Grace de Monaco

it is too easy to criticize it. because it is only glamorous homage to a legend of Hollywood. nothing more. the costumes, the lights, Nicole Kidman herself as inspired choice for remind Grace Kelly, Tim Roth as an ambiguous leader looking the better manner for solve the crisis and drive his marriage, the naive crumbs of conspiracy and the characters as sketches are proofs for accept the film only as nice exercise for remind an old fairy tale in its dramatic aspect. it is not a great film. but it is useful trip in atmosphere of a small European state who remains almost a mystery under the sparkles of a lot of seductive activities.

11 June 2014 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester Tonight - Grace of Monaco. Generally slated by the critics I decided to see this film anyway and I was glad I did. A fictional story based on true events, this enjoyable film was a very haunting portrayal of Grace Kelly's move from Hollywood Princess to Royal Princess and the difficulties that arose during the transition. Centred around the very trying times when Charles de Gaulle was trying to gain control of Monaco, Grace Kelly was portrayed as a lost figure. Lost in her marriage, lost in her identity and lost in her way. Unfortunately, Nicole Kidman, although a very accomplished actress who was dressed well and at time did look very much the princess, did not convince me that she was Princess Grace. For starters physically she was too red, Grace Kelly was blonde, not a Marilyn Monroe sort of blonde but a regal blonde, and a serene blonde, Nicole just looked like a red head, furthermore she didn't make me believe that she was Grace Kelly, I just felt that I could see many of her other parts all tumbling together to try to encompass this icon of movie and Royal history. Having said that, I don't know exactly who could have played the part of Princess Grace of Monaco.........except perhaps ......... Grace Kelly!!!!!

The bad thing about messing up history and making a movie about a real person that is not based on facts but fiction is that we tend to remember the movie. So, now thousands of people will believe that Kelly saved Monaco (de Gaulle never went to any ball, the situation was negotiated peacefully with France at the end). They will believe that the marriage with the prince did not include numerous extramarital affairs on both sides and they will believe that Grace was as tall and elegant as Nicole Kidman, the perfect princess. Too bad, because reality was good enough. The movie is beautiful, superbly esthetic, but that is all.

Oliver Dahan's biopic of Hollywood's darling, Grace Kelly, has been pretty much thumped by critics universally. Most would have you believe Grace of Monaco is an arduous, dull swamp of a film on a par with Oliver Hirschbiegel flop, Diana.

It isn't. Not quite.

Described as a fictional story based on true events, Grace of Monaco looks at Grace Kelly's (Nicole Kidman) struggle to maintain her own identity as her marriage to Monaco's Prince Rainier III (Tim Roth) bounces around the rocks while her husband's subjects reject her and his staff resent her. Add to that Charles De Gaulle's impending invasion and the principality's nosedive into economic ruin, and all was not happy in Grace's life. Allegedly.

Grace of Monaco is a long way from Dahan's 2007 biopic triumph, La Vie en Rose. It is far too long, far too dull, with questionable 'truth' and rather too much melodrama. Dahan repeatedly cuts to lingering ECUs of Kidman's eyes, vainly hoping that soft focus shots of her regal visage will imbue his film with serenity and beauty. It doesn't. It merely serves to increase the boredom and slow the pace still further.

No matter how good Kidman and Roth are, they cannot raise Grace of Monaco above the status of star Sunday afternoon matinée to the magnificent period piece it desperately wants to be. Both actors are pleasant to watch here with Grace's relationship with Frank Langella's Father Tucker a highlight that allows Kidman to scratch under the veneer of the princess. Likewise, Roth is more than adequate as the overbearing monarch who occasionally remembers to show he cares about his wife, but it lacks the truth of his sensitive and truthful performance in last year's fantastic Broken.

When Roger Ashton Griffiths waddles onto the screen as Hitchcock aiming to seduce Grace Kelly back to Hollywood, the teeth begin to rattle as memories of Toby Jones pouring out the definitive depiction of Hitch in The Girl diminish anything that Ashton Grifiths can produce. Amongst the supporting cast Robert Lindsay, surprisingly cast as Aristotle Onassis, and Derek Jacobi as Count Fernando D'Aillieres engage the eye but there is a very odd collection of accents on display for a film set in an annex of France.

The production design is eye-catching and detracts momentarily from the clunky dialogue, but it isn't sufficient compensation. Contrary to popular opinion, Grace of Monaco is not a turkey. It is merely overlong and dull. Approach with low expectations and you won't be disappointed.

For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

When I found this film I thought it would be a biographical film around the figure of Grace Kelly, one of the most interesting in the cinematographic scene, since she was the only one who made the leap to royalty by marrying a prince from a country lost on Europe. However, the film focuses on the political events surrounding a crisis in the country's relations with De Gaulle's France, which wanted to impose French taxes on Monaco, as there were many French citizens living there to evade taxes.

The political and economic question behind the film is quite derisory, especially if we take into account that the world was then paralyzed in the face of the Cuban missile crisis. However, at the time, it was important for Monaco to show its sovereignty over its more powerful neighbor, and to continue with attractive taxes for millionaires and companies. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about how much of this film is true, as everything is frankly exaggerated and stilted, and a diplomatic and fiscal crisis is transformed into an imminent threat of war in Central Europe! A bloody war that was halted by the energy and courage of an American princess... I really have serious doubts about all this!

Whatever the truth, the fact is that the film has an excellent Nicole Kidman. She is a good actress and has, herself, an aura of indisputable elegance, which she used to bring to life the former American actress, later princess. But even considering the good work of the actress, she is very different from the real Grace. The two don't look alike, even with the greatest goodwill. But she's not the only actress who seems to have been a casting mistake: who looked at Paz Vega and saw Maria Callas? In the midst of it all, Tim Roth would almost have escaped if it weren't for a tired, monotonic, tobacco-drenched portrayal of a prince struggling to control his tiny kingdom. Roger Ashton Griffiths works well as Hitchcock, but his appearance is occasional and unimportant. Frank Langella did well, but appears little, and the same can be said of Derek Jacobi.

In addition to Kidman's excellent performance and a super stilted and exaggerated story, with power struggles, behind-the-scenes moves and threats of war around a quiet little town near the Mediterranean, the film gives us excellent production values: if the audience looking for a film loaded with all the glamour of European royalty, this film is prepared to fulfill this desire. Luxurious dresses, jewelry, excellent costumes, palatial settings that make the most realistic dreams come true, and that make us really think that Grace Kelly had the life that many young women asked for. In addition, the film has good cinematography, good colors and light, and a relatively good pace, which doesn't waste much time on anything.