Marie Antoinette

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: October 20, 2006

5.8	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 376 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

BrookeB.Oct 28, 2006

The costumes of Kirsten Dunst were wonderful, and the dogs and animals were fantastic. The children also were charming and beautiful. But the music was just TERRIBLE, and so disjointed that I found myself not being able to wait until it was The costumes of Kirsten Dunst were wonderful, and the dogs and animals were fantastic. The children also were charming and beautiful. But the music was just TERRIBLE, and so disjointed that I found myself not being able to wait until it was over! Besides being out-of-era, the music was tuneless and distracting. The whole time I wondered where the movie was going, and the close-ups of food and drink became so repetitive that I was even more anxious for the movie to be over. Very odd and tedious...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

XarlosF.Nov 12, 2006

This is not a good movie - on any level. There were more disconnects and historical inaccuracies than can be mentioned here. The author/director/writer demands such a "suspension of disbelief" - and fails - that when they do throw in a This is not a good movie - on any level. There were more disconnects and historical inaccuracies than can be mentioned here. The author/director/writer demands such a "suspension of disbelief" - and fails - that when they do throw in a historically accurate fig, the casual viewer is left to "sort it out for themselves!" For example, Marie was 38 when she was beheaded. Her oldest child was 16 and her son was 12. They weren't toddlers! There was no "ageing" process from the time she entered the court to the end. In a piece demanding time context, there was none. The music selected was dreadful. The switch from contemporary to modern just didn't work. Granted, it was intended to convey a "spirit" - failed. This movie made Marie Antoinette out to be nothing more or less than a pleasure seeker. In reality, she became very involved in the politics of France from 1775 -> because her husband was so weak. And finally, Kirsten Dunst in the title role was a fly-weight. She could not hold up her end of the bargain. The acting was - just that - acting and pretense. I recommend anyone interested in neo-period pieces see "The Libertine" with Johnny Depp in the lead for a compare and contrast of style and substance. The Libertine was well-done, well-crafted and well-acted.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

KevinB.Jan 28, 2007

One vote for cinematography and one for costume. That's it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JeanS.Feb 16, 2007

Kept waiting for something to happen other than the Queen taking off and putting on her nightgown - nothing else happened. Cinematography and costume were good.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JacobM.Oct 23, 2006

It was pretty. But that hardly makes a good movie. Coppola easily could have cut out about 10 shots of dessert, half of the splurging and all but a couple of the "not tonight, honey" scenes and a actually devoted more to the imprisonment It was pretty. But that hardly makes a good movie. Coppola easily could have cut out about 10 shots of dessert, half of the splurging and all but a couple of the "not tonight, honey" scenes and a actually devoted more to the imprisonment where Marie Antoinette became a human instead of a bird in a gilded cage. I think Kirsten Dunst was actually a pretty good casting choice; Rip Torn was surprisingly good as well. The rest were tepid, in my opinion. It could have very much been a movie I enjoyed, but it seems to have been butchered.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

KenN.Oct 23, 2006

The more French history you know coming into the cinema, the less you will like this cinematic abomination by a vain director who treats history like some cute pet poodle dog. French critics booed this film and I understood why after wasting The more French history you know coming into the cinema, the less you will like this cinematic abomination by a vain director who treats history like some cute pet poodle dog. French critics booed this film and I understood why after wasting two hours of my life watching a famous historical queen being depicted as some dim-witted teenage bimbo who knows little about court etiquette despite being raised in the royal court of the powerful Holy Roman Empire (Austria). My favourite royal of the late 1700s, the enlightened despot Joseph II of Austria, looks too old and is not depicted with the same striking resemblence as seen in "Amadeus". He wears some plain-looking yellow coat when Joseph almost always wears a military-style coat. The few military uniforms shown, mostly those of Versailles' red-clad Swiss Guards, look accurate but why is a Swiss Guard officer being decorated for fighting in the American colonies when only a few regular line regiments went abroad??? The little details, such as the 1980s rock music, aside, the storyline seems to be drifting towards nowhere as we see Marie Antoinette looking bored while chatting, eating, drinking and gambling. If the French aristocracy were suffering from a severe case of "ennui", then that "ennui" sure rubs off on the theatre audience. Boring, slow, meaningless and with little historical accuracy, this is French History 101 for stupid teenage girls like the many I saw around me at the cinema. This film only redeeming virtue is its meticulous attention to the details of French Rococo style costume and furniture. Go watch "Dangerous Liaisons" starring Glenn Close if you want to see something with the same beautiful French costumes and with a better and more serious story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

LundK.Sep 26, 2007

Just plain silly, pretentious in its effort to appear modern. Don't think the American teenagers who seem to be the target audience really care, beyond a few giggles at the bling props.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BernardP.Oct 21, 2006

The worst movie i've seen this year. I fell asleep thirty minutes in and when I woke up, to my horror, Rip Torn was trying out his best cockney accent. Leave the period pieces to the brits. This was an insult to moviegoers. Avoid at all costs!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MikeB.Oct 22, 2006

A poor script that is lacking in story or purpose, let alone character, seems to be excuse for opulent and monotonous visuals.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MikeJJul 25, 2007

One of the biggest disappointments of the year! the trailer drew me in, but if you enjoy boring nonstop blabbering this movie is for you.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RobertaZ.Jan 16, 2008

Aesthetically perfect; depiction of characters horribly superficial, void, really incomprehensible.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

stevens.Nov 14, 2006

Sofia Coppolla totally dropped the ball on this one. Her first two films are nothing short of amazing. This is one of the most boring, uninspired works of garbage I have seen in ages. The art direction and visuals are intersting but there is Sofia Coppolla totally dropped the ball on this one. Her first two films are nothing short of amazing. This is one of the most boring, uninspired works of garbage I have seen in ages. The art direction and visuals are intersting but there is nothing that will keep your interest for 2 hours. I think I would have rather watched paint dry!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JackCOct 13, 2006

A hideous, unintelligent mess.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RoblOct 19, 2006

Self-indulgent, disingenuous work...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

KevinF.Dec 11, 2007

If you watch this movie, you will die of dysentery.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

VernonW.Feb 26, 2007

Sadly, I was on a plane while watching this movie and could not walk out. In hind sight, I should have just listened to the music channels and enjoyed the cinematography (the only aspect of the movie saving it from a zero).

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JayW.Jun 3, 2007

One word: Dreadful. They cared more about filming shoes, dresses and hair than making a good film. If you like to shop, this film is for you, otherwise, stay away.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JorgePOct 13, 2006

Jason Schwartzman and Kirsten Dunst make Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez look like Thomas Hayden Church and Sandra Oh.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BobH.Apr 7, 2007

It was really worse then a 0 but sadly thats the lowest rating. I would rather watch the grass grow. They added scenes that they didnt need. We had to watch her walk up a baggillion stairs. The movie was sickening.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MilesMOct 10, 2006

This movie walks all over the name and likeness of a dynamic individual. Boycott. Please.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

DavisROct 20, 2006

I felt sick afterwards. Did Coppola even read the book? I have and this movie isn't faithful to it at all. Sickening hipster trash that only a father could love (and pay for).

0 of 1 users found this helpful

MarciaR.Nov 10, 2006

This movie was SO boring that I could hardly wait for it to end. The dialogue must have been improvised. And, who cast this mess? Molly Shannon in period dress? Poor Rip Torn was the only adult in the group. I thought Kirsten Dunst was This movie was SO boring that I could hardly wait for it to end. The dialogue must have been improvised. And, who cast this mess? Molly Shannon in period dress? Poor Rip Torn was the only adult in the group. I thought Kirsten Dunst was plastic and vacant. Perhaps that was fine acting, but.?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JohanS.Oct 12, 2006

Perhaps the worst historical timepiece ever made.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JasonS.Oct 12, 2006

It's a movie. Not a good one, but you can sit through it...barely

0 of 0 users found this helpful

[Anonymous]Oct 18, 2006

Boring, inaccurate and the acting -oophs what acting? Dunst is so miscast and Schwartzman's only reason for having the part is that he is Sophia's cousin. Read the Fraser book - wonderful.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SteveK.Oct 28, 2006

I go to movies to be entertained and I can find artful movies entertaining, BUT this is an excruciatingly boring movie. The pacing is so terrible, it pains me to even think about it. Sophia Coppola went for art and instead we got this I go to movies to be entertained and I can find artful movies entertaining, BUT this is an excruciatingly boring movie. The pacing is so terrible, it pains me to even think about it. Sophia Coppola went for art and instead we got this self-indulgent piece of trash. I feel like there could have been some greatness here, but there is only so long a camera can linger and re-visit inanimate objects -- dresses, food, pets, jewelry, before causing everyone to slip into a deep coma. We get it! She lived a life of excess... We get it! They wasted lots and lots of money! And she still wasn't happy... WE GET IT! I don't mind the modern music... but there is no proper way to say that this movie is bad without using the word "trash" multiple times. Trash.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RichardP.Mar 24, 2007

Absolute pure, excruciating, painful agony of a movie to watch. I was made to watch it, although I must have done something really bad to deserve this kind of punishment. Urghhh, god awful.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

TimeOfTheChimpsMar 20, 2014

What went wrong? Why did they choose to make a music video about Marie's dresses? This movie takes "suck" to a whole new level. It is glossed over, and doesn't even show the reality of Marie's life during that time period. It does not showWhat went wrong? Why did they choose to make a music video about Marie's dresses? This movie takes "suck" to a whole new level. It is glossed over, and doesn't even show the reality of Marie's life during that time period. It does not show how she was given very little power over her people, and how every single problem was blamed on her. In this film, she is probably blamed for ripping a dress instead. Kirsten Dunst is terrible in the role of Marie Antoinette, as she is with every role. This movie makes me want Dunst's character guillotined, but sadly, it doesn't show it happen. Avoid this Kirsten Dunst mishap like your life depends on it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

prev next

Page: