Marie Antoinette (2006)

Sadly Over-hyped

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

What an interesting movie....it's like Bring it On, in 1750 It's visually pleasing, so there's that. There are cute dogs in the movie, nice costumes. That's about it.

This movie might upset people who dig in to this movie of historical intentions but that is not what you should look for when you watch this beautifully shot movie. Lance Acord who has worked with Coppola on her debut short "Lick the star" (1998) and her Oscar winning "Lost in translation" (2004) make a beautiful movie together. The costumes, the scenery, the light, the photography - wonderful, mesmerizing. This film is more like visionary poetry than historical. When you watch a Sofia Coppola movie you should now her thin dialogue because she wants the pictures to tell you a story than words. I can't praise this movie enough it's so wonderful and I like how she had silent scenes where you her the sound of nature instead of music and I also like how she used modern music instead of classical music of Antoniettes time which gave the movie a very nice, atmospheric edge to it. Visual poetry is what this movie is all about!

If you are a student of history at all, skip this movie! If you are an American intrigued with the interplay and influence of the American revolution on the French Revolution, skip this movie! It is an insult to anyone that has any regard for the truth. The amount of historical content in this vapid exercise of costume and frivolity can be summed up in a short paragraph, or a short scene. And Sophia Cuppola (writer/director), I see that your net worth is estimated at 20 million. I think you may be part of the problem. Do you have any concept what it is like to be poor? Why didn't you include in the movie any content about the the obscene contrast between the wealth of the French nobility at the expense of the rest of the population (the 99.99% in Bernie's parlance)? Sophia, you successfully created a movie that captured a lot of teenage eyes, ears, and brains. It is a travesty that you completely wasted an opportunity to show that the significance of Marie Antoinette's life was that she typified the symbolic and literal end of the long overdue death of the Monarchy and the disparate distribution of wealth that made it possible (a concept that is 100% relevant today)! You got one half of the equation, the obscene wealth and frivolity of the court. You completely missed the other half, the desperate poverty (many of them literally starving) of those paying for the excesses of the ruling class. So to put it in Charles Dickens terms, the movie is "The Tale of ONE City". By the way, the perfunctory ending that fails to show that Marie and her King were executed is ridiculous! Sophia, I do hope you do better next time.

I wonder if the low rating on this movie has to do with peoples' expectations. If you were hoping for an accurate, crystal clear historical drama, then you ought to look somewhere else. If you were looking for a well done piece of cinema, then come on in. I'll break my review down into a few different categories. Cinematography: 10/10 this film was beautifully shot. Ms. Coppola was very skillful in her use of colors, angles, clarity, and whatever other magic she invoked to make this movie so visually pleasing. Script: 6/10 The film came off as fairly taciturn. There's nothing wrong with that, but when characters did venture to speak, they didn't say anything particularly profound. Realism: 6/10 I gave it more than a five because I think that the point of this film's seeming disconnect from reality was deliberate and employed for the purpose of expressing the queen's own selfishness and obliviousness. I was bothered by the fact that the film showed little of the struggle that the lower class citizens of France faced -- until I realized that was partially the purpose of the film.Acting: 7/10 I think all the supporting characters did very well. Kirsten Dunst was a good Marie Antoinette, although some of her speaking scenes were less convincing :| I think I'll come out and say it, I don't think she's very good at speaking parts. She is lovely and uses facial expressions to tell her story, but as far as verbal execution, there is much to be desired. Sorry! Jason Schwartzman did an excellent job. I loved his and Dunst's scenes together. This film had many familiar faces and I really enjoyed their performances. Music: 8/10 I haven't checked other reviews, but i imagine that there were some boo-hooers that disliked the director's choice to include rock music. I liked it because for the modern day viewer, rock signifies rebellion, fun, youth and carelessness. WHICH PERSONIFIES MARIE ANTOINETTE. Also, there's a violin piece that's comically used several times which I appreciated. Summary: I think this film is excellent for anyone like myself who enjoys beauty. I would have liked a little more introspection by Marie Antoinette, but I think that the director/writers were trying to keep the film somewhat unbiased by not imposing too much of their own interpretations on the viewer. While not a perfect film, it is a lovely one.