The Affair Of The Necklace Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Her Birthright Was Stolen. Her Dignity Taken. Her Rights Denied. Deception Was The Only Option.
Paris, 1786: a woman in court. The Crown murdered her father for his views about the poor, now Jeanne wants her home and good name back. She believes all can be set right if she can talk to the Queen, whose House Minister rebuffs her. With the help of a courtside gigolo, she learns to use what others desire to get what she wants. She needs a patron: with forged letters, she convinces Cardinal de Rohan she is the Queen's confidante and can help him regain royal favor. Jeanne conspires to have the Cardinal purchase a fabulous diamond necklace for the Queen. He delivers it to Jeanne for Marie Antoinette. If the scheme breaks down, what then? Might this affair spark revolution?
| Hilary Swank | Jeanne St. Remy de Valois |
| Jonathan Pryce | Cardinal Louis de Rohan |
| Simon Baker | Rétaux de Vilette |
| Adrien Brody | Count Nicolas De La Motte |
| Brian Cox | Minister Breteuil |
| Joely Richardson | Marie-Antoinette |
| Christopher Walken | Count Cagliostro |
| Hayden Panettiere | Young Jeanne |
| Simon Kunz | Minister of Titles |
| Paul Brooke | Monsieur Bohmer |
| Peter Eyre | Monsieur Bassenge |
| Frank McCusker | Abel Duphot |
| Simon Shackleton | Louis XVI |
| Hermione Gulliford | Nicole Leguay d'Oliva |
| Geoffrey Hutchings | President D'Aligre |
| Charles Shyer |
6.00 out of 10 (1482 votes)
Visitor Reviews
a beautiful disappointment
posted on 09 Jul 2009Hillary Swank is terrific and the look of the film is gorgeous. The directing and the rest of the cast, however, is weak and the script is just plain ridiculously bad. The film makes the worst mistake possible with a historical drama: it tries to teach a history lesson, rather than letting a great story unfold from terrific characters who just happen to be real. When placed alongside great films about 18th century France like "Ridicule" and "Dangerous Liaisons," this film is painfully weak. This is definitely a "wait for video"/"wait for cable" film.
well...
posted on 16 Jan 2009I watched this film because of its cast and is overall QUITE satisfied with it. "satisfied" in the sense that the director is not familiar with directing historical films, but is still able to portray believable and beautiful scenes, "quite" in the sense that the cast is not acting as well as I've expected. Swank is alright on the whole, but it seems to me that she's playing a "Girls don't cry" role (ie. emotionless). Walken is, as usual, creepy, which I guess is ok since his role is a somekind of voo-doo fraud. Baker is alright, quite believable, but I doubt whether a gigolo would have the nerves to stick with a married woman in front of her husband (is this a tradition of French royalties?). Pryce is perfect, a very unappealing, corrupted and annoying Cardinal, great job! As for Brody, he has brought liveliness and humour to the film, and as usual, a very charming character portrayed, though I don't quite understand what the director is trying to show us about his role: a drunkard? a playboy? a schemer? a keen swordsman? I don't get it, even though this character is one of my favourites in the film. I am really disappointed that he appeared so late and so little in this film. A peculiar accent as well.Judge it as a historical film, 5/10. Judge it as a not-so-successful hybrid of comedy and historical film directed by a comedy director, 8/10.
The Americanisation of the Necklace
posted on 04 Jan 2009I wanted to watch this film because of an interest in the period, and in that sense, I wasn't disappointed. For someone without a nitpicky, in-depth knowledge of the era, I thought the 'court' costumes were stunning, and the 'love scene' was made all the more interesting because of the layers of clothes Hilary Swank had to get through!I wasn't aware of the details of 'true story' beforehand, and so I didn't have any cause to object to the 'Hollywood interpretation', nor would I now. I can recognise the difference between a movie and a documentary, and don't think the former should necessarily sacrifice its magic for each and every fact of the latter. The opening flashback, recounting the events of Jeanne's childhood, however, was a little too formulaic - the hazy, sunset meadow setting, with the young Jeanne on a swing, and her father returning home to his pregnant wife, reminded me of the opening to the dire 'Musketeer', which I started to watch for similar reasons. More 'syrupy' than magical.I would prefer a film, particularly an adaptation, where French characters are played by French actors. A perfect 'experiment' would be a faithful portrayal of Orczy's 'Scarlet Pimpernel', with an English actor who can break into believable French! Until that ceiling-smashing film comes, however, I think English actors are less 'distracting' in such roles than their American counterparts. At least 'BBC English' can be mentally interpreted as aristocratic French, and (true) Cock-er-nies, or Northern English accents, taken as the language of the 'people'. Hilary Swank's American drawl sat awkwardly with the era and the setting. I know that an American film has every right to select an American actress, but if such a choice is perfectly fitting, then why was Hilary Swank desperately trying to clip her natural speech into a forced British accent? Her lines sounded like a high school recital. Adrien Brody suited the part physically, and I loved the scene with the doctor after he was accidentally shot, although it did seem slightly 'Carry On ..'-esque. The rest of the film seemed to demand he should have been fatally wounded. With the light-weight Simon Baker, I just kept wondering which Australian soap I recognised him from (Heartbreak High).There were a number of fade outs towards the end of the film where I thought the credits should have rolled - I agree with a previous review, in that there really wasn't enough story to sustain nearly two hours of film - but, in the style of Spielberg's 'A.I.', the bulk of the running time was easy enough to watch.A superficially well-dressed dramatisation.
A Good Movie That Could Have Been Great
posted on 01 Dec 2008The costumes are lavish, the sets lush and resplendent. The story is compelling: how a strange affair of court intrigue becomes part of a larger mosaic of incidences that will eventually bring down the French monarchy. As a backdrop to the main events of the film is the rising unrest of the French citizenry who are becoming more and more disillusioned with their monarchy. A couple of great actors, most notably Jonathan Pryce as Cardinal Rohan, stand out. And yet, although much of the film is there, it is not quite all there. Unfortunately for all its splendor, the final piece needed to make the movie a triumph is lacking: a leading lady right for the part. And maybe some adjustments in the music department.First the positives: Despite a number of misgivings, this film still has the one element I always look for in any film: is the story compelling enough that, at any given moment, I care about what will happen next and it is not obvious what will happen next? And this movie definitely possesses the required attribute. Few movies have this rather simple facet, and yet, for me, it is often what will make or break a film regardless of the genre. Films as diverse as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Amadeus, and The Sting have the notable quality of being unpredictable until the very end. These last examples are of course masterpieces of film-making where Necklace is not. It's a good film with a good story but not one that will make any critics' lists.The story of The Affair of the Necklace is extremely complex involving a countess, the Cardinal of France, the Queen of France, a gigolo, a sorcerer/psychic, a couple of jewelers, a peasant actress, forged letters, and a necklace of tremendous value and prestige. From the start, we know who did it, and the story back-tracks to tell us how and why the intrigue was perpetrated.Now the not-so-good news: Hillary Swank, a 2-time academy-award-winning actress, is miscast for the part. The rest of the cast acclimates relatively well to late 18th-century France except for her. At times she seems to be playing a character more akin to an early 20th-century debutante than an 18th-century former member of the aristocracy. At times, some of her scenes appear contrived to provoke pity. The character is portrayed on the more innocent and vulnerable side of the female-character spectrum. This seems a bit hard to swallow as this woman is also a mastermind behind an intrigue that may have contributed to the downfall of the aristocracy. Maybe someone like Helena Bonham-Carter would have been a better choice...The music is also inconsistent. For the majority of the movie, 18th-century and even 17th-century music is heard which seems appropriate as this is a period picture. I noticed a brief excerpt from the Monteverdi Vespers of 1610 in one of the church scenes. At other times, "original" music sounding a lot like Enya is played which always ruins my "disbelief". It reminds me we are in a movie made a couple of centuries after the events that are taking place. The filmmakers would have probably saved a lot of time and money by sticking to period music and not hiring a composer who writes new age music.That said, this is still a good film when good films are uncommon. Perfect, not by a long shot. The script? Inconsistent but has its moments. Absorbing? Definitely. If you like period pictures, particularly those portraying pre-1800 Europe, you will still get a lot out of The Affair of the Necklace.
An Affair to Remember
posted on 25 Nov 2008After watching the trailers, knowing the fuss that was made around its sole nomination to the costume design Oscar category, i still wanted to watch this movie as this is totally my type. Furthermore, the cast was also a must see Hilary Swank, Joely Richardson, Bryan Cox, Christopher Walken, Simon Baker and Adrian Brody. Regarding the cast and the movie as a whole my one complaint goes to Hilary Swank herself. I agree with everyone else that she is, in fact a tremendous actress, but i do not agree she is the right choice for this part. She doesn't combine with the image i had of Jeanne; i imagined her to look more fierce, strong-minded and cunning, whereas Swank seems to delicate and fragile in a role that requires for the exact opposite. What she, in fact, succeeds is in creating an enormous chemistry with the other main characters of Adrian Brody and Simon Baker.My complaints aside i think this movie works extremely well considering its main purpose: it isn't supposed to be one of those larger than life Ron Howard-Biopic-straight-to-Oscar-run type of movies; and in all of its (to some extent) modesty it stands far steadier than something called a Brilliant Mind. I do not blame those who liked it (and there were many) but I, personally, didn't. Technically the production has nothing to be pointed at: costumes, sets, cinematography, the soundtrack (pay attention to it) are all first class. Although I'm not particularly fond of Director Charles Shyer's movies, i liked the way he conducted this one, and hand in hand with screenwriter John Sweet theykept the movie flowing with a constant rhythm that makes the movie not seem longer or shorter than it should have been. Some point out some of it's historical accuracy; if only the respect payed to the real events were considered as they were here, we could all go to the movies regularly and believe in those so called actual events. If Jeanne's character wasn't molded in a way that made her seem more caring, the audience would leave the movie not caring for the lead and that's not what's suppose to happen, and it didn't happen here.
( Necklace + French Royalty + Sycophants^3 + (-morals)^4)^Karma= French Revolution+Napoleon
posted on 22 Sep 2008The Affair of the Necklace (AN) is historical drama that proves that the " all for the want of a nail" parable holds true. It starts out 10-15 years before AN, when a minor French noble family was wiped out, just for saying "let's be kind to the poor," and their property seized by the French crown. The big mistake was leaving a surviving child (Jeanne (Swank)) that later wanted her family name and property restored. The bigger mistake was not giving Jeanne her request so she would go away. Being on a just mission, Jeanne stays and adeptly moves through the sycophantic royal court gathering strength and allies. Finally, an opportunity to get even and restore her family's fortune, results in the scandal of "The Affair of the Necklace". This scandal further disgraces the French Royalty, gets almost everyone else in trouble, and totally incites the rest. This helps lead to the French Revolution, then to the Napoleonic Wars. The final irony is Jeanne goes to England, out lives most everyone while France, the Royalty, and the sycophants get their just rewards. Just one big happy karmic cycle.The cast is chocked full of big name 2nd lead actors like Christopher Walken, Swank, and Pryce. This movie is beautifully-photographed and lavishly costumed. Granted AN may seem dull at times but history and real people cannot be entertaining at all times. AN also shows more than enough pettiness at court to fill a book and further savor the fate that await everyone (Alas, Russia in the 1910's made all the same mistakes). Rating for entertainment, I give AN a "C" but, for showing conniving powerful people, ring nosed sycophants, and history in an ironic twist, I give AN a "B+". Overall this movie is much like Vatel (2000) where the small guy tries to hold the tail of the tiger (royalty) while walking a tightrope, over a shark pit, with sycophants cutting the line. All and all, a good history/people film.
absolutely fabulous darling!
posted on 27 Aug 2008Affair is great as a period piece. To hell what they say about Christopher Walken's Dracula like hair. I loved him. I've read a couple of reviews that are very down on the film. If it were titled "Revolution of the Necklace" then yeah, more action would be nice, but as a drama, it's great. B-
The truth is better than this fiction
posted on 14 Jul 2008A great story was wasted by the trivialization of the real account of the theft of the necklace, based on a fictionalized mistreatment of Jeanne Remy de Valois. The woman was a fabulous schemer whose sense of entitlement is world-class. It would have been a great story if the writer had used the real one, instead of the weak screenplay composed using scant facts. The role of the fake Countess La Motte is a scenery chewer worthy of Faye Dunaway in her heydey and I would have loved to have seen Tim Curry assay the Cardinal Rohan character which is equal parts scoundrel and fool. The only victim in the real story is Marie Antoinette, in whose name the scheme is initiated, but who never had any part in the necklace theft - in fact turned it down three times when offered it by the foolhardy jewelers who designed it for the more audacious Madame du Barry, Marie Antoinette's godfather-in-law's mistress. The real interplay of ego and privilege ending in utter tragedy had all the stuff of a fascinating and lively movie. This wasn't it.
A ...NECKLACE Made of Both True Gems and Fabulous Fakes
posted on 17 Apr 2008Despite John Sweet's uneven script, this fact-based tale of intrigue and scams in Marie Antoinette's court is watchable thanks to sumptuous production values (Milena Canonero's gorgeous costume design garnered an Oscar nomination), scene-stealing performances by Christopher Walken and Adrien Brody (who even gets into some swordplay as the heroine's dissolute nobleman husband. Few people can make lechery and debauchery look as sexy and fun as Brody does here! :-), and good solid work from most of the rest of the cast. In this drastic change of pace from her Oscar-winning performance in BOYS DON'T CRY, Hilary Swank plays Jeanne St. Remy de Valois, who takes revenge on her father's death and her family's ruin by pulling a scam on Cardinal Jonathan Pryce involving an ornate diamond necklace designed for exiled Madame DuBarry and spurned by the Queen (Joely Richardson captures Marie Antoinette's self-absorbed naïveté while still managing to make me feel a little sorry for her, knowing she'd pay for her foolishness with her life). Swank's performance isn't bad, but it's not as assured as it should be, considering that Jeanne's plot turned out to be instrumental in spawning the French Revolution. Next to the rest of the sterling cast, which also includes Brian Cox and Simon Baker, Swank sometimes comes across as a little girl who's playing dress-up and feeling self-conscious about it. FTR, my fave line comes from Brody who, after being shot by Swank's lady-in-waiting during his swordfight with Baker, is having the bullet in his butt removed none-too-gently by a doctor: `Good God, are you digging for potatoes?!` :-)
The story of a necklace, and it's power to bring down all of France...
posted on 15 Feb 2008The Affair of the Necklace is a surprising film for one that falls within the dreaded period piece genre. Whenever I watch films of this nature I typically feel like I have seen the story time and time again. A mismatched couple finds love together, only to have some tragedy befall them by the end of the film. It is the classic "Pride & Prejudice" scenario mixed with a blend of "Wuthering Heights". It is sad because for a very long time Hollywood couldn't release a film that redefined the genre. Most viewers avoided these types of films because of the cliché nature coupled with the dull, monotonous acting that could only be accomplished by a short-list of actors. To me the genre is painful, but this film doesn't seem to fit within that age-old mold. What makes this film stand out from the rest within the genre is the fact that screenwriter John Sweet gives us deception and intrigue with our characters, coupled with a story that you would see in typical mainstream cinema. While it may be based on a true event, Sweet's story, coupled with the decent eye of director Charles Shyer (of Baby Boom fame) gives us a modern twist instead of the stale comradery that this genre is commonly used to.What makes this film stand out is that Shyer doesn't hide anything from us. This can be both a positive and a negative because it doesn't keep you guessing until the end. You know what is going to happen, it isn't sympathetic in nature, but instead demonstrates the power of the human desire and the corruption of the human "need". What I found interesting about this film is the contrast between the class that Swank tries to fit within and that of the upper class citizens of Versailles. All that she wants is to be a part of her family's history, which is that of wealthy and social standing, while it is that upper class that ultimately destroys the reputation of France. Swank's character Jeanne is shown to become a symbol of the common class, but in reality she is just trying to reach up into a wide open sky. The struggle then becomes rather confusing as Shyer wants us to feel sympathy for the obvious villain (Pryce) or are we to feel sympathy for the central character, Swank, which commits evil deeds for her own self righteousness. While some will argue that this is a downfall to the film, I kind of enjoyed it. I liked seeing my mind flutter between the two, knowing that one seems evil and the other is evil. It was creative for this period piece to see the story unfold from the eyes of the thief instead of the savior. This worked until the end, when Shyer demanded sympathy from us and, in my case, found none. By the end, I could not care what happened to Swank because she had it coming to her all along, from the beginning we see her mind reacting to situations, and this one happened to put her in the hypothetical "hot seat". It was this internal struggle with this film that really made Shyer's outing stand apart from the rest in the genre.While I would agree with most film critics that Swank is an actress that is not afraid of sinking her teeth into a role, I did feel that this singular role was not made for her shoes. Swank seems "silly" as Jeanne, attempting to bring a level of emotion to a character that felt more snobbish and jealous than honest. Her smile, her actions, her sex-appeal just wasn't prevalent in this film, nor did it work. This was her first feature role after Boys Don't Cry, and I think that Shyer really just wanted to ride the Oscar bandwagon, without thinking further within his character. Pryce is … well … Pryce. If you have seen one of his period piece films, then you have seen him in this one. I think directors know he looks like someone from that period, so he is instantly cast. Simon Baker is a decent choice to play the gigolo; he seems to have the smile that could melt women. Adrien Brody seemed to come out from left field for this film. He is a great actor, but he was used as a classic "reveal" in this film. A surprise known actors comes in during the center of the film to bring viewers out of the possible sleep they could be facing. Christopher Walken, a actor that I believe rules this generation of cinema, was odd in this film. I kept waiting for him to yell, "COWBELL, this film needs more COWBELL". He wore a strange mustache and odd hair, but was fun none the less. Alas, Antoinette herself could have been better played than through the eyes of Joely Richardson. While she may be a decent actress, this was just too goofy for her. While I loved Sweet's story, it was Shyer's choice of casting that really hurt the overall sensation of this film.Overall, I could suggest this film to friends and family. I thought, outside of the performances, that the cinematography was beautiful, the change of direction from your normal period piece drama was a breath of fresh air, and that Shyer did a decent job of placing a new spin on a tired genre. There are some major sparks to this film, but it just didn't light a full fire in my eyes. The addition of Alanis Morissette's hypnotic voice to the opening and closing to this film added a strong undertone that set the pace for the rest of the film. It was a strong film for Shyer; redefining a genre is smart, but he could have strengthened his directing arm a bit more by adding crucial actors to better roles and a less empathy towards the true villain.Grade: *** out of *****
The music was inappropriate as well.
posted on 08 Jan 2008I had a number of objections to this film, most of which would merely second many of the points raised by surreyhill. He does not, however, mention the musical score. It was to be expected that swatches of genuine 18th Century music would be brought in, but it might well also be expected that said music would be French! The Bourbons had court composers/musicians, stables of them, and the music of the 18th Century ones is obviously in public domain. But we get Handel, J.S. Bach, Antonio Vivaldi, and a smidgen of Mozart. Even given the dominance of Italian music in 18th Century Europe, the French in general, and the Bourbon court in particular, tended to be chauvinistic (they invented the word) regarding French culture. Padre Martini's famous song "Plaisir d'Amour" is admissible, and might conceivably have been sung by Marie Antoinette, as in the film, but Bach and Handel would have been right out! Not only were they (gasp!) German, but their styles were regarded as antiquated even by their partisans by 1786. It was nice to hear a bit of Mozart's incomparable "Exsultate Jubilate," but, while some of Mozart's works did please some hearers in France, that work would probably not have been among them. One can imagine the producers (and the film's composer) saying, "Who cares what we use? Nobody knows that classical stuff any more."
C'mon, It's not that bad!
posted on 02 Jan 2008Why is everyone ranting about this movie? The story was engaging, the cinematography was beautiful, and the acting was top-notch (with the slight exception of Miss Swank who was a little stiff for two-thirds of the movie). I can certainly think of many more "period films" that fall well below the style and effectiveness of this film - I'm thinking "The Age of Innocence" and "The Golden Bowl."Nice little movie that won't put you to sleep or make you cringe with embarrassment for the actors involved. If you want an even better introduction to period pieces, go rent "An Ideal Husband" or most Merchant/Ivory productions.
L'affair du collier tres dull
posted on 17 Dec 2007As a period piece and a film about pre-revolutionary France, the Versailles court, and the nefarious and nepotistic relationships between its members, The Affair of the Necklace works effectively. Scheming, intrigues, illicit liaisons, backroom deals and attempts to placate royalty were part and parcel of the court in the 1780s, and this film explores and articulates that quite well. All with grandiose sets and lavish costumes too, which add to its appeal (though, as is often the case, the couple of scenes where there need to be poor people tend to look like theme-park reconstructions). This is not your standard period drama though - romance is secondary to the plot, and the only passions are those of greed, ambition and deceit. Or at least they are MEANT to be...The story itself doesn't seem as though it could sustain a full-length movie. When a young woman seeks to regain her family estate and is spurned by queen Marie-Antoinette (played with arrogance by Joely Richardson) she instead embarks on an audacious scheme to defraud the crown-appointed jeweller of a magnificent diamond necklace. She uses a court gigolo, a royal housemaid, a street performer and a series of forged letters to dupe a debauched and vain cardinal into purchasing the necklace on behalf of the queen. The event, which actually did transpire in 1786, was a source of hilarious scandal and helped further reduce the already diminishing credibility of Antoinette and the monarchy.As a piece of history, then, The Affair of the Necklace is like a finely-painted puzzle of a much larger jigsaw - interesting and pretty, but ultimately fairly unfulfilling. As a film I don't think it works, partly because of the thin plot and partly because of the casting, particularly in the case of Hilary Swank. She does not imbue this role with enough beguiling or contradictory qualities to make it interesting; the director wants us to think of her as Machiavellian and manipulative, but Swank's rather wholesome demeanour - and the 'pure' motive which underpins her 'crimes' - all combine to make her a rather wishy-washy character. So many other actresses could've done this better and brought more depth and curiosity to the role, which is not to question Swank's obvious talent. It's a movie that needed to be played more like Basic Instinct meets Dangerous Liaisons, and comes out instead like Disneyland.
The Affair of the Necklace
posted on 13 Dec 2007This was a movie I had always had a slight interest in seeing and never gotten around to it, then I eventually forced myself to rent it and I must say I really did enjoy it. For all the history buffs this is not a movie for them, but if you really just sit down and watch without analyzing every detail it is very enjoyable. The plot is very interesting and interwoven and for the most part the cast does an excellent job. My only exception was unfortunately Hilary Swank. I have always loved Hilary Swank, but she didn't seem to have a clear understanding of what she wanted to portray with Jeanne. Jonathan Pryce was absolutely fantastic as the cardinal. He conveyed a danger that was very subtle yet frightening at the same time. The costumes were amazing, and I was very happy to see some scenes actually shot in "The Hall of Mirrors." Charles Shyer didn't blow me away with his directing style and some shots seemed uneven and out of place, but it was in no way distracting. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't necessarily require you to think very much, but it is still enjoyable. I'd recommend it for a lazy afternoon next chance you get.
Diamonds are a girl's best friend...and also her undoing..
posted on 12 Oct 2007Poor Countess de LaMotte Valois thinking she could be politically correct at the time of the reign of Louis XVI, in trying to restore her former title and status, just before the French Revolution. How did she pretend to outsmart a sly fox like the Cardinal to get her situation fixed and to get to keep the valuable necklace? Well, those diamonds actually prove to be her downfall from grace and to a fate far worse than keeping the good family name and making her name in court. Oh well, had Anita Loos told the story, maybe she could have found a way to have this woman having her cake and eating it as well. But it wasn't meant to be, as shown in this dark and beautifully photographed film. The costumes by Manela Canonero are authentic and gorgeous. We can even hear the sound of the silk in Dolby sound. The Marie Antoinette of Joely Richardson is completely blown out of proportion. Her diction and singing abilities are just ridiculous. Ms. Swank tries her best, but doesn't succed. Jonathan Pryce and Christopher Walken make the best of what they're given to play. At least they can keep their "heads" high after all was said and done in the name of the French Revolution.
Absolute rubbish
posted on 12 Jun 2007Laughably miscast and opulent production concerning an 18th Century French scandal. There's nothing worse than watching a dull movie's first half hour. Eventually the picture picks up interest (usually when Swank is absent from the screen). "The Affair of the Necklace" (terrible title) is so dumbed down that a narrator is needed to explain the plot! Add a bad T.V. commercial style production (wind blowing dead leaves through a doorway?). There's even the obligatory cut to black after the guillotine drops. Lacking the energy, imagination or flair that a historical production needs to really work "TAOTN" is a good example of bad recent stylish movies based on fact.
Well worth watching
posted on 16 Mar 2007I disagree with some of the harsh criticism of the film on these pages. This movie is far from dull, the music, much of it classical, is just fine, and the acting is very good, all around, including Hillary Swank. The opening credits have to be among the most beautiful ever filmed, and relevant to setting up the movie. There is not a great deal of depth of character, but then there does not need to be; this is a great story. And it is an historically accurate story that I was unfamiliar with. I checked the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it matched the movie, so it cannot be too far off, unlike some so-called historical films. The the story is presented plausibly within the film, regardless. But it is not a documentary. It is presented with just enough of a light touch to not be ponderous. And there are a few amusing and surprising twists, particularly near the end. As to the accents, basically any film maker has to make a choice, to go for authentic accents, try to fake the accents, or just skip it. I feel skipping it is better than bad accents, which would call more attention to the issue. There is only one actor with a French accent in the movie that I recall. Who cares? Just as long as I don't have to read subtitles. The movie brings to mind the Masterpiece Theater version of I Claudius. Here all the upper class Romans spoke with a British accent. The acting was very good, but it was still a TV production. But it was a riveting historical drama. If you liked I Claudius, you will like this. Plus, the cinematography is vastly superior. As to Hillary Swank, I tried watching Boys Don't Cry, but never made it through; it was more of a teen flick. She does just fine here. Toward the end, her enunciation becomes less precise than in the beginning. I assume that as the plot unravels, she inevitably drops some of her earlier pretense of nobility, which is reflected in her speech. She is portraying a woman who was pulled from a noble upbringing at early childhood and orphaned, who is trying to return to her earlier station in life, with limited success. This is reflected in her out of date fashions, but also in her manners. I think Hillary got the role right.
Wasted opportunity
posted on 05 Jan 2007This film has so many of the ingredients of a great historical period piece-- sumptuous costumes and locations, accomplished actors, and a story filled with romance, scandal, deception, and intrigue which concerns notorious historical figures (Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette)-- that it's a shame that it turned out to be so mediocre. The direction is sloppy and uninspired. A few scenes, especially the execution scene, give a hint of unrealized potential, but they are the exceptions. Most of the scenes don't really come to life or have the dramatic impact one would expect. Had the lead role not been played by Hillary Swank, the movie might have worked anyway. Many an actor has lifted a film out of its mediocrity into something worthwhile with a great performance. But Swank does the opposite in this film. She's a fine actress, but she was seriously miscast here. She looks uncomfortable and is never quite believable. It's a case of an actress trying to fit herself into a role rather than making the role fit her, which is what must be done to give a great performance in this type of film. It's what Cate Blanchet and Bette Davis did when playing Elizabeth I, Katharine Hepburn did when playing Mary of Scotland and Eleanor of Aquitane, and it's what Judi Dench did when playing Queen Victoria. It's also what Joely Richardson managed to accomplish in 'Necklace' with her wonderful Marie Antoinette. But she isn't on screen enough to counterbalance Swank's performance, and when Christopher Walken shows up, forget it. Walken's gift is for subtlety, not hammy character parts. His Cagliostro is painful to watch.If you really like historical costume dramas and are willing to overlook serious flaws, then this movie might be worth your while. It's not horrible, just disappointing. But there are many better films of this type (Dangerous Laiasons springs immediately to mind), and your time might be better to spent seeking them out rather than settling for this.
We All Get What's Coming to Us!
posted on 19 Jul 2009The infamous,and evil Giuseppe Balsamo,aka Alessandro,Count of Cagliostro,was arguably the most notorious fraud,charlatan,and bunko artist of the 18th century.And,as reliably portrayed in this story,he fit in rather nicely with the rest of the corrupt opportunists and swindlers.Having worked for 8 years as a prison psychologist in Ohio,it's been my observation that there are no guilty persons incarcerated.Instead,it seems as though the legal profession must be among the most corrupt and incompetent in existence.All of these innocent persons being advised by their counsel to plead guilty.My own observations is,that if they're not guilty of the offense for which they're being currently incarcerated,they ought to think about all the evil things that they've done and for which they've escaped punishment.It all comes out even in the wash,so to speak.So it goes with Cagliostro.While perhaps not legally culpable,he was certainly involved in this morally.And he DID escape punishment from the French.yet,he eventually got his.He moved to Rome.and opened a Masonic Lodge.Now,in Europe,the Masons aren't a men's service organization;They happen to be viewed as heresy.So,Cagliostro was arrested,brought before the Inquisition,and received the capital sentence.The Pope commuted the sentence to life imprisonment,and he spent the rest of his life in prison.MORAL:WE really don't need anyone else to foul up our lives,now,do we?We usually do a great job on our own.