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!"

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.

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.

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 *****