Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Just so...so bad

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

What struck me most in this film was the excellent baroque wardrobe and the sets, much in line with Versailles environment. The film portrays a true story of betrayal, intrigue and drama, but it lacks a well explored and solid script. If the writer had spent more time building characters and transforming this true story in an engaging and convincing plot, Jeanne de Valois's drama would have been much more addictive. Instead, this story does not seem to move us or charm us. I feel the director was so dazzled by the court dresses, wigs and goldsmiths that he forgot to really demand more from his staff.Hillary Swank does everything she can to save the movie and her character, and I was assured that her talent helped a lot to improve the film. Equally good was the work of Jonathan Pryce in the role of a libidinous and corrupt cardinal. Joely Richardson is very beautiful and has made a Marie Antoinette satisfactory, but does not have much time or space to shine. More striking was Christopher Walken, in the character of a con man, or Simon Baker, who gave life to Rétaux de Vilette, a courtier. Unfortunately, without an engaging plot, these efforts were not enough to take from me the impression that this film is essentially "fireworks" (very beautiful, but also very void).

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!"

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.

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.