Movies

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.

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.

First of all, this is not a biography, it's about an event that apparently took place in Monaco in the early 1960's. The French President deciding Monaco should pay taxes to France? After all the negative reviews, I was expecting the worst, but was surprised I quite enjoyed it. Nicole Kidman was most effective as Grace Kelly, and I can't think of anyone else today who could have handled that difficult role so well. Tim Roth was not as good looking as the real Prince Rainier, and Nicole's 5'11" towered over him. I thought the guy who played Hitchcock was better than the recent screen versions! Perhaps the film should have been titled 'Monaco in Crisis' or some such, so as not to mislead people into thinking this would be a bio of Grace Kelly?