Kirpianuscus for costumes, for the admirable work of Adrien Brody and Jonathan Pryce, for the effort of Hillary Swank to be credible in a role who is not real comfortable for her, for a lovely Marie Antoinette by Joely Richardson, for the decent way for present a legend in attractive manner. film of costumes and atmosphere, remembering Dumas more than the spirit of reign of Louis XVI, it is a beautiful film. and this is enough.

richard-1787 There's nothing wrong with the acting in this movie, but it's still largely a failure, and that because of the script, which meanders here and there, not keeping the characters consistent, not explaining things that need to be explained, etc. Primarily, it fails to make us care about Jeanne de la Motte. Yes, it's terrible that she lost her family and home when she was a child. But deciding to take advantage of the very naive Cardinal de Rohan to get enough money to buy back her family estate makes her unsympathetic and foolish as well, as we know she will not be able to take advantage of any momentary success she might have in her efforts to deceive the Cardinal. Too often, the characters' actions just don't make sense. Jeanne remains distant, despite the occasional efforts to elicit our sympathies for her.There's no reason to watch this movie, I'm afraid. It's slow moving and uninteresting.

blanche-2 Certainly the true story of "The Affair of the Necklace" is one of the most fascinating in all history, and despite a lot of problems, this 2001 film, deriving its name from said affair, is interesting if misguided. The director seemed to want a sexually-charged drama, though he didn't get one. The casting is odd, starring Hilary Swank as Comtesse Jeanne LaMotte. She doesn't have enough European sensibility. Adrien Brody plays her cavorting husband and doesn't seem to get the period either. As Cardinal Rohan, however, Jonathan Pryce is very good, as are some of the performances in the smaller roles.There are lots of complaints on this board about the accents, which goes to show you that this film failed on a few levels - people would probably not be mentioning accents if they'd really loved this movie. First of all, there isn't anything wrong with the accents, not the accents themselves or the variety of them. Films have mixed accents for years. For those who think everyone should have been speaking with a French accent, think again. The theatrical rule: if you are playing a foreigner living in his own country, say France, he is not speaking English with a French accent; he is speaking his native tongue; therefore, no accent is required. Were this not the case, all Chekov plays would be performed with the actors using thick Russian accents just as one example. Many actors use the more attractive British accent instead. Maybe there could have been more uniformity, but you can say that about any WWII propaganda film, where Hollywood hired actual foreigners to work among the Americans.I actually found the movie intriguing, as it's a great story, even if it wasn't told particularly well. It did deviate from the truth quite a bit, though. LaMotte was not as she was portrayed. She came from a poor family but was of royal blood, and what she wanted was a good-sized pension from the Queen (here Joely Richardson, no teen queen), who ignored her as in the film. Jeanne's plot consisted of the forged letters by Marie asking Cardinal Rohan, in actuality Jeanne's lover, to lend her the money, not just guarantee the payments. Louis and Marie wanted a public trial not just because the Affair of the Necklace had further destroyed Marie's reputation, but because France was abuzz with the rumor than Jeanne was Marie's lover. As in the film, Marie did wind up in England and write her memoirs, but they were filled with stories of a lesbian relationship between her and Marie Antoinette.In portraying Jeanne as somehow sympathetic - denied her place in society, as well as her home and her name, and watching her father (who was in reality a drunk) killed by soldiers - a lot of the teeth is taken out of the story. While 1938's "Marie Antoinette" makes Marie a heroine, this one portrays her as a cold bitch. Selfish and shallow she certainly was and like much of history's royalty, completely out of touch with her people - but Jeanne was no saint either. A more accurate telling of this story would make for a much better drama.

alex-burch This 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.