Ok, who saw it ? Qui l'a vu ? Should i run and see it ?

I've seen it, and it's really not bad - the actors are great, and the cinematography looks gorgeous.

Anybody knows if there is an English title, please? Or did they keep the French one?

Thanks!
:o]

I've just seen the film tonight as part of a French film festival for films which still have not got a UK release (which applies to most French films). Whilst it is no doubt an enjoyable romp and Diane Kruger is always worth seeing it was marred by an incredible series of historical howlers of schoolboy proportions and the historical adviser on the film (if there was one, which I doubt) should at least have the decency to return his fee.

To list them all would be exhausting but to select a few: St Petersburg not Moscow was the capital of Russia in 1912, the treaty of alliance between France and Russia had already been signed in 1894 (and that did not require an automatic declaration of war by either side) 18 years earlier. Britain never signed a formal treaty with Russia until after WWI started and disliked the phrase "Triple Entente" which was only used by the French press as an alternative to the "Triple Alliance" between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy which had been signed in 1887 (although Italy later backed out and entered WWI on the Allied side in 1915). Juares was shot on July 31 (not the 13th) and only Britain declared war on Germany (after she invaded Belgium). It was Germany who declared war on both Russia and France (the latter for supposedly bombing Nuremberg although there were no planes in the infant French Air Force which could fly that far).

Soft collar-attached shirts were not generally available until well after WWI (the Tiger Brigade police all seemed to be wearing modern-day shirts whilst their enemies in the Paris police were all wearing period shirts with stiff, detachable collars - was this a statement?). Certainly no policeman would attend a formal dinner as Valentin did, without wearing a tie and with his collar undone. Also when Valentin and Bianchi go out on their first mission to encounter Bonnot Bianchi has great trouble starting the car - a 1904 Dion DeBouton- using a crank handle yet during the chase sequence in the market Valentin leaps into the car and drives off as easily as if it were James Bond's Aston Martin yet again ignition-driven cars were a post-WWI invention. Before then cars (particularly the model in question) had to be started using a crank handle.

These points may be pedantic but I think it would have been more successful if it stuck more closely to period detail as certainly the US-TV series "The Untouchables" (which this undoubtedly copies) did (although I agree the 1987 Brian de Palma film did to a lesser extent). Instead of the rather ludicrous plot of the embezzled Russian bonds (they were not made until WWI had started and it was the Russians who embezzled French loans not French financiers and they were made worthless by the Revolution when the Soviets refused to honour them) it would have been better to have included a real scandal such as the Caillaux affair when a right-wing editor who published damaging correspondence to a politician was shot by the politician's wife and former mistress- she was later acquitted- which riveted French society immediately before WWI.

Also why does the IMDb cast list give Diane Kruger's character the name of Radetzky - a famous Austrian general in the mid-nineteenth century when her name and that of her spouse is clearly, if rather inelegantly, Bolkonski? Shome mishtake surely?