Le Bon Roi Dagobert – 1984 French-Italian film directed by Dino Risi.
Reviewed by TS Morangles
Unlike last entry which was approving of the 1963 film, this review will remind you of the opinion of Barbarians regarding the decadence of the late Roman Empire.
Do not waste time searching this movie via streaming, do not buy it. In a few words: forget it ever existed. But why are you writing about it; are you asking aptly? The answer is simple. Good and atrocious movies serve the cause of Historical Movies just as much: the former shows what can be achieved; the latter provides a list of what must not be done. What wasted opportunities one can find and why sometimes modest low budget films give so much joy to us, audience while famous actors and directors lose their souls in appalling turds!
Advertisement
Dino Risi is a celebrated Italian director; Ugo Tognazzi does not need to be introduced. Carole Bouquet can avoid being wooden as for the late Coluche he could be funny and Michel Serrault has impersonated so many tragic characters including Deadly circuit.
Possibly unknown in the Anglo-Saxon movie verse, these names are honourable. Why did they accept to participate to this mess? The answer must be it was well paid; still it remains a mess in which a lot of time and money were invested and could have been so much better.
Advertisement
The first scene follows the slow progress of a train of chariots (Merovingian kings were known to travel in easy stages with horses and chariots). The guards are impressive, some wearing pseudo Frankish helmets. There is a physical feel of the days where one could only travel by daylight and when one did one was cautious when crossing forests. Add to this the concubines Dagobert was notorious to enjoy and yes, as Joe Public you start to approve. Sprinkle the dough with a really long-haired king and you start smiling…
Until the following scene when your attention is jerked by the incursion of barbarians wearing horned helmets. This is when you start regretting promising Medievalists.net a review about this film.
It took 6 hours including breaks when a miffed TS Morangles almost slammed the key-board to complete watching this atrocity. Survival was granted by taking notes of the innumerable mistakes this waste of rolls of films adds up every passing second. To mention a few:
Mayor of palace: good; post held by a priest: wrong.
Costumes great: especially the Byzantine fashion for the ladies but this is really about it.
Vulgar, obscene does not carry it. In truth, Carry on Laughing One in the Eye for Harold is way funnier. It says a lot about the dismal feeling of wretchedness I experienced watching this, that a show like Carry on felt brilliantly humouristic.
Advertisement
Consider you have seen the interesting parts when you have looked at this article pictures!
Down to the curiously Carolingian crown. Coluche is sad and we are depressed.
Dagobert Fernandel version is immensely better (yes, the king was a noted womanizer), not the less his deportment is regal, he is not a coward and more importantly, the storyline does not indulge in what can be termed charitably toilet humour. The only time I laughed was when Richard III Bosworth moment ended up quoted as ‘my kingdom for a horse’ – says it all… History Dagobert was not libidinous; his faith was sincere and he fought battles (these were the days kings led the charge… unlike today’s presidents). These were the days where people really believed in God, where Popes and Bishops owned the weapon of massive destruction against unruly kings: excommunication.
This is not a random detail as it is the argument of the movie: Way-led by his libido, the king must get pardoned by the Pope during a pilgrimage to Rome. The villain is evil emperor Heraclius who plans (spoiler: and succeeds into poisoning the king) as to rule both realms. After a while enduring this movie, you too will be tempted into murdering Dagobert and it includes the scenarists!
Advertisement
The historical advisers have no choice but commit ritual seppuku as the list of outrageous errors does not stop. Dagobert died in 639 AD; still here caliphates are quoted and the king cuts his hair to trim them in a rather touching late Medieval look (to impress the pope?). Clearly Bosworth had made another fashion victim. By now you are groaning no, begging the torture of watching this movie to stop… (Did I mention the word condottiere is uttered?) One can understand why Coluche felt compelled to die twice in said repulsive pap!
… Yet, like in every hell, there is a paving of good intentions: the locations in Italy are sumptuous: especially, the remarkable church scenes, the mosaics, the late Roman city walls.
This cinematographic failure takes you to the Villa Adriana (it is not everyday that one is filming in a real imperial palace), the basilica di Sant’Elia. Santa Sabina and Santa Prassede churches are here and all are doing their very best to give dignity to this fiasco; truthfully the movie should be seen as a homage to Rome and Lazio early medieval churches. In short: 104 minutes of my life lost. No not lost; enjoy what follows:
Reviewed by TS Morangles
Unlike last entry which was approving of the 1963 film, this review will remind you of the opinion of Barbarians regarding the decadence of the late Roman Empire.
Do not waste time searching this movie via streaming, do not buy it. In a few words: forget it ever existed. But why are you writing about it; are you asking aptly? The answer is simple. Good and atrocious movies serve the cause of Historical Movies just as much: the former shows what can be achieved; the latter provides a list of what must not be done. What wasted opportunities one can find and why sometimes modest low budget films give so much joy to us, audience while famous actors and directors lose their souls in appalling turds!
Dino Risi is a celebrated Italian director; Ugo Tognazzi does not need to be introduced. Carole Bouquet can avoid being wooden as for the late Coluche he could be funny and Michel Serrault has impersonated so many tragic characters including Deadly circuit.
Possibly unknown in the Anglo-Saxon movie verse, these names are honourable. Why did they accept to participate to this mess? The answer must be it was well paid; still it remains a mess in which a lot of time and money were invested and could have been so much better.
The first scene follows the slow progress of a train of chariots (Merovingian kings were known to travel in easy stages with horses and chariots). The guards are impressive, some wearing pseudo Frankish helmets. There is a physical feel of the days where one could only travel by daylight and when one did one was cautious when crossing forests. Add to this the concubines Dagobert was notorious to enjoy and yes, as Joe Public you start to approve. Sprinkle the dough with a really long-haired king and you start smiling…
Until the following scene when your attention is jerked by the incursion of barbarians wearing horned helmets. This is when you start regretting promising Medievalists.net a review about this film.
It took 6 hours including breaks when a miffed TS Morangles almost slammed the key-board to complete watching this atrocity. Survival was granted by taking notes of the innumerable mistakes this waste of rolls of films adds up every passing second. To mention a few:
Vulgar, obscene does not carry it. In truth, Carry on Laughing One in the Eye for Harold is way funnier. It says a lot about the dismal feeling of wretchedness I experienced watching this, that a show like Carry on felt brilliantly humouristic.
Consider you have seen the interesting parts when you have looked at this article pictures!
Down to the curiously Carolingian crown. Coluche is sad and we are depressed.
Dagobert Fernandel version is immensely better (yes, the king was a noted womanizer), not the less his deportment is regal, he is not a coward and more importantly, the storyline does not indulge in what can be termed charitably toilet humour. The only time I laughed was when Richard III Bosworth moment ended up quoted as ‘my kingdom for a horse’ – says it all… History Dagobert was not libidinous; his faith was sincere and he fought battles (these were the days kings led the charge… unlike today’s presidents). These were the days where people really believed in God, where Popes and Bishops owned the weapon of massive destruction against unruly kings: excommunication.
This is not a random detail as it is the argument of the movie: Way-led by his libido, the king must get pardoned by the Pope during a pilgrimage to Rome. The villain is evil emperor Heraclius who plans (spoiler: and succeeds into poisoning the king) as to rule both realms. After a while enduring this movie, you too will be tempted into murdering Dagobert and it includes the scenarists!
The historical advisers have no choice but commit ritual seppuku as the list of outrageous errors does not stop. Dagobert died in 639 AD; still here caliphates are quoted and the king cuts his hair to trim them in a rather touching late Medieval look (to impress the pope?). Clearly Bosworth had made another fashion victim. By now you are groaning no, begging the torture of watching this movie to stop… (Did I mention the word condottiere is uttered?) One can understand why Coluche felt compelled to die twice in said repulsive pap!
… Yet, like in every hell, there is a paving of good intentions: the locations in Italy are sumptuous: especially, the remarkable church scenes, the mosaics, the late Roman city walls.
This cinematographic failure takes you to the Villa Adriana (it is not everyday that one is filming in a real imperial palace), the basilica di Sant’Elia. Santa Sabina and Santa Prassede churches are here and all are doing their very best to give dignity to this fiasco; truthfully the movie should be seen as a homage to Rome and Lazio early medieval churches. In short: 104 minutes of my life lost. No not lost; enjoy what follows:
You can follow TS Morangles on Twitter @morangles
Click here to read the first and second part of Merovingian Movies Mania
Related Posts
Subscribe to Medievalverse