User Reviews

Despite 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?!` :-)

Napoleon once said that the French Revolution was caused by The Seven Years War, the Phylloxera grapevine fungus, and The Affair of the Necklace. It lasted for many years, eventually culminating in the Napoleonic Wars and the Empire Waist dress. It is surprising to the serious student of history that three causative factors were implicated, as the screenplay for the Affair of the Necklace alone is surely sufficient cause to put a few assorted heads on the block.

The Affair of the Necklace involves a historical scandal in the court of Marie Antoinette. Hilary Swank plays a young woman in a marriage of convenience to Adrien Brody's character, who feels her ancestral lands and family name were unjustly seized and taken from her by the French crown. She thinks if she can get to court and lay her tragic history before Queen Marie Antoinette, that the Queen's feminine heart will be moved by her plight. So, she marries the Compte de la Motte in order to get a title which will admit her to court. Marrying Adrian Brody has to rank right up there with La Gwyneth's marriage to Colin Firth in SIL on the all-time Top 10 ranking of "Least Odious Arranged Marriages of Convenience in Motion Picture History".

There's a lot of skullduggery involving licentious, ambitious Cardinals, jewelers who never hit on the fruity scheme of busting up an unsold necklace they were seriously in hock for making and selling off the diamonds individually, and a very odd charlatan psychic type mesmerist/seer played by the preternaturally-creepy Christopher Walken.

I could tell you more, but why? This movie is beautifully-photographed, lavishly costumed, and by and large, dreadfully acted, edited, and directed. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad Hilary Swank is in it. The 1,000 word limit precludes that entirely. And as for editing, when your cuts cause characters heads to jump around in the frame, that's bad.

I didn't expect much, though, since from the very get-go, the movie violated Surreyhill's First Law of Bad Historical Costume Drama: If the Dogs are wrong, forget the rest. They give Marie Antoinette a Chinese Crested as a lap dog, which is a big gaffe, since the first Cresteds were first brought to Europe in the mid 1850's, and this was to England, as part of a zoological exhibition. But then, I think that the Cresteds weren't the only members of the cast who were chosen for their interesting and unusual looks, as opposed to their actual suitability to play the part.

The Cast is pretty high-octane for a movie that basically bombed at the box office and garnered lukewarm reviews. Christopher Walken is joined by Swank and Brody, and let us not forget Jonathon Pryce. Simon Baker is appealing in a beige pantyhose sort of way as the hero, but when your hero is a gigolo who hopes to personally profit from the sale of what is essentially stolen property, you are entering interesting territory, particularly if your lipliner also wanders around a bit, as Baker's does. The problem with Baker is that he seemed to have great difficult taking his lines seriously, and one can see why. There are some real clunkers in this movie, and also, it relies heavily on voiceover narration to make the plot comprehensible, and this is another sign a movie is in big trouble. It violates almost every rule of "show, don't tell".

I was disgruntled to find much time elapsed before first appearance of Adrian Brody. However, he does play "The Compte" and Surreyhill's Second Corollary of bodice-ripping clearly states that any male character under 45 who has the title of "Compte de ________" is to be considered sexy, whether villainous or heroic, as Comptes are by definition, sexy.

This Compte mutters his lines in a weird "method" hybrid of Brando and Queens, while the rest of the cast is assuming an English accent, which causes cognitive dissonance, since the movie is set in France and stars mostly Americans.

Brody certainly does his best to kick some life into the plot, and he and Walken seem to be the only cast members who seem to have copped to the notion that they AREN'T in a serious, art-house type film which will accrue numerous Oscar nods, but that they are instead in the cheesiest of cheesy historical bodice-rippers and may as well have a bit of fun with it. There is little to ponder for most of the first third of the movie other than Simon Baker's neatly-tied queue, until this interesting and unusual-looking man shows up and starts waving a sword around. Apparently, there is some sort of rule in this movie that all fights must be Shirts/Skins, and in the case of the first duel, Simon Baker is shirtless while Brody is dressed to thrill.

But unfortunately for those of us who would prefer an extended shirts/skins dueling sequence, the plot grinds on and the necklace is put into play, and the Compte ends up being chased through the streets of Paris by a flatfooted officer of the guard. This has to be the lamest, most unathletic chase scene I've ever seen filmed. It also points up one of the main problems with the film, which is that some of the characters just were all over the map. The Compte has gone from being a agile hot-tempered duelist--quick to pull out his blade and make use of it, to an ineffectual drunk effete decadent, to a clever schemer, and now he is a man who cannot seem to get out of his own way, or out of the way of horses, fruitcarts, and peasants holding baskets of veggies. He finally escapes by jumping into a canal, or the Seine, or something, and presumably, this was in the days of open sewers, so the next place we encounter him is getting out of his bathtub claiming that he was so frightened he nearly soiled himself. He is bathing, moreover, in the presence of both his wife and her lover, Simon Baker. They're just all one big happy family of co-conspirators. Well, except that the Compte gets angered at some crack the lover makes about his manhood (they both mumbled their way through it as though both were embarrassed by the script so for all I know he was saying that the Compte's father was a hamster, and his mother smelt of elderberries), morphs into a dripping-wet, homicidal, Cesare Borgia clone, and goes after Simon Baker with a knife in one hand, while holding a towel around his waist with the other. I found it a bit tragic that the only conveniently-located weapon was a knife, and not a two-handed weapon, like a grenade launcher or Scottish claymore, for reasons that should be obvious, but the movie kept its R rating, I guess.

One more observation from my notebook--the filmmakers seemed to have the idea that they needed to establish the Compte's "Character" by having him be either drinking, holding a glass of some sort of alcoholic beverage as if about to take a drink, reaching for a bottle, or going over to the sidebar to fill himself a glass in every scene. Yes, even the scene in the towel. Even when he is riding a horse, for the love of all mercy! Even when he is eating a bon bon. Even when he is having a bullet extracted from his hiney. The only real exception was when he was going after the gigolo with the knife, as it would clearly have been difficult to hold a drink, the knife, AND the towel without dribbling Beaujolais down all over his, er, without getting it all over the front of his towel. And yet, the character is never actually shown as being sloppy drunk, despite drinking continuously from morning to night.

Clearly, our Compte has a head like a cast iron skillet. Or the filmmakers think that the audience does, and unless they beat us over the heads repeatedly, we won't get it straight.

Anyhow, there is really only one thing you need to know about this movie.

Bon Bon Scene + Adrien Brody = a Man Who Knows How to Use His Tongue.

I love period dramas. I love the costumes, the sets, the horses, the street scenes. I love the fact that maybe I can learn a little bit about history along with being entertained. So it was with hope that I rented this movie even though it had only been in the theater two days and there were only two copies of it at Blockbuster (both bad signs). I understand now why no one had wanted anything to do with it from the beginning.

This film simply did not click. There was nothing in it that made me interested in or care about the protagonists. The main fault should go to the casting director who terribly miscast Hillary Swank as an 18th century French noblewoman. Don't get me wrong, I do like Hillary and have recently praised her depiction of the young cop in "Insomnia", but in "The Affair" she was like a fish out of water, too angular, too wooden and quite obviously a modern American actress faking an English accent depicting a French character.

Then we must blame the director, because the sense of tension in this film was minimal. This was a movie about a court intrigue where the stakes were huge both monetarily and punitively. Much more passion should have been injected, more fear, more highs, more lows, intense love and ferocious hate, anything to get the viewer engaged. That this was not done was unfortunate, because the film has a beautiful look to it and the sets and costumes do not disappoint.

Reading over the comments for this film, I'm surprised how many people disliked it. They harp because there are no accents, different accents, or partial accents. They complain about wooden acting. I'm wondering of somehow the world is cross-wired, since the film I saw had very fine acting, gorgeous costuming, and excellent period dialogue. I was pleased scriptwriters didn't dive into the vulgar, although some scenes (most particularly the actual bodice-ripping) did push the mark.

As a period film fan, I found this story not only exquisite but also fascinating. The plot is intelligent enough you don't have to check your brain at the door, unlike many other dramas. True, it's not completely historically accurate and they've made Jeanne la Motte much more likable and moral than she was, but that's the point of a MOVIE. It's NOT supposed to be reality, just a loose translation of a historical event. I found it worthwhile and watched it three times in a week... a rarity among films.

If you're not too snobby to put on your thinking cap, give it a go.

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.

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.

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.

If we do not like the American/English accents, the French should have made this movie. But they didn't. And if they would have -like they should have as it is their history- who would have seen it, apart from European audiences? But it is annoying that no choice was made of what 'accent' to perform it in. A clear decision was never made and that spoiled the movie for me (though the entrance of Christopher Walken was enough for me to hang on -and I loved the way he reacted to the guard before he was led into le Bastille).

Historically: Mozart's Requiem was heard in one of the scenes -but that was not composed till 1791. And at that time the Affaire of the Necklace was over and the Royals were in deep merde...

The Affair of the Necklace is a film that has some qualities but only adds more layers of falsehoods to a story that is already fraught with them. This film is trying to make Jeanne de la Motte into an unjustly destitute noble heroine along the lines of Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Nothing could be further from the truth. She was a thief and a whore. Here are a few documented facts:

Jeanne's father was not dispossessed by the King's men; he pretty well did that to himself as a village drunkard and professional poacher. He married a servant girl who later became a prostitute. He was not a political agitator. Jeanne was actually generously pensioned by the King for being a true descendant of Henry II. She was introduced to Rohan by one of her many benefactors. She became his lover on her second visit. Cardinal Rohan, by the way, was not 'cardinal of all France', but Grand Almoner (or 'court cardinal'), a privilege he lost after the trial. Jeanne did not meet Rétaux as a court gigolo during one of her many fake fainting spells in court (three in all); he was a companion of arms and debauchery of her husband, who did not have a jealous bone in his body. At the conclusion of the trial, Cagliostro was also exiled from France by Parliament. After escaping from France, Jeanne did not retire to semi-gentility, lecturing English society matrons on her edifying adventures. She wrote pornographic memoirs in many volumes regaling the populace with further aspersions on the Queen's character, while her husband, back in France, made a very decent living getting paid by the Rohan family not to write his memoirs. She did in England what she had always done in France: she whored. She fell out the second-floor window of a London house of ill repute, to her death.

Other things bother me: The necklace itself is a rather slim, cut-rate and unattractive version of the documented original. Marie Antoinette was not tall, spindly, stoop-shouldered and bustless, no matter how effective Joely Richardson's performance is otherwise. Most of the source music heard in this film was never heard within several country miles of the French court, namely Vivaldi, Haendel, Mozart and various English baroque composers (Saints preserve us!). The ditty 'Plaisir d'amour' (misspelled in the end titles) was never part of a stage presentation. The film's main titles and theatrical trailer are disgraced by a nondescript and rather hair-raising piece sung by Alanis Morrissette, which sounds to all the world like an African mass sung in Gaelic (What were they thinking?!).

In the film's defence, it was shot in Versailles, it does show amazing detail, occasional accuracy, spurts of brilliance and a vigorous rhythm. Furthermore, it never stoops to the detailed depictions of bodily functions and gory acts of sadistic violence that have become the hallmark of recent euro-trash pseudo-historical epics (La Reine Margot, Elizabeth, Farinelli, Le Roi danse, Vatel, Ridicule, to name a few). It is infinitely more historically accurate than, say, Gladiator, but that's not saying much.

My favourite quote about this film comes from Rick Groen in Toronto's Globe and Mail who wrote: 'If life, as Keats suggests, is a 'mansion of many apartments', then this plot is its wrecking ball.'

Poor 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.

I just got done watching "The Affair of the Necklace." The soundtrack stays with me as I write this -- as do the visuals. It is a very stunning movie, both for the costumes and the cinematic feel. The story starts with a simple premise: a young woman wants to get her home back. But her naive and honest attempts to petition the monarchy for the return of her estate are denied, so she must resort to more cunning measures.

As a female, I was pleased to see a female as the instigator of the plot; the behind-the-scenes mastermind. Hilary Swank did an excellent job, despite occasional lapses in accent, but given the potpourri of accents in a film set in pre-Revolutionary France, I can overlook that small flaw. The supporting cast was also exceptional, and I especially liked the portrayal of Marie Antoinette -- not quite vapid, not entirely sympathetic, but not a "villainess" either. I'm not sure how historically accurate the movie is, but it does arouse my interest in that period, and I figure any movie that can do that is not entirely frivolous.

Overall, I gave it an 8 out of 10. I would enjoy watching it again, as it has a subtlety that many movies lack. The rental fee was definitely well-spent.

Although, this was not the best "period piece" I've seen, it was very interesting and well done. It was hard to believe it, but it was a true story. I don't know much about French history, so I was captivated by it. I had visited Versailles and learned about how large, complicated and political the Court was with all the "hangers on." I thought this was a good portrayal of that. I thought all the actors were good, especially the House Minister.

A 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.

This storylike true story had already been filmed by Marcel Lherbier in 1946,with Vivianne Romance -famous for her bitchy parts-,a more than adequate comtesse de la Motte.

This is the first mistake of this "remake":Hilary Swank portrays a genuine heroine,whose properties have been stolen by an unfair monarchy,whose father was some kind of Robin Hood who protected the poor against the cruelty of times.She appears most of the time as a victim,a noble adventuress,with a romantic love affair with her sidekick,but it's the ending in London that takes the biscuit,when she reads her memoirs to old posh sobbing ladies "oh poor thing!oh poor dear!" Les "memoires de madame de la Motte" -which were published in France during the revolution are obnoxious,trash stuff..Historian Jean Chalon quotes this line in that notorious book "the voluptuous princess -she's speaking of Marie-Antoinette- was waiting for me in her bed ,and I must say she took advantage of her husband's absence..."Actually Marie-Antoinette never met madame de la Motte and the scene under the snow when the queen accuses la comtesse of ruining the monarchy is pure fiction.

The scenarists are as naive as the cardinal de Rohan,and as the people of Paris in 1786,who thought Madame de la Motte's punishment was unfair.La Motte wouldn't stay long in la Salpetriere anyway,and some say she was helped to escape.As for cardinal de Rohan ,he was far from being a saint,but he was naiveté itself.how could he believe that Marie Antoinette ,who had always despised her and never spoke to him,could use him as an emissary?

The film is entertaining and a lot of scenes are more historically accurate -such as the grove of Venus and the trial:that's was the queen's mistake:the king did not need the parlament to judge somebody-. Walken is ideally cast as comte de Cagliostro ,as Brody as Nicolas de la Motte.But the Queen's execution (1793) comes at the most awkward moment ,and La Motte was dead (in 1791) when it occurred anyway.The scenarists suggest her death might have been a crime :never an earnest French historian made a hint at that.At the time,the royal family had more important problems to solve .

The scenarists say that the affair of the necklace was the direct cause for the French revolution,which is a narrow-minded view.It might have been the straw that broke the camel's back but the reasons were much more complex and the students should take a better look at it.

The movie does not tell that after his exile,Rohan was restored to favor during the revolution ,became part of the Etats-Généraux" in 1789 ,and died in Germany in 1803,the last of the dramatis personae

I 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.

Why 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.

I 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.

After getting over my initial reluctance to see Hilary Swank as a beautiful female (I think of her as the ultimate tomboy), I started really enjoying this movie. Its foundation in real events and use of historical characters heightens the pleasure. It's a fun caper flick in historical drag.

Hilary Swank won me over as the countess trying to regain her family estate. Joely Richardson as Marie-Antoinette is haughty and camp, just the way one wants Marie-Antoinette to be. I cannot tell from the credits who played the faux Queen Marie, but she was wonderful in a small part in an attempt to fool the Cardinal, played by Jonathan Pryce. Adrien Brody is always magnificent--here in a small role as the errant husband of Hilary Swank.

You can get totally wrapped up in beautiful scenery (filmed in Prague and France), the intricate plot, the fine performances, the unspooling of history. I highly recommend this film.

I was really disappointed in this movie. I've recently become obsessed with French history & was excited to see a film about a strange period during the reign of Marie Antoinette, but the lack of historical accuracy made for a very bad showing. The basics of the story are there, but they took great liberty in the surrounding details. I won't even comment on the actors performances because they didn't do the characters justice, but the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the screenwriters rather than the actors. The Affair of the Necklace is an incredibly interesting story & should have been portrayed correctly, or not at all.

The 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 *****

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.

THE AFFAIR OF THE NECKLACE

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1

Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS

1780's France: Whilst attempting to reclaim her family estate - stolen by an indifferent Marie Antoinette (Joely Richardson) - a spirited young noblewoman (Hilary Swank) sets in motion a sequence of events that will help precipitate the French Revolution.

Violence and intrigue amongst the aristocrats of 18th century Europe, just before the guillotine curbed its worst excesses. Swank is miscast as an embittered avenger, but she plays the role with some conviction and is bolstered by Simon Baker (LAND OF THE DEAD) as the handsome libertine who falls in love with her and foregoes his sluttish lifestyle to accommodate Swank's quest for justice. Jonathan Pryce is the debauched Cardinal whose lust for power blinds him to the costly deceit perpetrated against him by Swank and Baker, leading to their eventual downfall and condemnation at trial, based on true events which led (in part) to the French Revolution. Christopher Walken is Pryce's flamboyant 'spiritual' adviser who sees through Swank's deception and uses it to his own advantage, with ruinous consequences for all concerned, and Adrien Brody is the tarnished nobleman whom Swank marries for convenience in pursuit of her birthright. Filmed on location in Prague, the movie is visually resplendent, and director Charles Shyer (2004's ALFIE) takes full advantage of the palaces and mansions which operate as backdrop to his fascinating drama.

They're are so many things wrong with this picture that it will be hard to list them all. Story is about a woman named Jeanne St. Remy de Valois (Hilary Swank) whose parents were killed as traitors to the French regime and now as an adult will do anything to get her family name and household back. She decides along with her lover Retaux de Vilette (Simon Baker) and the man she had married for convenience Nicolas De La Motte (Adrien Brody) would scheme a plan to convince the Cardinal Louis de Rohan (Jonathan Pryce) to purchase a very expensive necklace and give it to Marie-Antoinette (Joely Richardson). Jeanne forged letters from Marie-Antoinette to give the Cardinal for him to think that a relationship had been rekindled via mail. Jeanne keeps the necklace and uses it to purchase her home. First off, this film is miscast. Swank is a very good actress and I believe to be a more brave and daring one then some of the actress's in Hollywood that get paid millions and millions of dollars. She's a real talent but the film needed someone to evoke a more jaded personality. Jeanne is portrayed as some sort of martyr that we are suppose to feel sorry for. This was probably more of director Charles Shyer's fault than Swank. Shyer has directed nothing but light comedy before and this was his first entry into serious drama and I'm not convinced that he understood the story. Brody isn't bad and he seems to be genuinely having fun in his role. And in case you didn't notice, all the main actors are either English or American and most of them don't even attempt some sort of accent. Its suppose to be France and they didn't hire one prominent French actor. I guess if the French want to get back at us they could remake "The Grapes of Wrath" with an all French cast! And its hard to tell what kind of accent that Christopher Walken was doing in the film. Hell, its hard to tell what accent he does in American films! The film looks good though. The sets and locations are authentic looking and the construction of a good looking film was there. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is not well thought out. Wrong director, wrong actors and the wrong focus point of the story.