Columbia Pictures | Release Date: October 20, 2006
5.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 349 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
190
Mixed:
38
Negative:
121
Watch Now
Buy 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
3
KevinHOct 23, 2006
Nothing happens.
1 of 2 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
RobertaZ.Jan 16, 2008
Aesthetically perfect; depiction of characters horribly superficial, void, really incomprehensible.
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
1
JackCOct 13, 2006
A hideous, unintelligent mess.
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
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
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
3
N.W.Feb 4, 2007
Beautiful and boring.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1
KevinF.Dec 11, 2007
If you watch this movie, you will die of dysentery.
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
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
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
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