moviedude1
Hilary Swank stars as the 18th century French countess who, having been stripped by the crown, schemes her revenge by obtaining a necklace worth millions.The only reason I watched this film was because I'm a fan of Swank. I've seen her in several films and I am occasionally impressed by her work, although I regret to say I was much less than impressed in this one. Christopher Walken is another favorite of mine, but his work here, I felt was overpowered by Swank's rather lacking performance, and I really never DID care for Adrien Brody.I'm not an expert of the time, and I know this film is based on factual events, the only part of this particular time in history is Marie Antoinette's part in it..."Let them eat cake." So, hence, I really don't feel right on commenting on the events, themselves. The part that stood out in my mind, though, was that all the actors in this film gave more of an English accent, than they did a French one...or was I just imagining that? 3 out of 10 stars.
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.
peter-1850
The plot is very slight, which is a major part of the problem. The contemptuous way in which English is mixed with Yank is another part - for to actors, both supposedly French, to sound so anachronistic makes no sense. If they all spoke Yank, you could excuse it as a sort of Star Trek episode. If they all spoke English, you could perhaps concentrate on the plot and the acting. With the bizarre mixture (and the jarring anachronisms in speech) it made it painful to watch.The script was very poor. The actors did do their best to make it work, but it just wasn't credible dialogue. Of course, it was supposed to be anti-monarchy, no problems there, but to be so ham-fisted as to try to hammer this in at every stage by silly devices made one want to be a monarchist and cheer Marie Antoinette.
Vasco Cid
After 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.
AD
