While visually appealing and pleasant to look at, this movie has numerous issues. It’s easy to recognize the Palace of Versailles as one of Europe’s most recognizable buildings—and not just because of its influence (it was imitated across Europe and continues to inspire artists and architects), but also due to the sense of mystery it holds; a representation of luxury, sophistication, and power, formalized and ritualized. It's more than just architecture; it’s an emblem. The film centers on the palace’s expansive gardens and parkland, crafting a story that says more about our own perspectives than those of people from that era. I don’t want to suggest it isn’t enjoyable, but it shouldn’t be considered historically accurate, nor should viewers assume any of the depicted events actually happened. It's fiction, as are most of its characters. The king is a real figure, certainly, but he wouldn't realistically resemble a gardener within his own palace. André Le Nôtre designed these gardens, and also created those at Tuileries in Paris, Chantilly, Fontainebleau, and Vaux-le-Vicomte. However, he was an older man during the film’s timeframe, not the youthful character portrayed by Matthias Schoenaets. Madame de Montespan and Madame de Maintenon were real people, but this movie incorrectly depicts the former as younger than the latter. Sabine de Barra is entirely fictional; a woman wouldn't have been permitted in that role. There was no feminist movement present in that society. Another flaw lies in the film’s core theme: order versus chaos within Versailles’ garden. To be honest, there’s simply no room for chaos in a meticulously planned space like this. Everything was considered and organized, even when orange trees are kept indoors! The area Sabine de Barra creates—which is actually Le Nôtre's “Bosquet de la Salle du Ball”—is purely ordered. A formal French garden with trimmed shrubs, tidy flowerbeds, and neatly swept paths embodies order. Where does the chaos appear? The strongest aspect of this film is undoubtedly the quality of its cast. Kate Winslet delivers an excellent performance, as does director/actor Alan Rickman and Stanley Tucci. Matthias Schoenaets doesn't quite measure up: he’s too young for his role as Le Nôtre, and lacks any romantic spark with Winslet. The problem is more about the characters themselves being poorly developed; they think and act like people living in our time, frequently (and including some uncomfortable scenes that feel out of place, such as one inside a carriage). Helen McCrory also presents a challenge. She does her best with the material, but her character feels stereotypical and exists mainly to provide her husband with justification for pursuing another woman. Technically, I appreciated the sets, all filmed in the UK without going to France—which wasn't even necessary. The costumes are quite good as well; I didn’t notice any obvious or egregious anachronisms in the attire, props, or scenery. The cinematography is unremarkable, and so are the dialogues. The music isn't bad; it does its job effectively.

Source on TMDB