AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

mark.waltz From what I've read, many facts were altered from the story of the real Countess Jeanne de Valois. But I'm not here to quibble over Hollywood's history of messing with facts. I'm here to praise or condemn this film as entertainment, and while I choose not the highest of praise, I do indeed praise it. This costume drama is an absolutely delightful dangerous liaison of revenge, set in the very same era of "Les Liaisons Dangerous", this is the story of another calculating female who seeks to regain what was stolen from her family, and that's merely the estate she was brought up in, not the throne taken away by the Bourbon dynasty. I question only lightly the decision to cast two time Academy Award winning actress Hilary Swank in the role of the devious social climbing countess, but once I got used to her, I forgot the fact that she seemed far two modern at first to be part of 18th Century France, taking place just as the peasants began plotting a little something called a revolution.Like "Dangerous Liasons", this is often funny, using sly humor to grab the audience and bring them in. Swank has lost all efforts to become part of queen Marie Antoinette's court, so she turns to disfavored cardinal Jonathan Pryce to fool him into a conspiracy. A rather dark souled count (Christopher Walken) provides additional underhanded support, mentioned as being a part of the Illuminati. Joely Richardson doesn't always come off as commanding as Marie Antoinette but her role isn't written to be very layered, either. Classical music, both sweet and sinister, aides Swank in achieving her goal, but with the inclusion of a lavish diamond necklace into the plot and angered masses preparing for attack, it's running neck and neck as to who will end up with the necklace and who will find themselves facing a darker conclusion ironically involving their neck.The real Countess Jeanette was presumably less sympathetic than as represented by Swank here, but so what. Everything about this film just strikes a cord with me as history and fiction mix together as dirt and blood would be on the staircase of the guillotine. Bringing back memories of "Dangerous Liasons", "Amadeus", various films about the lives of Marie Antoinette, Madame Du Barry, Cardinal Richileu and fictional characters created by Charles Dickens flowed through my memory. This might not be a perfect history lesson, but as dramatic license takes its right, so does this film to make its narrative riveting and unforgettable. The conclusion does tend to drag with its "whatever became of...." narrative, and by the time they got to Swank, I said to myself, "Well, it's about time!"

fiddleferme Everything was well done in the movie; it was intriguingly written, well acted and one of the best period dramas I have watched. The pace of the plot kept my interest and it was cleverly presented. Not sure why some folks didn't like it. The scenery was authentic and magnificent and the action and performances flowed easily through it. It gave an in depth insight into the French Revolutionary period and inspired me to do more research. It was well worth watching. It did annoy me a bit to have the French peasant class portrayed with cockney accents; but that is my only real complaint. I thoroughly recommend this as an engrossing Sunday movie selection. I do so love a mystery.

SnoopyStyle Based on a true story, in 1767 Jeanne St. Remy de Valois grew up in privilege. However her father was sympathetic to the common man and the family loses everything. Her father is killed and soon she became an orphan. In 1784, Jeanne (Hilary Swank) sets off to plead her family's case to Queen Marie Antoinette (Joely Richardson). The House Minister Breteuil (Brian Cox) blocks her at every turn. With the help of Rétaux de Vilette (Simon Baker), she learns the ways of the corrupt superficial court. The duo seeks the patronage of Cardinal Louis de Rohan (Jonathan Pryce) to press her case. They convince him with forged letters to purchase a extravagant diamond necklace for the Queen. The scheme goes wrong and it causes a great scandal.It's a costume drama with plenty of costume but not much drama. There is a lot of decadence without much context of the coming French revolution. Somehow this story must be placed more firmly in the scope of history. It isn't really and the movie loses its power. The french court needs more excesses. The french public needs to be shown on its knees. A few riots with lots of dead would help the cause. The movie needs blood on the streets, and a few action battle scenes to break up the stuffy court.The acting is stiff for the most part. Hilary Swank has to take much of the blame. She doesn't fit costume drama that well. The dialog is clunky and it clunks off of her lips. The cast is composed of great actors and they do their best to keep this afloat but there is a general lack of tension in the story.

classicalsteve The 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.