Columbia Pictures | Release Date: October 20, 2006
5.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 341 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
186
Mixed:
35
Negative:
120
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
MilesMOct 10, 2006
This movie walks all over the name and likeness of a dynamic individual. Boycott. Please.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
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
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
3
KevinHOct 23, 2006
Nothing happens.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
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 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
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
0
DavisROct 20, 2006
I felt sick afterwards. Did Coppola even read the book? I have and this movie isn't faithful to it at all. Sickening hipster trash that only a father could love (and pay for).
0 of 1 users found this helpful
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
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
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
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
8
NickR.Oct 21, 2006
While this movie is not the epitome of narrative or good direction, it does force the audience to consider whether or not what they learned in school about Marie Antoinette rings true. In appreciating this film, I believe, we are forced to While this movie is not the epitome of narrative or good direction, it does force the audience to consider whether or not what they learned in school about Marie Antoinette rings true. In appreciating this film, I believe, we are forced to give way to the recognition as Marie Antoinette as a girl (she's only 20 or so after all) who enjoyed luxury and perhaps indulged in that vice a little too much. Yes it is frivilous, yes it is historically inaccurate in many ways, but it also instills in us the much needed question "but what if the opposite were true." 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
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
ZatannaZ.Oct 20, 2006
A visual feast! - and a fine performance by Kirsten Dunst. Definitely a mood piece and not to everyone's cup of tea (stretches of little or no dialogue) - but lI loved it! Lots of verve and attitude!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0
JorgePOct 13, 2006
Jason Schwartzman and Kirsten Dunst make Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez look like Thomas Hayden Church and Sandra Oh.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnMOct 18, 2006
Coppola stuns us with glamour and decadence. A fascinating film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ArielleOct 21, 2006
Sofia Coppola did a superb job with this movie and should be praised by all as a great work of historical fiction! Although most perceive this as a fake portrayal of the real story, that was the point! it was historical fiction..... mostly Sofia Coppola did a superb job with this movie and should be praised by all as a great work of historical fiction! Although most perceive this as a fake portrayal of the real story, that was the point! it was historical fiction..... mostly facts but with a story twist. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
willyatesOct 20, 2006
A great movie, highly entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DebbieY.Oct 20, 2006
Beautifully drawn out, A must see movie!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ElliottM.Oct 20, 2006
Wonderful. I can't believe all the compliants about the ending -- it was perfect!!
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
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
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
BobM.Oct 20, 2006
The reviews below say "beautifully drawn out", "worth it just for the imagery alone...", "a visual fest", etc. I agree with these comments, but beautiful film making doesn't make an engaging story. This movie unfortunately digresses The reviews below say "beautifully drawn out", "worth it just for the imagery alone...", "a visual fest", etc. I agree with these comments, but beautiful film making doesn't make an engaging story. This movie unfortunately digresses from the perfection of "Lost In Translation"'s ability to combine Sofia's visual mastery with a plot and gentle turn of events that keep you wanting more. This movie returns to the "pop art" feel of The Virgin Suicides, where you want to like it, but after around an hour or so, the pace of the movie put me to sleep (almost literally). Maybe it was just missing Bill Murray? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChristinaH.Oct 20, 2006
So wonderfully captures the hermetically sealed culture of Versailles, its obsession with visual delights... and frankly, its vapid apoliticalness. The movie is worth it alone, just for the imagery of the palace with the nobility and without So wonderfully captures the hermetically sealed culture of Versailles, its obsession with visual delights... and frankly, its vapid apoliticalness. The movie is worth it alone, just for the imagery of the palace with the nobility and without the tourists. 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
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
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
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
KevinB.Jan 28, 2007
One vote for cinematography and one for costume. That's it.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
RobertaZ.Jan 16, 2008
Aesthetically perfect; depiction of characters horribly superficial, void, really incomprehensible.
0 of 0 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
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
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
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
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
1
JackCOct 13, 2006
A hideous, unintelligent mess.
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
3
DTGumbyOct 21, 2006
Basically what we have with Marie Antoinette is a movie where nothing happens, no themes are explored, no character is developed, there's no plot to be found and there's nothing to make up for this. My theory is that Sofia wanted Basically what we have with Marie Antoinette is a movie where nothing happens, no themes are explored, no character is developed, there's no plot to be found and there's nothing to make up for this. My theory is that Sofia wanted to make a Terrance Malick movie but didn't have the beautiful images and developed sense of place that makes his movies great. That said, Dunst sure is pretty and the 80s music really is well used. Maybe a 20 minute version of this film would be wonderful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
D.B.Oct 21, 2006
The comments of the users and critics only reinforce my previous inclinations that audiences often have their heads shoved up their you-know-whats. This movie is pure magic, of such a beautiful and wistful kind it takes the form of a 14 year The comments of the users and critics only reinforce my previous inclinations that audiences often have their heads shoved up their you-know-whats. This movie is pure magic, of such a beautiful and wistful kind it takes the form of a 14 year old girl itself; emotional, passionate, colourful, and energetic. It is a pleasure to spend time within this movie's spell; it is so good, that frankly, I think Sofia Coppola has made a film too good for the ignorant masses who will go to watch a historical adaptation of some textbook or to see a cookie cutter film that fits perfectly in a dumb multiplex. It should cost more to see this film; maybe some of the idiots would stay away. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TimP.Oct 21, 2006
Delightful acting, story, costumes, music. I was a bit put off by the use of blur, however. Otherwise an ace -- but I have a soft spot for the 18th Century.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JimM.Oct 22, 2006
Just amaizing...I do not know why people cannot humblly acknowldge this fantastic cinema... After all, it is juts a movie!
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
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
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
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
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
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
OmarCOct 26, 2006
I love this movie.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
3
N.W.Feb 4, 2007
Beautiful and boring.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0
JohanS.Oct 12, 2006
Perhaps the worst historical timepiece ever made.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JasonS.Oct 12, 2006
It's a movie. Not a good one, but you can sit through it...barely
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PdlCNov 5, 2006
A petit four of a movie...but alas a stale one.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
IgnatzOct 16, 2006
Sumptuous, both personal and superficial, great soundtrack. Lags slightly as it comes to the end, but a delight nevertheless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
HardyC.Oct 17, 2006
Utterly boring film. If only this fantastic cast had a more interesting script to work with . . .
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
0
[Anonymous]Oct 18, 2006
Boring, inaccurate and the acting -oophs what acting? Dunst is so miscast and Schwartzman's only reason for having the part is that he is Sophia's cousin. Read the Fraser book - wonderful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RoblOct 19, 2006
Self-indulgent, disingenuous work...
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
2
BernardP.Oct 21, 2006
The worst movie i've seen this year. I fell asleep thirty minutes in and when I woke up, to my horror, Rip Torn was trying out his best cockney accent. Leave the period pieces to the brits. This was an insult to moviegoers. Avoid at all costs!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
G.R.C.Oct 21, 2006
A very enjoyable film with a soundtrack that keeps your feet a tappin' and gives a good glipse at the girlish character of the former Queen of France. Tasteful and well executed. Kirsten Dunst and Rip Torn give memorable performances.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChloeL.Oct 21, 2006
Fantastic, decadent, chic, very Sophia. I can't get the mood out of my head. When they watch the sunrise, its magic.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MartinN.Oct 21, 2006
This movie's a classic. Far superior to what the marketing suggests. Check it out. Outstanding.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DanielROct 22, 2006
While slow paced and methodical, it is studded with beautiful imagery and even more gorgeous direction and acting.
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
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
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
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