Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Marie Antoinette

7

julienelJan 7, 2023

Visually pleasant shots, you're gonna love it if you like oversweeten and girlish movies. First of all - this is NOT a truly historical movie. This is a costume drama so don't expect historical accuracy or language correctness. "MarieVisually pleasant shots, you're gonna love it if you like oversweeten and girlish movies. First of all - this is NOT a truly historical movie. This is a costume drama so don't expect historical accuracy or language correctness. "Marie Antoinette" presents mainly the point of view of a privileged teenage girl who became a queen all too soon. Movie shows her childishness, remoteness and desire to have fun. Nevertheless, a movie is enjoyable and easy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

fartyfreakNov 7, 2022

The movie is just a little bit silly, doesn't really seem to care about Marie Antoinette. Film is visually stunning, but honestly just a bit boring. It has no direction, barely follows her life, and is realistically repetitive. Took multipleThe movie is just a little bit silly, doesn't really seem to care about Marie Antoinette. Film is visually stunning, but honestly just a bit boring. It has no direction, barely follows her life, and is realistically repetitive. Took multiple days to watch this movie, couldn't bear to suffer all at once. This was not Kirsten Dunst's fault, it was the director. Dunst portrayed Antoinette quite beautifully. But as I said, the movie was outlandish, and goofy. As good as the visuals were, nothing can save a bad storyline.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

DawdlingPoetNov 26, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a stylish, lavish period costume drama, with a good performance by Kirsten Dunst as the titular character. I can't claim to be familiar with the story, as until recently I wasn't much interested in history and didn't pay much attention to the tales of such people but I found myself curious to discover what would become of Marie. There are quite a few well known names in the cast, Dunst aside there's Jason Schwartzman who plays Marie's husband, as well as Steve Coogan, Jamie Dornan, Rose Byrne and Rip Torn.

It is perhaps a somewhat indulgent watch - with the viewer witnessing things exclusively from Maries point of view, the parties, celebrations and so on. She is shown to be quite a girly girl, very close to her friends who keep her almost endlessly amused with gossip and chatter. This film won't appeal to everyone but I did enjoy it perhaps more than I thought I may, given I admit I'm not exactly a big fan of watching giggly, spoilt adolescents on screen. Of course the main appeal, to me anyway, was the cinematography, the sweeping shots of lavish ballrooms and many instances of characters in full costume regalia and so on, which there are many instances of and which certainly did impress me. The terms decadence and lavishness very much come to mind. On the down side, there was one song played which I found particularly jarring, so that was a put off. I prefer the lighter pieces played, although there are a few more high tempo ones played as well.

To summarise, this is another decent film by Sofia Coppola, a director I am quite keen on. Overall, I would recommend this film to others, yes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

geewahMay 4, 2021

This movie is nothing more than a self-indulgent bore that is more about style than it is about substance.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

aurora1Mar 23, 2021

Una gemma cinematografica profonda nei contenuti e sontuosa esteticamente, interpretata da una Kirsten Dunst in stato di grazia.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

ahmedaiman1999Apr 30, 2019

The all-style-no-substance approach Sofia Coppola took worked impressively, and enticingly, well up till half of its runtime. The lack of a developed script then begins to hamper my enjoyment of the movie, as it gradually becomes monotonous.The all-style-no-substance approach Sofia Coppola took worked impressively, and enticingly, well up till half of its runtime. The lack of a developed script then begins to hamper my enjoyment of the movie, as it gradually becomes monotonous. And at its third act, Marie Antoinette falls .... flat! But at least the third act showcases the movie's relentless eye candy through some of the most dazzling colorful landscapes and costumes my eyes have ever had the pleasure to witness!

(7/10)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TyranianApr 11, 2019

This is so lavishly made its hard not to appreciate, the story is meh but the spectacle is impressive.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

BroyaxAug 17, 2018

Une vision pas totalement dénuée d'intérêt de notre très défunte autrichienne Reine de France si délicatement incarnée par une Kirsten Dunst radieuse et magnifique, trop délaissée ici par notre bon Roi Louis le Seizième dépeint comme unUne vision pas totalement dénuée d'intérêt de notre très défunte autrichienne Reine de France si délicatement incarnée par une Kirsten Dunst radieuse et magnifique, trop délaissée ici par notre bon Roi Louis le Seizième dépeint comme un nigaud et un maladroit, pour ne pas dire un benêt sévèrement et constamment à la masse ou presque. On sait que ce n'était pas vraiment le cas mais passons...

Cela dit, Marie-Antoinette était tout aussi déconnectée de la réalité du peuple, oisive et "fashion victim" des éventails, coiffures, **** fours et coupes de champagne : la frivolité personnifiée. Lorsqu'on vit royalement à Versailles, comment pourrait-il en être autrement dans le cadre enchanteur si proche et en même temps si éloigné de Paris et de sa populace vociférante ?

Le film de Sofia Coppola n'a certainement pas de prétention en matière d'exactitude historique (le contraire serait alarmant) mais se veut une sorte de nostalgie royaliste un brin décadente. Une esthétique très appréciable habite son film même si l'on est régulièrement choqué par l'ajout de musique moderne branchouille qui n'a rien à faire là. Tout cela est vaporeux et léger mais finit par lasser bien avant la première moitié du film : on est tellement lassé qu'on zappe alors la seconde moitié très répétitive qui escamote d'ailleurs presque totalement la Révolution et la fin de règne de ces têtes couronnées qui la perdront assez rapidement...

C'est là une occasion manquée de mettre en opposition la vie volage avec les contingences d'un retour à la réalité révolutionnaire qui a dû être extrêmement brutal, psychologiquement parlant. Tout cela est éludé, hélas ! A noter que contrairement à ce que pensent les Américains, il n'y avait pas de gens de couleur à la Cour de France, non, non. Sur les galères oui mais pas à la Cour.

Un film aussi volage, aussi futile que ses intentions, finalement trop superficielles pour faire le poids malgré la majesté des costumes et le souci de l'Etiquette. Kirsten y est superbe mais ne peut rien pour sauver le film de son naufrage dans les lenteurs, le superflu et le blingbling.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

FilipeNetoFeb 20, 2018

This film seeks to present the life of Queen Marie Antoinette of France from a sweet perspective, since the moment she arrives at the French court until the beginning of the Revolution. With direction and screenplay of Sofia Coppola, thisThis film seeks to present the life of Queen Marie Antoinette of France from a sweet perspective, since the moment she arrives at the French court until the beginning of the Revolution. With direction and screenplay of Sofia Coppola, this movie features Kirsten Dunst as the French queen.

When I saw this movie for the first time I loved it because of the scenarios (the Palace of Versailles is, definitely, one of the most beautiful and iconic in the world) and the historical accuracy of the costumes (this film won the Oscar for Best Costume Design, and certainly deserved it). But even during this initial view, I don't like the way, very light and almost adolescent, as the film tells the story of this French queen, whose life was much less happy than was shown. In fact, when I was watching it a second time, and after the initial amazement, I understand that this film strips all drama of Marie Antoinette's, turning her in the baroque equivalent of a frivolous and spoiled teenager of our time. This was a total mistake and doesn't help to see her from a more human perspective (if that was Coppola's intention). The film focuses on the clothes, the gold, the luxury and the court flirtations, having the dramatic depth of a glass of champagne. Sofia Coppola ignored the history of the queen who wanted to present, ignored the reality of France at that time, ignored how to make a good movie... well, she ignored everything that should have never ignored. I will not even going to comment on the mediocrity of the soundtrack or that unfortunate scene of the All-Star shoes. Not worth talking about it. What this movie is good is the scenery and costumes. Just that, and that isn't enough to make it a good movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

SpangleJan 5, 2017

A tale of decadence and elegance, Marie Antoinette is not your run-of-the-mill biopic period film. Instead, director Sofia Coppola opts to show how to properly light up the night in 18th century France. Complementing the constant party andA tale of decadence and elegance, Marie Antoinette is not your run-of-the-mill biopic period film. Instead, director Sofia Coppola opts to show how to properly light up the night in 18th century France. Complementing the constant party and gossip is modern pop rock that infuses the film with a modern take that matches the extravagant unconventionality of Marie Antoinette. Right down to this music, this film is about the life of Marie Antoinette. Guillotined as part of the French Revolution, Coppola's film ends before this and includes no addendum at the end of the film revealing the fate of its characters. While the film itself is hardly historically accurate, this move is deliberate and underscores what Coppola's film is about: her life, not Marie Antoinette's death or reality. She merely takes moments of her life, exaggerates them, or creates them in order to paint a picture of who Marie Antoinette was, both the good and the bad.

Decried by French critics for not criticizing Marie Antoinette's (Kirsten Dunst) life of luxury, it only feels fair that the film does not do this. Criticized endlessly in her life for her expensive taste, inability to consummate her marriage (not her fault), and being an Austrian in France, it is about time somebody not overtly criticize the woman. Whether she was nice or not, she certainly had her positive elements and, in the film, was dedicated to her people and her children. She never acted within hostility towards others and did not partake in the catty gossip that permeated the palace. Now, of course, the film does show her decadence, vapidness, and affair, which cast a shadow on her. While it does not chastise these actions, their inclusion shows that the film is fair and balanced when it comes to its main character.

Of course, the film is not completely fair when it comes to the people of France. But, honestly, who cares? Marie Antoinette is a film about flair and party. Sofia Coppola embraces this by ignoring history and focusing upon the style of the film and the lavish costume design. Decked head to toe in diamonds, this is a film about excess. Described as a satire or a comedy, the film embraces this with its tongue placed firmly along its cheek when critiquing palace life throughout. For example, a scene where Kirsten Dunst stands naked awaiting somebody to dress her, but she must be dressed by the highest ranking person in the room. Unfortunately, this keeps changing as more and more people walk into the room. Incredibly comical, this scene underscores the comedic tone of the film, which is subtle but ever present. At all times, Coppola eschews the serious tone of many historical films in favor of a light take on a serious subject. Often times, this will fail, but it somehow finds a way to work in this film. Thus, by embracing the decadence of the royal family, Coppola finds absurdity through the parallel created by their extravagance and the poverty of the French people and the debt situation.

Visually, Marie Antoinette is stunning. With breathtaking cinematography that made me physically angry with how beautiful it was, the film's visuals are tremendous. Repeated shots of the stairs leading up to the palace, long shots from and of the palace, and shots of men riding horses from a distance, this film is incredibly gorgeous. Of course, what helps this is the lavish color scheme. Blending a variety of colors, the colors in the film are largely introduced by the costumes. With elegantly crafted costumes that burst with flair and color, Marie Antoinette is a gorgeously dressed film that visually defines the wealth and power of the French royal family at the time. By the end, when the French people revolt, it is not hard to see how they could find issue with the family's display of wealth.

One of the more compelling elements of this film, however, is the gossip. With Marie Antoinette constantly surrounded by the catty gossip of the palace. The impact of this is a claustrophobic environment that shows the shallowness of the courtroom. As she and other women of the court are constantly under examination and inspection with absurd expectations abounding, the film finds even more entertainment. With the gossip feeling oddly modern and akin to a high school clique, this is where Coppola turns the film almost into a historical Mean Girls. Those surrounding Marie Antoinette are more cruel and judgmental towards her and others than the people who eventually would have her beheaded in the revolution. Of course, there is also comedy in these high expectations as the King (Rip Torn) has a mistress and she is forced upon the women of the court. The women are appalled by her and her conduct, even though they themselves have sex and there is a constant obsession with getting Marie Antoinette to consummate her marriage with Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman). Coppola does not shy away from showing this absurdity of expectation with Louis being the one afraid to have sex… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

kat267Aug 7, 2015

This is a great costume and fashion movie! From what we learn, Marie Antoinette was addicted to luxuries and this movie realistically shows that with all the gorgeous designs. Not very educational, but it's meant for the drama and glamour.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

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

3

Trev29Dec 26, 2013

Although the real story of Marie Antoinette is fascinating, this movie does not do her, history, or cinema justice. On the plus side, the costumes were masterful.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

30laAug 14, 2013

Love this movie, one of my favorites, love everything: Kirsten, the dresses, the acting, ESPECIALLY love Coppola for making my favorite movie. Why is that people don't like it? its perfect. Gorgeous. Delighting. I 've re watched it soooo many times

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

10

pinkriotlettuceNov 15, 2012

Everything about this movie screams a full rated revolution to a modern outlook on Marie, music, and France. The tone, the structure, and a strong lead provide an exquisite film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

10

francescoSep 25, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. There is such a misconception about the so called flop of Marie Antoinette. Although the movie divided critics ,the major critic reviews were favorable if not very good or even enthusiastic.I am among the enthusiastic ones. First because I know very well the story of M.A. and how it is difficult to interpret her story without being wrong. What Coppola did was to portray a sympathetic portrait of a woman forced to be queen without any help by her mother, husband or courtesans.Coppola brilliantly succeeds to evoke the real situation of that 14 years old girl,who was all alone. Poltics is left out but we are in the world of M.A. I appreciate very much that Coppola didn't want to film the revolution period because if you want to understand the point of view of M.A. you have to forget that she was executed. Coppola is more interested to examine the woman rather than the Queen and her personal feelings towards the entire situation. Besides, we have to remember that this is a movie,not an historical account. The movie is loosely inspired by the book of Antonia Fraser. I believe that Coppola is a very outstanding director. Kirsten Dunst was simply perfect and,in my opinion,deserved more recognition than what she had. She gave a very honest and moving performance.She was fantastic as the naive,spoiled,sensitive,frivolous and unaware Queen. But this is only one of the many sides of that woman. Coppola didn't show us the other aspects of the Queen because she has other purpose that is humanizing the despised and misunderstood Queen of France. There is not her political side , her faults and her disadvantages .It's the private side that only few people knew and not her public side. The supporting cast is appropriate as well. To me the movie was very snubbed by the Academy since I believe that it should have been nominated for best director and best actress.The movie was never meant to be an in depth biography.It could not be a substitute of a book .Coppola portrayed the elements of her story that fit to her trilogy of films(Lost in translation and The virgin suicides). But I think that the main problem is that someone doesn't like Coppola style.A very underrated great director.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

liontigerbearJul 23, 2012

Marie Antoinette is a gorgeously stunning film, less about Marie Antoinette than about a lonely girl trying to deal with situation. The costumes, cinematography and sets are all beautiful, as are the characters, with a subdued and heartfeltMarie Antoinette is a gorgeously stunning film, less about Marie Antoinette than about a lonely girl trying to deal with situation. The costumes, cinematography and sets are all beautiful, as are the characters, with a subdued and heartfelt performance by Dunst. The plot may have some weaknesses but it's execution is superb and ultimately saddening.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

TomM.Jun 25, 2008

Before seeing this film I had read that audiences at Cannes booed and jeered repeatedly during its showing and later audiences in French moviehouses fround the ting so absurd it elicited hysterical laughing. Frankly, those responses played a Before seeing this film I had read that audiences at Cannes booed and jeered repeatedly during its showing and later audiences in French moviehouses fround the ting so absurd it elicited hysterical laughing. Frankly, those responses played a role in my wanting to see the thing, hoping to be pleasantly surprised by an unorthodox treatment similar to a Ken Russell treatment of Mozart. No banana, folks. This movie is so inane, you might find yourself, as I did, cringing in embarrassment at the vacuous attempts at convincing us that Marie and Louie were,,,well...vacuous. And the soundtrack defys explanation. Is Ms. Coppola trying to say something about the decadence of the pre-Bastille oligarchy or her own dislike of 20th Century New Wave pop-rock music by marrying the two? The combination of the two contributes to the overall hokiness of this hokey flop.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

10

BarbaraA.May 8, 2008

It appears only certain people see the extraordinary intelligence and nuances of this movie. It is one of my favorites.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CaseyP.Mar 16, 2008

I loved this film. if you are into art, and history this is a great film to see. it captures the life of Antoinette and how young she was and was prosecuted for not being able to run a country when she was too young to even know who she was.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

RobertaZ.Jan 16, 2008

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

KevinF.Dec 11, 2007

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

PeterJ.Oct 27, 2007

I may be a bit harsh, but I was bored out of my mind. I stopped the movie, and then read her Wiki entry. It was more fulfilling.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

10

EliseGOct 20, 2007

This movie was amazing. I liked that it wasn't a historical piece, but a kind-of colorful bibliography. I found myself researching M.A after, and thinking how unfair her life was. I think the soundtrack is genius, and it works. It was This movie was amazing. I liked that it wasn't a historical piece, but a kind-of colorful bibliography. I found myself researching M.A after, and thinking how unfair her life was. I think the soundtrack is genius, and it works. It was so bold. Especially the "I want candy" scene. My fave!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

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

10

AlisonD.Sep 12, 2007

This is the best movie eva!!! I absolutely love it...it's soooooo amazing. You really do feel sorry for Marie Antoinette!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

CarlaCJul 29, 2007

I wanted to enjoy this, but the soundtrack would sweep me right out of the movie to wonder what the heck they were thinking when they chose that movie. Also, it was very uneven between narrative in the first hour and montages in the second. I wanted to enjoy this, but the soundtrack would sweep me right out of the movie to wonder what the heck they were thinking when they chose that movie. Also, it was very uneven between narrative in the first hour and montages in the second. It was very pretty, though.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

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

9

cynsJul 21, 2007

Wow! This movie is nearly perfect. The direction, acting, screenplay and cinematography were brilliant!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JohnMarkFJul 11, 2007

Very original and was interesting to view her life from her perspective.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

RGJul 4, 2007

Not the best movie, but def one of the boldest of last year. juxtaposing one of the biggest icons of French history and one of the biggest outsiders to become part of French history, against pop songs. And why not Coppola perfectly captures Not the best movie, but def one of the boldest of last year. juxtaposing one of the biggest icons of French history and one of the biggest outsiders to become part of French history, against pop songs. And why not Coppola perfectly captures the glamor and the snobbery of the French high society. although something s are hit and miss like the last shot of the destroyed bedroom at the end, and the way the mob that stormed Versailles is reduced to pack of people with flames. i think the movie could have been edited better with some things left out in the first 1/3. Dunst was perfect and the subdued performance of Jason Schwartzmen is great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

RaulSJun 20, 2007

THE BIGGEST DISAPOINMENT OF THE YEAR. An audacious concept, Coppola asks us to watch a two-hour music video, a frothy confection of shoes and parties, only to subvert the film in the last few scenes when Marie Antoinette (unfortunately THE BIGGEST DISAPOINMENT OF THE YEAR. An audacious concept, Coppola asks us to watch a two-hour music video, a frothy confection of shoes and parties, only to subvert the film in the last few scenes when Marie Antoinette (unfortunately played as a wooden stick by Canine-teeth Dunst, the films second flaw) faces her fate with dignity and with class. Character is earned, not bought. By juxtaposing parties and shoe shopping with the queen… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MarkK.Jun 5, 2007

I wanted to like this movie, really. However, it is too long and after the novelty of having 80s music set to 19th century costume wears off, the movie drags. A disappointment.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

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

4

RobinJ.May 16, 2007

There is nothing much in this film than the formal ceremonies and all that glamor. But it does well in showing the excess in indulgence behind the palace walls. Some scenes are too long and unnecessary. The scenes show Marie lazying around There is nothing much in this film than the formal ceremonies and all that glamor. But it does well in showing the excess in indulgence behind the palace walls. Some scenes are too long and unnecessary. The scenes show Marie lazying around and daydreaming which makes you feel like dozing off. The acting was fine, especially Kristen, who does great at being an ignorant queen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

LouisK.May 1, 2007

I thought it was a great film. No there is not a lot of "visible" action in there, but you need to pay attention to every little detail. The film really immerges you into the life of marie antoinette. Some scenes are really beautiful....a I thought it was a great film. No there is not a lot of "visible" action in there, but you need to pay attention to every little detail. The film really immerges you into the life of marie antoinette. Some scenes are really beautiful....a must for fans of Coppola's work.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AndyH.Apr 12, 2007

This is a masterpiece. It's a beautiful coming of age story, directed with panache by a gifted young director. The 80s indie soundtrack is a touch of genius, being used to convey with immediacy the emotions of a teenager in their This is a masterpiece. It's a beautiful coming of age story, directed with panache by a gifted young director. The 80s indie soundtrack is a touch of genius, being used to convey with immediacy the emotions of a teenager in their transitional years before adulthood. Anybody with a love of cinema should see this film, it's set to become a classic in the years to come.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

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

8

RobertI.Apr 7, 2007

Visually ravishing, the film captures the imperial grandeur of 18th century France, animated by the shallow, exquisite creatures of fashion. What dresses! What shoes! Captures excess without cloying or beating us over the heads, Visually ravishing, the film captures the imperial grandeur of 18th century France, animated by the shallow, exquisite creatures of fashion. What dresses! What shoes! Captures excess without cloying or beating us over the heads, Coppola's fresh interpretation remains underrated and misunderstood.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful

4

RobespierreJ.Mar 26, 2007

It's worse than I thought. It's shallow and that I expected but I couldn't anticipate its tackyness or at best, its thourough ordinariness. I liked the masked ball.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

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

5

SamMar 19, 2007

Great costume/set designs and a decent performance from Dunst saves this movie from being a total exercise in dullness.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MargieS.Mar 18, 2007

This was by far one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It expresses how completly isolated those were who were royal. Marie Antoinette had no idea what was going on outside the French castle walls, so we the viewers never saw it. This was by far one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It expresses how completly isolated those were who were royal. Marie Antoinette had no idea what was going on outside the French castle walls, so we the viewers never saw it. It was brilliantly directed. Along with amazing costumes, and beautiful locations.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

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

9

BrandonJ.Feb 25, 2007

Wow. I wasn't the biggest fan of Lost in Translation (though I did still find many redeeming values in it), so I really didn't see this film as something I would like. I was dead wrong! One of my 10 best of 2006. Kirsten Dunst is Wow. I wasn't the biggest fan of Lost in Translation (though I did still find many redeeming values in it), so I really didn't see this film as something I would like. I was dead wrong! One of my 10 best of 2006. Kirsten Dunst is perfectly cast- as is Schwartzman. Make your own judgment on this one before writing it off. It really is an amazing piece of cinema.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MintonM.Feb 23, 2007

I simply don't get the carping over this film. It's IMPRESSIONISTIC, folks...something the French, and one young director present at the fall of her own family's dynasty, understand quite well. The film lets you into the mind I simply don't get the carping over this film. It's IMPRESSIONISTIC, folks...something the French, and one young director present at the fall of her own family's dynasty, understand quite well. The film lets you into the mind of a teen torn from her family and homeland and forced to marry into a very rich, very disfunctional family. She grows, if not up, at least into the role, does all that is required of her...and then is trashed by a country from which she was isolated and never allowed to understand. It's about how shallow ideas lead to shallow values...and has many lessons for our times--including major instruction on the virtues of empathy. Don't criticize the film for what it was never intended to be; appreciate it for what it IS, a far better work than this growing director's previous work and a sadness-tinged joy to watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

AngelB.Feb 22, 2007

It showed the emotion conflicts, her partying and gambling, and looked stunningly realistic. It also left a lot of unanswered questions. It didn't show anything of the death of her second son. It didn't tell much of anything about It showed the emotion conflicts, her partying and gambling, and looked stunningly realistic. It also left a lot of unanswered questions. It didn't show anything of the death of her second son. It didn't tell much of anything about the war going on, which is ulitimately what ended the movie, and it left me confused.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

CateE.Feb 21, 2007

Visually stunning, but how long can that sustain a movie for. You start to wonder during if you're watching Marie Antoinette being self indulgent, or Copala's self-indulgent movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

MarciaV.Feb 19, 2007

I was really disappointed. It was a very limited view. I would have given it a ten if it had no sound... Although I did like the Cure song in the middle. I had to google her to find out what her actual story was. Left me empty.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

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

3

CecilP.Feb 15, 2007

A visually stunning mess. Great to look at but completely lacking an interesting script. Schwartzman is horribly miscast. Worth seeing for the sheer trainwreck value.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

N.W.Feb 4, 2007

Beautiful and boring.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MicahelP.Feb 2, 2007

The style, direction, and acting all make for a captivating view of one of the most famous Queens of France.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

KevinB.Jan 28, 2007

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

TonyC.Jan 17, 2007

A lush, gorgeous watch. The natural nobility of the white, high stepping carriage horses highlighted the shallow posturing of a venal court, and a story too loose and fragmented for those with no knowledge of Marie Antoinette's history. A lush, gorgeous watch. The natural nobility of the white, high stepping carriage horses highlighted the shallow posturing of a venal court, and a story too loose and fragmented for those with no knowledge of Marie Antoinette's history. Kirsten Dunstan did her beautiful best, but her journey from a naive teenage bride to a self indulgent decadent didn't quite come off; she was too nice from beginning to end. Unfortunately, despite its opulence, its a movie that can be dismissed from one's mind immediately after the end credits stop rolling.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MarkB.Dec 11, 2006

The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Sofia Coppola's films feature all the visual richness and splendor that her dad's are acclaimed for, but thus far in her career she's managed to nimbly avoid the The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree. Sofia Coppola's films feature all the visual richness and splendor that her dad's are acclaimed for, but thus far in her career she's managed to nimbly avoid the eye-candy-for-candy's-sake tendencies of Francis Ford's more pointlessly indulgent efforts (Bram Stoker's Dracula, One From The Heart). Her Lost In Translation very effectively used the bigness of modern-day commercial Japan as both backdrop and agent to American visitor Bill Murray's loneliness and disorientation (which is why viewers who waited for the DVD didn't "get it", were invariably disappointed and essentially cheated themselves by not seeing it on a movie screen). It's a given, then, that Marie Antoinette is going to be a visual feast, with every frame more ravishing than the last, but those familiar with Ms. Coppola's work should also already know going in how much more there is to it than just a succession of gorgeous pictures: the director is, without precisely apologizing for the Queen of France's historic notoriety, endeavoring to place it in context by presenting her as anything but in control of anything except the most superficial aspects of her environment. Like Pu Yi in Bernardo Bertolucci's masterpiece The Last Emperor, Marie is totally and impenetrably insulated from the people she's supposed to be ruling. Every detail of her life is as stringently regulated and supervised as Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984; Ms. Coppola brings this home in scene after scene, none more poignant than the ones in which the queen, intensely vulnerable and noticeably freezing, is undressed before the court. If Hollywood stars think (usually accurately) that OUR tabloid culture denies them any semblance of privacy, they ain't seen nothing yet! (And if Marie's honeymoon with new husband Louis XVI are accurately depicted, with everyone except Howard Cosell monitoring the royal bed, then no wonder the poor guy couldn't perform. I doubt that, under the circumstances, 1970s Warren Beatty could've either.) All of Ms. Coppola's seemingly oddball directorial choices (traditional classical music vying with 1980s New Wave pop hits on the soundtrack, casting of extremely American actors like Molly Shannon, Jason Schwartzman and especially Rip Torn) work beautifully to communicate her vision of Marie as a VERY typical teenage girl thrust into situations that she's completely ill-equipped to handle, and dealing with them no better or worse than most other teenage girls would. (OK, maybe Joan of Arc would be an exception, but that's another story.) Casting Bring It On's feckless head cheerleader in the title role is therefore a no-brainer, but Kirsten Dunst, in a wonderful example of an actor completely trusting the director, comes through with a winningly natural, relaxed performance that makes Marie's tragedy even more devastating; in one of history's ultimate examples of The Peter Principle gone berserk, here's a sweet kid promoted far beyond her level of competence. MGM's expensive 1938 epic take on this story starring Norma Shearer as Marie (and featuring a terrific, justifiably acclaimed supporting turn by Robert Morley as Louis) has just been released to DVD; it's extremely enjoyable but tries a little too hard to justify Marie's seeming callousness toward the poor--maybe that's why it was listed a few years ago in National Review magazine's list of the 100 greatest conservative movies of all time. It's understandable that in Ms. Coppola's version of Marie's life we mostly don't SEE the poor (although check out the extremely dirty look a peasant doing her gardening shoots at her in a seeming throwaway scene!) because Marie not only apparently didn't see them either, but seemed not to have even been taught that they existed. The French revisionists who condemned Ms. Coppola's film at early screenings completely missed her point: she's not at all justifying Marie's reign but is presenting it with deep insight and compassion as the tragedy of a tiny, delicate crystal figurine inadvertently caught in a hailstorm.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KenGNov 21, 2006

Sofia Coppola shows that she was more interested in Marie Antoinette's shoe collection, then she was in Marie Antoinette.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

4

MimiW.Nov 19, 2006

Although Coppola captured the selfish decadence of Marie Antoinette's lifestyle well, it was hardly historically enriching. I found it most disturbing that, while it was obviously appealing to the demographic consisting of teenage Although Coppola captured the selfish decadence of Marie Antoinette's lifestyle well, it was hardly historically enriching. I found it most disturbing that, while it was obviously appealing to the demographic consisting of teenage girls, the only real developed storyline revolved around Marie Antoinette seducing her husband. This movie was in no way profound, and only skimmed the surface of a potentially deep storyline.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

AliciaD.Nov 14, 2006

I kind of liked this movie.... but it's hard to say... it really dragged on.. a lot! There were certain parts that dragged on for at least half an hour.... then other parts that skipped about 3 years.. parts were very confusing but I kind of liked this movie.... but it's hard to say... it really dragged on.. a lot! There were certain parts that dragged on for at least half an hour.... then other parts that skipped about 3 years.. parts were very confusing but others were very interesting..Over all i give it a 5! I think i would be able to sit and watch it again but not for a while.. it went on too LoNG!!! … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

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

9

JohnR.Nov 13, 2006

An fresh view on an old story, cast and acted well, a lovely addition to film's capacity to investigate history through an inclusion of considerations of human nature.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

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

4

ChiT.Nov 11, 2006

Not total crap but hardly riveting. The film should have had a warning that its more about fancy costumes rather than MA and her place in french history. Looks like the only thing Sofia Coppola basically wanted was for people to sympathise Not total crap but hardly riveting. The film should have had a warning that its more about fancy costumes rather than MA and her place in french history. Looks like the only thing Sofia Coppola basically wanted was for people to sympathise with MA - why else would she not have directed the film in such a way that it also shows her death and how the masses in France were starving whilst she was leading a lavish lifestyle - after all, that's what she is most famous for and everyone associates her with the gallows. Trendy music and moving camera's worked in Lost in Translation cos it was in a modern trendy place called 21st century Tokyo - but to try and apply a rock based pop art soundtrack and camera movements to a slow anti-climatic period drama costume set doesnt really work - but at least we now know what to expect in a Sofia Coppola directed film. Tarantino car boot trunk shots she will never achieve!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

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

7

DanB.Nov 7, 2006

My score might have been higher had I not sat right in front of 4 ~13 year old girls, who kept on whispering about the movie being boring and asking when the heads would be chopped off. That said: this film is light on plot, light on My score might have been higher had I not sat right in front of 4 ~13 year old girls, who kept on whispering about the movie being boring and asking when the heads would be chopped off. That said: this film is light on plot, light on dialogue, is slow and contemplative -- if that sounds good to you, then you'll probably find it worthwhile, even if you do not think it's the greatest film. I think Coppolla tried to make a very hard kind of movie, to give a kind of impression, a feeling, rather than a story -- and that's pretty hard. She gets an A for effort, at least.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

PdlCNov 5, 2006

A petit four of a movie...but alas a stale one.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MichaelC.Nov 4, 2006

Brilliant, from Kirsten Dunst and Jason Schwarzman's performances to the music, and the beautiful costumes to the wondrous setting and art direction. This movie is one of the best fims I have seen. Period.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

SyzygyNov 4, 2006

Sofia Coppolla's tender portrait of the eternally young queen whose tragic innocence led to her unfortunate end. Coppolla wants us to sympathize with Marie by focusing on her mundane world of pleasure as a counterbalance against the Sofia Coppolla's tender portrait of the eternally young queen whose tragic innocence led to her unfortunate end. Coppolla wants us to sympathize with Marie by focusing on her mundane world of pleasure as a counterbalance against the objectification she suffers as a political pawn. While the original Marie may have been of two-minds about this, Sofia Coppolla pushes aside any mixed feelings and pushes into the fore Marie Antionette's everday concerns and basic humanity. She was not a vile person, just misperceived and understandably naive; a victim of political manipulation and hundreds of years of institutional neglect.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DavidP.Nov 3, 2006

I didn't at all find myself anxious for the end of the movie. In fact, I thought the time passed perfectly fine. The camera was obviously a bit taken up by all of the pretty and the sugary sweet and lavishness, but that's the I didn't at all find myself anxious for the end of the movie. In fact, I thought the time passed perfectly fine. The camera was obviously a bit taken up by all of the pretty and the sugary sweet and lavishness, but that's the point. And it's done in plenty enough interesting ways that I wasn't at all bored; it was interesting. I think it's a pretty human look back on those events, however accurate or not they're displayed, to show Marie thrown into the stoic France and told to make her family proud (or humilate them, otherwise) no matter what it takes. I'm not often a fan of the lavish, but this movie puts it into perfect context.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DTSNov 1, 2006

Marie Antoinette is a difficult film to review. To start off, though, I will say that it's certainly not better than Lost in Translation, which very well could end up being Coppola's masterpiece. But then again, Marie Antoinette is Marie Antoinette is a difficult film to review. To start off, though, I will say that it's certainly not better than Lost in Translation, which very well could end up being Coppola's masterpiece. But then again, Marie Antoinette is a change for Coppola on multiple levels - here she proves her artistic versatility and sometimes that's more reassuring to fans than another brilliant film on par with Lost in Translation. What sets Marie Antoinette apart from the majority of its contemporaries is its sheer bravery. I mean, one scene featured Marie running away from a gathering with The Strokes blasting in the background! Indeed, artistic bravery is admirable, yet here it is far more than admirable because one of thing: it succeeds. The film also hosts a powerhouse performance by Dunst, who, like Holly Hunter in The Piano, does not rely upon verbal forms of communication … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DianaP.Oct 31, 2006

My eyes threw up from pretty. Off kilter. Adequate performances by the actors.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

RandyBOct 30, 2006

A visual marvel, MARIE ANTOINETTE recreates the look of the period flawlessly and sets it to a divine soundtrack of mostly 80's gems. I enjoyed it, but it is definitely not for everyone (for the most part if you consider yourself a A visual marvel, MARIE ANTOINETTE recreates the look of the period flawlessly and sets it to a divine soundtrack of mostly 80's gems. I enjoyed it, but it is definitely not for everyone (for the most part if you consider yourself a manly man who watches ESPN and the like, you will hate this film). I appreciate it more looking back on it than I did when I was sitting in the theatre. There were many moments where I was saying "Hurry it up already! Enough pretty redundancy!" Yet looking back later I realized that those redundant moments were what Marie's life was about, and that it sets up for the brilliantly executed ending. I was looking forward to seeing Kirsten Dunst (as Marie of course) get decapitated, but the way Sofia Coppola bypasses that grim scenario and the audience's morbid enthusiasm is incredible. I personally would've rather seen someone like Reese Witherspoon cast, but Dunst wasn't too bad in the role. It's not that she couldn't act the part, just that she doesn't look the era. It's like casting Winona Ryder in THE CRUCIBLE and expecting me to believe that she comes from the 17th century. The commentary heard echoed throughout many reviews is that it wasn't historically accurate, but if they paid attention they'd realize that the film wasn't supposed to be. It's based on a work of fiction, not on history. Taken as it is MARIE ANTOINETTE is a pretty good, ultimately touching film, it's just not entirely as perfect as it seemed to be. But then again neither was that world.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

StaciaM.Oct 30, 2006

Nice eye candy, but too little dialogue. Glad it was filmed at Versailles. The controversial Converse seem to throw a lot of people under the 6 pt threshold.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

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

2

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

8

EricMOct 27, 2006

I thought it was fantastic and is my favorite of Coppola's three films. I don't get why some people are so down this movie. Anyone should be able to tell by the trailers that this is a stylized and modernized take on Marie I thought it was fantastic and is my favorite of Coppola's three films. I don't get why some people are so down this movie. Anyone should be able to tell by the trailers that this is a stylized and modernized take on Marie Antoinette's life and was clearly not intended to be a historically accurate biopic. Sofia Coppola creates movies that function as mood pieces, not busy predictable plot-driven films. If you go see this expecting a conventional period piece and walk out disappointed it's your own fault.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

StevenFOct 26, 2006

Despite its flaws, it's one of the most enjoyable films I've seen. It was the one film I wanted to see among everything in 2006. It lived up to my expectations and Sofia Coppola remains to be a great, daring filmmaker.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

SusanSOct 26, 2006

Wow, I really liked this movie. And I'm usually kind of reluctant on historical movies, due to the normal gross inaccuracies, etc. But the trailer for this intrigued me, and I really like Sophia Coppola. This movie is not meant to be Wow, I really liked this movie. And I'm usually kind of reluctant on historical movies, due to the normal gross inaccuracies, etc. But the trailer for this intrigued me, and I really like Sophia Coppola. This movie is not meant to be "informative." It's not an educational movie in the sense that we usually think of them. It is a striking, strange, awkward, slow portrayal of, what it seems like Marie Antoinette's life at Versailles must have truly been. I mean, how many times can you watch a PBS doc or go see an exhibit at a museum (not to knock either of those), to really understand what life was then? The film has a documentary, rough feel to it (there's even several shots where the microphone is visible overhead), and I loved it. I don't think she's played dim-witted, she's merely living as she only can figure out as she goes along. What I appreciated most was the intense feelings of isolation. We get one "les miserable" scene when the people storm the castle, but that's it. And that's what Marie's life was. Isolation. Parties. Fashion. Why else would she have not tried to use her queenly influence to remedy the problems of the country? As much as we hate to see it, this movie really gets at the emotional, although not necessarily historical, core of France just before the Revolution. Also, I loved Jason Schwartzman as the King; he silently every scene for me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

OmarCOct 26, 2006

I love this movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

JochenROct 26, 2006

The Marie Antoinette documentary on the Biography channel was more exciting and more accurate than the film. The music was the worst I have ever heard for a film. I thought in the beginning that I was in the wrong movie. Modern rock and roll The Marie Antoinette documentary on the Biography channel was more exciting and more accurate than the film. The music was the worst I have ever heard for a film. I thought in the beginning that I was in the wrong movie. Modern rock and roll music does not go with this film... Sorry!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

S.J.DOct 25, 2006

That was an amazing film. Alone, the imagery could have carried it, but Sofia Coppola wouldn

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

RoyROct 24, 2006

Sophia Coppola is a daring filmmaker. She created a movie about a historical figure and made it as dull, shallow, boring and uninteresting as humanely possible. She is a punk at heart. I have a difficult time understanding the people who Sophia Coppola is a daring filmmaker. She created a movie about a historical figure and made it as dull, shallow, boring and uninteresting as humanely possible. She is a punk at heart. I have a difficult time understanding the people who defend this movie. I liked Lost in Translation and I am a fan of deliberately paced movies. This was plain horrendous.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

CurtisJOct 24, 2006

Gorgeous. Best in it's first half, and a bit flawed, but ultimately captures the rarified world of the court of Versailles through the eyes of the young-not-ready-for-its-intrigues girl queen. Ultimately sympathetic but clear on the Gorgeous. Best in it's first half, and a bit flawed, but ultimately captures the rarified world of the court of Versailles through the eyes of the young-not-ready-for-its-intrigues girl queen. Ultimately sympathetic but clear on the title characters disconnect from reality and 18th century politics.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BillySOct 23, 2006

First of all, to all those critics who are tearing this movie apart for all its historical inaccuracies and creative licenses, I would just like to remind them that they were at the movies, not a French history lecture at Harvard! And as First of all, to all those critics who are tearing this movie apart for all its historical inaccuracies and creative licenses, I would just like to remind them that they were at the movies, not a French history lecture at Harvard! And as someone who knew I was going to the movies, I was completely in awe of the images in front of me. Not since Kubrick… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

KevinHOct 23, 2006

Nothing happens.

1 of 2 users found this helpful

2

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

2

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

9

ThewisekingOct 23, 2006

A Stunningly beautiful film. The cinematography and costumes are certainly oscar caliber. The lack of left-wing, self righteous anger at the royal lifestyle pissed off most film critics and the french, which is probably a good thing. The A Stunningly beautiful film. The cinematography and costumes are certainly oscar caliber. The lack of left-wing, self righteous anger at the royal lifestyle pissed off most film critics and the french, which is probably a good thing. The only critique; I am not sure the no-wave and post-punk off of Sofias iPod works all that well. She should have done it Kubrick style; painstakingly providing period music which would have worked better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

SammyS.Oct 23, 2006

Great costumes and settings but not much dialogue. You have to sort of know what's going on historically to "get it." Sometimes the modern music just does not "fit" the scene and can be distracting to some people.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JoãoP.Oct 23, 2006

I think that the ones that hate this movie don´t have any kind of sensibility. Sofia´s aproach to Marie Antoinette story, and specially the characters, is exactly the same that she took on "Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in I think that the ones that hate this movie don´t have any kind of sensibility. Sofia´s aproach to Marie Antoinette story, and specially the characters, is exactly the same that she took on "Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation, only the story is placed on XVIII century, France. And also is the most fresh, and one of the most beautifully shot movies of the year. This movie, definitly deserves and 10/10. P.S: The soundtrack is absolutely magnificent.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

MikeH.Oct 22, 2006

Not your daddy's biopic, with the usual rise, fall and redemption arc, and with no attempt at psychological depth, historical analysis or tightly structured plot. Instead, you get a gutsy re-imagining of a tired genre. Coppola gives Not your daddy's biopic, with the usual rise, fall and redemption arc, and with no attempt at psychological depth, historical analysis or tightly structured plot. Instead, you get a gutsy re-imagining of a tired genre. Coppola gives viewers a gorgeous, hypnotic tone poem of dislocation, amplified by the anachronistic music and cast accents. Definitely not to everyone's taste, but I had a great time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ChadS.Oct 22, 2006

Somewhere in England, in a pub, Midge Ure, with beery breath, blurts out to anybody who's listening, "This bloody movie begins in "Vienna, and I wrote a song called "Vienna"! Fancy that! It would've been f****n perfect, in my Somewhere in England, in a pub, Midge Ure, with beery breath, blurts out to anybody who's listening, "This bloody movie begins in "Vienna, and I wrote a song called "Vienna"! Fancy that! It would've been f****n perfect, in my humble opinion, had it accompanied Marie's journey to Versailles! I'm from the eighties, too, you know! And I need the money, goddamnit!" Sorry. Crazy Ultravox fan talking here. No love for the London-based synth-band, but Adam Ant, of all people, has the unique distinction of having his music accompany a silent film classic(Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"), and a period-piece biopic about a queen with too much free time. "Marie Antoinette" bears a faint similarity to Aleksandr Sokurov's "Russian Ark", in which your entertainment is derived mainly from the historical importance of the film's location. Some of the casting is disastrous. With the right actors, the repetitious scenes of court life wouldn't seem quite as tedious.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JohnYoungOct 22, 2006

A vapid costume-drama in which the costumes were the most interesting things in sight. Could have been cut down to 60 minutes without losing any of its plot, tone, or message.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

SusieS.Oct 22, 2006

it was a gorgeous film that was a lot deeper than it initially seemed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

SharyS.Oct 22, 2006

A beautiful, beautiful film. Mesmerizing with its delicate pace, contemporary and oddly fitting sound track and stunning, lyric photography, the film is also a plausible biography of this teenage queen. Dunst is perfect.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ClaudeZ.Oct 22, 2006

A movie fit for a queen. Refreshing, bold, and simply brilliant.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

MichaelH.Oct 22, 2006

Lovely trifle of a film. Great use of a mostly early 1980s pop non-hits in a period film set in the 1700s. Amazing costumes. Engaging Actors.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CliveC.Oct 22, 2006

Incredible! Dunst HAS to be nominated for an oscar, she's just excelent in the film, the best performance i have seen this year so far.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

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

9

KyleOct 22, 2006

It's not strong on narrative because you know the story going into the movie. the movie is subtex, an inside look into the life of a teenage queen. it's two hours of sparse dialogue, stunning camera work, and careful, deliberateIt's not strong on narrative because you know the story going into the movie. the movie is subtex, an inside look into the life of a teenage queen. it's two hours of sparse dialogue, stunning camera work, and careful, deliberate direction. different from all her other films yet keeping with her distintive style. the film is more art in terms of acting and directing than it is a hollywood blockbuster, so i'm not at all surprised by the mixed reviews.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful