Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

Andy (film-critic) 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 *****

Lunarsilver629 When I first sat down to watch this movie, I thought it was positively brilliant. Hillary Swank is great in everything she does...hell, the whole cast did a bang up job! But mostly I liked it because I thought it was the truth. After all it matched all I had learned in high school.Then I found out what a big lie it all was.This whole 'Affair' was completely romanticized and history rewritten to show the world yet again how _terrible_ the Monarchy was. But since I'm armed with new information, I might as well inform everyone who thinks the same way I thought of some key facts.Fact 1: The Monarchy NEVER killed Jeanne's father. Her parents were LONG dead before this whole affair even took place. Her rage at the Monarchy stemmed from the pension she was suppose to receive from being a blood royal. Her rage at Marie stemmed her apathy, yes, but because she did not really sympathize with Jeanne's plight.Fact 2: Jeanne was not born a noble. True, she was illegitimately descended from royalty but all her nobility ties and titles came from her marriage to Nicolas. In fact, she was quite well off in her marriage, but that didn't stop her from sleeping around with the likes of both the Cardinal and Rétaux.Fact 3: Buying the necklace was all the CARDINAL'S idea. But Jeanne went along with it readily, but her greed got in the way. She ran to _sell_ the diamonds off the necklace in London and keep the profits for herself.Knowing what I know now, I'm infuriated at this movie not only for falsifying history but trying to tell us this is exactly what happened. Marie Antoinette was the true victim in all this (something Joely Richardson tried to convey in her performance) and Jeanne was exactly what the Monarchy said she was; a petty whorish thief. There was no honor in what those people did, they all had their own selfish reasons. I'm just sad with the pile of historical information we have at our disposal no one seems to want to use it.

Hans C. Frederick The infamous,and evil Giuseppe Balsamo,aka Alessandro,Count of Cagliostro,was arguably the most notorious fraud,charlatan,and bunko artist of the 18th century.And,as reliably portrayed in this story,he fit in rather nicely with the rest of the corrupt opportunists and swindlers.Having worked for 8 years as a prison psychologist in Ohio,it's been my observation that there are no guilty persons incarcerated.Instead,it seems as though the legal profession must be among the most corrupt and incompetent in existence.All of these innocent persons being advised by their counsel to plead guilty.My own observations is,that if they're not guilty of the offense for which they're being currently incarcerated,they ought to think about all the evil things that they've done and for which they've escaped punishment.It all comes out even in the wash,so to speak.So it goes with Cagliostro.While perhaps not legally culpable,he was certainly involved in this morally.And he DID escape punishment from the French.yet,he eventually got his.He moved to Rome.and opened a Masonic Lodge.Now,in Europe,the Masons aren't a men's service organization;They happen to be viewed as heresy.So,Cagliostro was arrested,brought before the Inquisition,and received the capital sentence.The Pope commuted the sentence to life imprisonment,and he spent the rest of his life in prison.MORAL:WE really don't need anyone else to foul up our lives,now,do we?We usually do a great job on our own.