Easily one of the most frustrating films I have seen in a long time.

On one hand the technical aspects, the costumes, the sets, the cinematography are all quite good. On the other hand the narrative is broken and disjointed, the dialogue is way out of place and the film moves at such a slow pace and then... it just ends.

We also have one major point of contention: the music. In some places the more modern rock-type soundtrack works. In many places, it just doesn't. It feels like the film is a long music video interspaced with some long dramatic skits in between at times.

Dunst is decent as Marie, but not great. Her typical ditzy persona is not a good match for the character. While shallow by nature, the character needed more depth then Dunst can provide. She should definately stick to cheerleading movies where she belongs as this sort of material is way out of her reach. Jason Schwartzman delivers a deadpan and somewhat funny turn as King Louis XVI, but in the end he is just as hollow as Dunst. Sometimes it works for him as he is able to become the character more, but othertimes his performance is obviously off.

Very frustrating, and very, very dissapointing. I'm lingering between a C+ and a C though it is closer to the latter then the former.

It was just okay, unfortunately.

Yeah, it's narratively light, but that really wasn't an issue for me. The biggest problem I had was Coppola's use of her now seemingly trademark naturalistic mise en scene. It works in films like Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides, but in a film that is banking almost entirely on its grand visuals to tell the story (there is very little dialogue throughout the film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing - Malick's The New World, for example), the natural lighting and handheld camera work simply do not work. Coppola is a prodigious talent, but if she is going to go the auteur route in her filmmaking career, she needs to write screenplays that mesh well with her style.

On the positive side of things, the soundtrack is absolutely fantastic (infact, I'd say Coppola didn't even get the most out of the amazing catalogue she was working with), and the majority of the performances are very good. I actually quite liked the ending, too. It was poetic without being overly dramatic and bombastic (which a guillotine climax surely would have been).

**/****

Interesting perspective, makeshift. I'm not sure if I agree with you about Coppola's direction. At times I find her (for lack of a better word?) "light" approach perfectly suiting to the stories she is telling... especially here. Much like Antoinette, she seems to loose herself in the glamour and extravagance. I liked the result, though it might not be the most compelling story put to film. Performances were all good, with no exceptions - probably because the (lack of a) script. I appreciated the visuals (the film is gorgeous), the soundtrack (another thumbs up here) and the general tone of the film. The ending was very well done. The only other complaints would be about the second act. Between becoming queen and having her children, the film for a bit looses itself - at least I lost some interest. Things pick up when the film looses itself in the gardens of Versailles and in the growing revolution.

I'm going to give it a B but I may upgrade later. The film should do quite well with the technical Oscars.

The first two thirds are long, boring, and generally uneventful, while the last bit is almost the exact opposite. Capola is obviously trying to instill the same feelings of loneliness and angst that she used for the female leads in her previous films in Antoinette. It works in places, but in many parts, it just doesn't translate. SOme of the scenes that are trying to convey those emotions feel drawn out and flat. There's a very fine line between a movie that's understated vs. one that's just plain boring.

Nice effort, though.

C+

So I didn't like The Virgin Suicides. I disliked the first half of Lost in Translation but really liked the second half. And now I really like Marie Antoinette for the whole movie.

The art direction and music were top-notch, along with probably the best food design and usage of animals in film i recent memory. Also, I thought the screenplay was rather excellent at capturing the sheltered life and values of royalty much more realistically than the pedestrian story archetypes used by most historical biopics. A-

This movie was barely ok as it really didn't have any bite and the story followed a pretty boring couple. I wish I stayed home and rented Amadeus.

Being the daughter of one of cinema's greatest directors can't be an easy thing to deal with. I mean how can someone look at movies like Apocalypse Now and The Godfather and not feel a severe sense of pressure? But evidently Sofia Coppola does not feel any such pressure and instead has forged ahead with a string of impressive movies like "The Virgin Suicides"; and "Lost in Translation" with her laudable ability to deliver character studies of people ranging from murder to loss of direction, Sofia forged a cinematic identity which was very distinct from her fathers large shadow. Even so when the time came for her to tackle the most infamous women in the history of France and even more daringly show her in a sympathetic light alarm bell's rang around the cinematic community. Early signs like the booing at Cannes didn't really help but Coppola 's previous efforts suggested that the benefit of the doubt was in order. Now that Marie Antoinette has been unleashed the judgement isn't very forgiving and why will so be explained.

First of all Coppola's decision to incorporate modern music and themes into the 18 th century court of Versailles actually works rather well. It works in a similar vein to the Heath Ledger fronted "Knights Tale" in making historical material seem more accessible to the modern audience and songs from artists like The Cure and Bow Wow Wow meld quite impressively with the material on show. The scenes dealing with dance and royal opulence are beautifully displayed. All wild costumes (Oscar worthy in fact) and towering Hair-do's they stand as some of the movies most enjoyable scenes where you temporarily forget about the shallow nature of what you are watching and display the wild decadency of France before the reality of revolution bore down on it all.

Kirsten Dunst does a capable job of portraying the doomed Queen be it her repeated attempts to give the throne of France a child something which proves highly difficult due to Louis XVI (played to a comic effect by Jason Shwartzmann ) being more interested in Keys then Sex, or her wild decadent parties and affairs which cloud her later years. But in the end Dunst is hamstrung by a person which history has recorded as someone which does not deserve any really pity and no matter how hard Coppola tries to cast the main character in a positive light a viewer with an knowledge of history feels a real sense of re-writing being performed before there eyes. Indeed one of the most damning scenes is the brazen way Coppola brushes over the famous "let them eat cake" line. Both Marie and Coppola are caught in a dream world where the past can be re-written and for this reviewer it's not something that can be respected.

Indeed even If one was to look on this movie from a completely detached point of view one would still feel that Antoinette is a severely self absorbed creature. The pathetic way that the movie deals with the revolutionaries (reduced to a barbarian style cameo) is some that grates in a large way. It's a rewrite of history and no matter how stylish the argument it will always be a flawed one.

This reviewer hopes Sofia does better next time. As a fan it's a genuine hope.

C+

I totally agree with Alex.


Visually one of the most gorgeous works in years, with oscar-worthy work from the cinematography, art direction, costume design, make-up,... all of this mixed with a killer soundtrack (which is totally suitable, I might add, as it was with The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation) and a dead-on performance by Kirsten Dunst. I'm glad Sofia Coppola has lost her head a little bit this time, as she delivers one of the most unconvencional - and one of the best - biopics in recent history. Comparisons with the work of Terrence Malick are really deserved. Like Malick's films, the rythm is deliberately slow (specially for someone who has watched too many Hollywood flicks recently) and the plot is overshadowed by the beautiful images. It's certainly one of those "rewind in the head for days" movies.


I think it might be my favorite film from her, as I said in the other thread.


A-

when I saw the credits, this really was a Coppola family reunion as I think there were about 6 Coppola relatives involved in this production.

I just was so completely underwhelmed. I think the film had potential as a more liberal interpretation of the story and I certainly wasn't paying attention to the historical accuracy at all.

Yeah, the sets and costumes were fantastic and I think the film could be up for some award attention for art design and such. My problem was the editing was horrible, and the narrative was just way too choppy. I mean, yeah I understand she needed to move ahead but the cuts felt so ... massive. It just didn't work for me. The more I think of this movie the more I dislike it. I'm definately on the low end of a C.

[font=century gothic]This is easily the most boring and egotistical film of the year. It's a shame too because I liked everyone, and I thought most of the performances were solid, it's just that they were given nothing to do. I also thought the set design and the costumes were well done. But that's it. That and Molly Shannon. Her role was too brief. She was the best thing about the film.

I absolutely agree with Rogue. The editing kills the movie. You can tell that there was a three hour movie once in there, but it's been cut down. And with the edits, I think all of the interesting stuff went with it. If you already know some of the history, I guess the edits are appropriate, but for anyone going in who is new to the whole subject, everything just seems to be glossed over.

To put it simply, Marie Anotinette is pretty, yet hollow, in more ways than one.

D+[/font]

While watching Marie Antoinette I was absolutely stunned at what I was seeing on screen. The sets were some of the best sets I've seen in quite some time. The costumes were to die for. It even has some of the best looking food to ever to be put on screen. The cinematography and direction is breathtaking, and is completely deserving of Oscars. I really do love this film. However, there were problems with it and I just couldn't decide on a rating. To me, it was too short. There were times it seemed to just jump around, or there wasn't enough said on a subject they were covering (like when she was sleeping with the other man). I also loved the ending, it was haunting and I'm glad it was shown like that. It didn't need to be bloody and gory to get the point across. All of the performances are spectacular, especially Kirsten Dunst who definitely deserves an Oscar nomination. It's the most beautiful film of the year by far, I couldn't take my eyes away from the screen. Even with my problem, it's one of the year's best, and is sure to please anyone who loves the filmmaking process. It's not a film for mainstream movie goers. There are scenes with no talking (like the beginning, the first fifteen minutes seemed to have very little talking) and it moves very slow. So I don't recommend it to everyone.

9/10 (A-)

Eh... maybe it's because we just got done with the French Revolution chapter in my History class, but I flat out loved it, probably my favorite film of the year so far.

I guess you could say I'm a fan of Coppola... I'd consider Lost in Translation an all time favorite, and though I didn't like Virgin Suicides I thought it was well made.

One of the year's best films, Marie Antoinette is a visually stunning project from talented director Sofia Coppola that is really a feast for the eyes. Using an edgy, off-kilter soundtrack to add to the world she is creating, Coppola has a real flair for amazing visuals - with this film displaying the best cinematography of the year so far. Kirsten Dunst also delivers a fantastic performance as the doomed queen, giving the role lots of depth and emotion. Highly recommended and fascinating to watch.

A

I absolutely loved it! It's one of the year's best films. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed. It's absolutely the most gorgeous movie I've seen all year. The costumes were simply fantastic and it will be absolute BS if this doesn't win Best Costume Design. The music was great as well. Kirsten Dunst was really good in the title role. I didn't like Jason Schwartzman in it. I am not a fan of his at all. He's always so unlikable, IMO. The movie has some scenes that are simply breathtaking (several in fact). It's a feast for the eyes. I won't deny that it is a slower-paced film but I was never bored and didn't even want it to end. I do think a lot of people will hate it though because you kind of have to be into artsy stuff. Oh, and I loved the ending. I thought it was perfect. It was sad and made an impact without actually showing what happened.

And of course, the soundtrack is terrific...

I haven't been able to get it out of my head since watching it a few nights ago and I'll be adding it to my collection.

Grade: 8/10 (A-)

I think the film works for about an hour or so, up until the point at which she has the baby; then it flounders for the remainder, and the plot has really no trajectory except to say that their spending is out of control and the nation is slowly turning against them. And it's not even laid out that clearly.

It's kind of sad, because there really are some nice moments, and it's wonderful to look at. Kirsten Dunst is entirely adept at handling this sort of material, but I couldn't help but wonder what a different actress with a greater range could have pulled off in the same scenes. Dunst is good but never great and never gives the film the added layer of depth that it desperately needs in its second half.

Loved the look. The music worked for me. I wish the screenplay would have taken the same risks.

B-

Terribly boring movie with nary character worth caring about.

Grade: D

Marie Antoinette just grabbed a chisel and carved "2006 > the rest" into a big concrete block.

Also, I think Sofia Coppola wins the "best user of music in history" award. The soundtrack/score of this film are great on their own, but without them the film would be only about seventeen percent as great as it is.

I liked it a lot.

While Marie A. probably deserves a new well done (and complete) biopic, I think Coppola's take on her was exceptional.

The film doesn't hate it's viewers, Coppola is trying to communicate the central dramatic shift in MA's life when she had her children, and how she went from Paris Hilton to (actually) a rather good and honorable figure. And for the most part it succeeds.

It's odd though, because the movie is largely a fictional extrapolation based on her personality and the type of things that would have happened and not necessarily a shot for shot retelling of significant events from her life (although some of those are inescapable).

The more I think about this movie the lesser my estimation of it

Its such an insult to history, its like making a movie about Hitler where you just show him having fun at the Berghof. Its visually stunning no doubt but the way Coppola shows the French public in brief barbaric glance's in an attempt to make Antoinette look like a unfortunate victim of history drove me nuts. Same with Louis's character. History recorded them in a less then flattering light and the breath of time since hasn't changed that.

If it was an entirely fictional story i'd have no problem but the historical re-write annoyed me no end to the detriment of me deriving any real enjoyment from it.

I don't think either is portrayed as "unfortunate victims". There are glimpses of MA not really fully understanding how deep of a crisis France was in, and lets face it, when the French came for her, they didn't come for tea, and they dealt with her and her children in particularly vile ways. ...

I mean...

The entire film makes a point to say that one of her sins was her large disregard and distance from the common folk.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antionette#Legacy for interesting reading.

I think thats one of the reasons this movie annoyed me, it needed to be longer and more encompassing of the other side, if you watch this movie you really get no picture of pre-revolutionary France. The glimpses and nods given are to vague to have any impact in my mind. They could have easily re-worked the 2nd half which dragged itself out before ending abruptly (the posters above made a good point about how its likely this was a longer movie in the original cut).

In the end I suppose Its simply a case of me wanting a movie about something that Coppolla don't seem interested in putting to screen, she took a slice of the cake when I wanted the whole thing.

All this French talk makes me pine for Kubricks unmade Napoleon

I think this might end up being many people's problem with the film...she knows exactly what she's going for and I think succeeds brilliantly...unfortunately, for you and many others I'm sure, what she's going for, it seems to me, is NOT Marie Antoinette Biopic. It's a visual representation of the inside of a character's head...and when that character is 200 hundred years dead, obviously no one can know what that inside really looks like. All she can do is make the bare minimum facts right (background, children, spending habits, death) and everything else is strictly Coppola's interpretation. That's how it works for me because I absolutely bought all of this young girls motivations, thoughts and feelings, and the film's style meshes so well with said motivations, thoughts, feelings that it just felt incredibly real and sincere and alive. (I know that whole little explanation sounds weird as fuck, but I can't get out just how the film works for me any clearer...and I could also be high.)

edit -I also think thats why it does so well with so little dialog and why the music is so important. Because the story (besides being very obvious visually) relies entirely on the costumes and sets and colors to bring it alive, and the music was by far the most important part of that process for me...it was almost as though every song or piece of music was written for the sole purpose of making the visuals more clear (be they character's emotions, tensions, or whatever.)