtrack. Music from 60 years after the events of the film, written by an Austrian. Make it make sense.

Acting, set design, writing, sound, and costumes all superb.

I don't have much more to say about this film but I have to write another two hundred and twenty seven characters to have this review accepted by I em dee bee for some reason so the typing continues.

Anyway it's really my kind of movie and for the right person, they'll love it, especially if they can ignore this bone-headed music cue.

If you enjoy 115 minutes of a sick, old man lying in his bed, struggling to eat, moaning and eventually dying, this is the right movie for you.

actually is no different from any common people, no matter how many subjects surrounded His Royal Highness's deathbed. You cursed someone you hated so much with harsh words like: "I wish you die alone and nobody will give a Fxxk!" Well, practically and realistically speaking, everybody indeed die alone; your parents, your wife, your husband, your kids, your friends won't join you and die with you, no matter how they love you or hate you; and these people aforementioned, would also die alone one by one. When a plane or car crashed, a ship sank, a building on fire and collapsed like the twin tower of World Trade Center, an earthquake cracked up the mountain slop and crashing down on a village on the foothill, a whole village wiped out instantly; people died in great number at the same time in a mass death toll, even so everybody still died alone, in group, large or small, but every one of them still died alone. After hundreds of people eating the same food on the hot-cold counter-top in a buffet restaurant, when they take dump at home or elsewhere afterward, the stinking smell would be in some degree almost the same, to some degree, nobody can be separated and distinguished differently, and you cannot claim that yours got some independent unique odor.

Dying is always a lonely process no matter what. And for this film, all you should do is to focus on the cinematography, the lighting, the make- up, the costumes and the score(soundtrack) and the acting of all the participating actors. "Eight Million Ways to Die in L.A." still meant that you are the only person to die there, and die alone.

If I cannot say I have been wronged by the title, I was still expecting more from this movie that 2 hours watching an old man dying in his bed, with some medical debates in addition. I expected to learn more about Louis XIV personality, the state of France and Versailles court at that time and the impact it had. The fact it was directed by a Spanish was all the more reason to hope watch a more objective view on that well-known king.

Here's then my warning : do watch this movie only if you're prepared to follow the last hours of a sick man in a closed-room setting.

I expected a slow movie, with not much action going on. I mean, it's about a guy dying, so that's says it all.

But my goodness, I didn't expect such a lack of activitiy. Everybody seemed to move in slow motion. Everybody seemed to TALK in slow motion. It got to the point where I seriously checked if this movie is a satire. Because in no way this reflects actual events in those times.

One of the most disturbing (or hilarious) scenes was the one were Louis wakes up at night, feverish and sweaty, and asks for some water. First, he has to ask several times because there is no servant in the room with him. Finally, a door opens and a very sleepy person stumbles in, has to be asked several times again before he - after a ridiculous amount of time - enters again with a glass of water. Now, the water is served in the wrong kind of glass and Louis refused to drink it.

Okay, I get that this scene was about how etiquette was more important than dying of thirst in those days. Maybe it was, I don't know. But the whole set up lacks every understanding of the importance of Louis XIV, and how the court worked. It was an absolute honor to work and live in Versailles and only the best of the best (the creme de la creme) of servants would make it to being a personal servant of him. And they would run, fly, to fulfill his every wish. It would be like serving Queen Elizabeth, only multiplied by a 1000 times. It's completely unthinkable that there was no servant present and some stupid incompetent person was the only one to attent to Louis, in slow motion.

There were much more mistakes like this in the movie. So I decided to view it as a satire. It's actually not so bad as a satire. Oh, and some parts I doubled the speed. That helped a lot too.