Marie Antoinette (2006) User Reviews

Beautiful bore

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 6 November 2007]

Kirsten Dunst is "Marie Antoinette" in this anachronistic 2006 film directed by Sofia Coppola. The other stars include Jason Schwartzman, Rip Torn, Judy Davis, Marianne Faithful and Molly Shannon.

I can only guess that the reason for making this film was to show a teenage Queen of France cavorting with her girlfriends and shopping until she dropped while remaining oblivious to the plight and unhappiness of the French people. In actuality, that's probably pretty close to the truth about this historical figure. Norma Shearer was very good as Marie Antoinette, but she wasn't a kid. I think this version had the right idea. The only thing Coppola omitted was Marie's story, so the movie is instead about the above-mentioned teen partying, shopping, being unfaithful, wandering the grounds, while giving us a look at royal tradition, gorgeous costumes and dazzling scenery. Little else.

Marie Antoinette's life was full of drama - her liaisons with Axel von Fersen, the Affair of the Necklace, her husband's medical problem which prevented the couple from having children for so long, the revolution, the family being taken to prison, and the guillotine. Some of this is touched on or mentioned in passing; most of it is left out. There are five exciting minutes or so toward the end of the film.

In a way, it's a shame, because this film could have given us great insight into Marie Antoinette by having a very young woman play the Queen as these events swirled around her. But in order to do that, characters would have to have been developed, and there didn't seem to be any interest in that. If you love color, beautiful costumes and scenery, this is the film for you. Don't bother if you're looking for any kind of content; like the vacuous queen, there's no there there.

Only In Dreams..

[EchoBunny · 7/10 · 28 June 2006]

I have seen this film yesterday after a lot of hype up and waiting since in my little town everything comes out a month after the release date. I was looking forward to seeing this movie..a lot. But I must say that the trailers I had seen and the film have a completely different feeling. This isn't a bad film but I think that it well get a lot of criticism for not being historically accurate, not serious enough, being too long, being 'unfinished'... but those are not he bad points of this movie. The style is original and Sofia Coppola succeeds at showing Marie Antoinette's personal side. Her suffering through gossip and humiliation by her husbands lack of 'interest' in her etc. She succeeds in showing Marie Antoinette as a naive girl in the beginning..who hugs her first lady, cries at parting with her dog and announcing that the morning ceremonials are ridiculous. We see Marie Antoinette at the beginning trying to fit in with the strict life at Versailles but further on it's clear that with the gossip following her she stops caring and starts to have fun her own way which leads to her ruin. The negative points of the film is that Sofia Coppola uses the same techniques, the same scenes through out the movie. The trying on of shoes, the hairdressing, the patisserie dishes and the champagne. We see Marie Antoinette frolicking around in the grass too many times. Sofia Coppola apparently tried to show a girl out of touch with reality who lives just to have fun..to escape the wagging tongues of Versailles. But if that was her point the film should've ended long before. This is a biography of Marie Antoinette...even though not a completely serious or historically accurate one...but if Sofia Coppola is trying to show this French queens personality and human side then I can assure you there was more to her than the frilly lace, the satin shoe, the bakery department and the champagne. Marie-Antoinette was a mother who cared about her children and was involved with them..though we hardly we see this in the film except the sequence of her and her daughter on the farm. The relationship and the feelings she had for her husband aren't very clear and his for her aren't very much elucidated. This is a visually beautiful film but I think Sofia Coppola could've delved deeper into this rich personality. In the end you're left with the impression of stepping out from a hazy rose petal fragile dream that from someones tumultuous life. But a dream that's still worth seeing.

A new candlelight

[lossowitz · 5/10 · 12 July 2009]

A historic movie can be made with four intentions: to tell an exciting story, to teach history, to analyze the present by referring to the past or to shed a new light on history as it is told: deconstructing myths.

After watching Marie Antoinette is tend to believe that Sofia Coppola's intention was the latter, with the third intention as a side effect.

The movie clearly enters the discussion about the historic Marie Antoinette, who is, especially in France, seen as a reckless and spoilt half-spy, interfering with politics and who was executed rightfully after the French revolution. That last event is not even shown, but the director expects the viewer to know the end, as it is with more "things one knows about Marie Antoinette". It is even made explicit when the role itself refers to her most famous remark: "Let them eat cake!" "I never said that!" states Kirsten Dunst.

But what exactly is this new light that Coppola wishes to shine on the subject? It never becomes clear, maybe because the script is torn between staying true to history and showing a woman's coming of age.

It could have been a girl thrown into the cruel protocol of a highly organized court. But Marie Antoinette, though subjected to awful habits, never really suffers. The problem with getting pregnant from a almost impotent king troubles her and her mother, but before it becomes a life-threatening burden, history breaks in and a child is born.

To be laughed at by the rest of the court is never sketched as intolerable or the reason for her to take flight into sugar rushes, a make believe rural village or into the arms of a passing Swedish officer. She just does as all the others do at this court of leisure and endless parties.

By use of music Coppola tries to link that lifestyle to the lifestyles of the party people of today: the young and rich attending to their hairstyles, clothes, where to be with whom without one thought for the real problems of the world.

But even that analogy is never stretched to its limits: Marie Antoinette takes an interest in arts, reads Rousseau and genuinely enjoys the eggs and the milk in her life like farm resort.

So what do we end up with? A movie that never seems to know what it wants to tell: it is not history, it is only chunks of it. It's not a parallel with the present. It is not a real light on Marie Anoinette, maybe just a candlelight. And what the greatest miss is: it's not an exciting story.

Kirsten Dunst can be adorable. Some scenes are clearly charmingly improvised. And Jason Schwartzman is as dorky as Jamie Dornan is hunky. But if that is all, it is not enough.

Geez, I wish someone had told me this before I saw it...

[rooprect · 10 September 2013]

Something you should know about this movie before you see it is that it does NOT attempt to be historically accurate. In fact, many scenes were purposely "sabotaged" with anachronisms to remind us that this is not a historical biography; instead it's meant to be a parable for the modern world.

If I had known that, I might have enjoyed the movie instead of grinding my popcorn with searing hatred through most of it.

Most noticeably, we're hit with a very non-18th century soundtrack: Adam Ant, Siouxie & the Banshees, The Cure, New Order, Bow Wow Wow, etc. And it's not just atmospheric background music either. There's actually a ballroom scene where they're rockin out to 80s post punk. If you don't realize the purpose of this odd juxtaposition, you might find yourself strangling the person sitting next to you.

Other anachronisms are more subtle but equally bizarre. When Marie Antoinette goes on her shoe shopping spree (to the tune of "I Want Candy", no less) if you look closely you'll see a pair of Converse hi tops in the picture. That's probably when it should sink in that the director is messin with you.

So the point of my review is to warn you NOT to expect any sort of historical accuracy, or even proper historical context. "Marie Antoinette" is more like the story of a 21st century teen growing up in a world of social jealousies, confused politics & cliquish loyalties. Only instead of the highschool hallways it happens in the Palace of Versailles.

That explains why the film "missed the opportunity" of chronicling the French Revolution, the royal flight to Austria, the subsequent trial for treason and other landmark events that you'd think would be covered in a film called "Marie Antoinette". But no, those weren't within the scope of the film.

In the IMDb "goofs" section, people have listed everything from "The real Marie Antoinette didn't wear underwear" to "18th century French forks should have 3 tines, not 4." Ooook. I'm sure those historians hated the movie like I did. But literally as I type this review, I'm hating the film less & less, and I might even try watching it a 2nd time. "Marie Antoinette" is definitely not your typical period piece, though the lavish visuals and big budget might lead you to believe it is. Approach it instead as an experimental indie type film with no rules, and you might really enjoy it.

For me it might be too late, but if you haven't seen this movie you should have fun if you know to expect a modern day story that's ironically set in the late 1700s. It's a good flick, although I question why it won at Cannes (actually, when you see the end credits and realize how much money this production brought to France, maybe there's no question why it won). Definitely do not expect an 18th century European history lesson. For that, stick with the excellent period piece "Amadeus" and the very entertaining 1961 Sophia Loren film set during the French Revolution, "Madame".

Could have been great, but...

[Pasky · 7/10 · 23 May 2006]

I've just seen Marie-Antoinette at a sneak preview in Amsterdam. I had heard and read so much about this film that my expectations were probably too high. Hence my disappointment. What a strange mixture! Kirsten Dunst is excellent, and Jason Schwartzman too (as Louis XVI), but what a pity for the rest of the crew: this mixture of accents (American, English, French, fake French...) doesn't help. Coppola tried to give a modern twist to M-A's story (with Rock'n Roll music and Dogma-style filming), but I found certain things quite... surprising, like the masked ball at the Garnier Opera, which was only built in 1874, 80 years after M-A's tragic death... But I thought: Why not? Let's be open-minded... Actually, my main problem was not with this aspect of the film, but more with the fact that it lacks rhythm, and that it's much too long (almost 2 hours!). And there are huge gaps on the historical level, which Coppola tried to fill up with paintings (like the death of one of her children, who's erased from a painting). Could have been 'funny', but alas!... it isn't. But let's stop complaining for a moment. I gave this film a 7 because I still think that some moments are of pure magic, like the part about nature, when M-A seems to find peace in her little 'farm' next to Versailles. In those moments, I had the feeling of seeing Lux Lisbon from The Virgin Suicides (also played by Kristen Dunst...) evolving in a sort of timeless parallel world. Pure beauty! In those moments, I thought: What a queen!

more costume than drama

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 19 July 2016]

In 1768, Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst) is a young princess in Austria. Her mother sets her to marry the future French king Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman). She is naive and inexperienced in the ways of the Versailles court. There is King Louis XV of France (Rip Torn), his mistress Madame du Barry (Asia Argento), and Comtesse de Noailles (Judy Davis). The Dauphin is distant and Marie struggles to connect with him. They are not sexual and she's under pressure to give an heir to the throne.

Sofia Coppola delivers a bright, light Marie Antoinette. She's very modern. There is some nice tension as the pressure builds for a baby. The movie fades away after that as France falls into revolution. Dunst is better as the young teen more than the older queen. The movie has the costumes but the drama isn't always there.

Hollow Biographical film

[mandagrammy · 6/10 · 15 May 2022]

Kudos for settings and costuming. That's where it ends. Actually, Kirsten did do a good job of portraying a flighty, self-absorbed young girl who is is not really cut out for the serious responsibilities of Queenship. Her transformation into a Queenly older woman, however, is far too swift, making it unbelievable. For me, the greatest irritation comes from the musical score. What brilliant person came up with the idea of using very modern music in an 18th Century historical film? It was always jarring, making the scene laughable. There are definitely better made Marie Antoinette films out there, I have no doubt.

A brave retelling of the Marie Antoinette story

[Denno1972 · 7/10 · 21 December 2020]

This is a brave retelling of the Marie Antoinette story, complete with American accents and an 80s soundtrack. The look of this movie is astounding. Wonderful scenery, cinematography and amazing costumes. It starts very well, detailing the absurdity of life in the palace with a deft touch and a great deal of satire. It then develops and we get a sense of tragedy on the young queen and you really feel for the predicament this young person has been put into. So far so good, however for me he movie takes a downturn in the second half. The fast paced but empty telling of the queens descent into partying and adultery is well told but far too long and repetitive. Overall it's an effective, mostly successful and certainly different telling of this story. Oh, and the score is beautiful but the 80s music? It didn't work for me and I found it distracting.

A MODERN PERSPECTIVE ON TWO TRAGIC HISTORICAL FIGURES

[info-73150 · 8/10 · 9 May 2019]

I actually rather enjoyed the film. Beautiful art direction. Kirsten Dunst (luminously) portrays Marie Antoinette; a young soon-to-be queen, full of love and yet terribly flawed, a royal with nothing but her bloodline to offer France. The film offers a female perspective on what it must have been like to be a bargaining chip to maintain peace between 2 powerful countries. In the film, Marie Antoinette is not unlike many privileged and wealthy young people today; easily bored, constantly seeking distractions and amusements, and in desperate need of direction, attention, and affection. She is a young woman who appears to have held no real interest in politics--she simply wants to fulfill her duties as wife and mother. At heart, she is a "country girl" in many regards. She seems happiest in when in the country with nature and with children. It was insightful to see Marie Antoinette portrayed as a woman with foibles and weaknesses--in the framework of most histories of the French Revolution, she is painted as a conniving villainess. This movie offers a more human perspective on this period of time in history, and reminds the viewer that these two monarchs were just teenagers; terribly ill-equipped to manage the responsibility of ruling a country that was already deeply in debt. I appreciate the viewpoint of this film...it's a fresh portrait of the history of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The contemporary music mixed with classical reminds us that history can and will repeat itself. The films is a cautionary tale against allowing wealth-based leaders to override the needs of a struggling nation. Too much decadence pushed under the noses of the poor will only lead to a revolution.

A very overly criticised movie

[bm230199 · 7/10 · 9 July 2022]

This movie was a solid 7/10. It wasn't groundbreaking but it was entertaining, Dunst was endearing and of course very visually pleasing. I find it amusing and rather telling how critical most of the reviewers are of the director and think if. Sofia was named Simon they would not be mentioning her so much. I enjoyed it and it taught me some new things about Marie Antoinette.

Let Them Watch Cake!

[danstewart25 · 4/10 · 25 October 2006]

Marie Antoinette is the film equivalent of one of those expensive fashion magazines that pepper indie art galleries – packed with achingly hip aesthetics but free of meaningful content. The film traces the life of the last Queen of France from her introduction to the French court until her departure from Versailles. If you're looking for serious history though, you're better off sticking to Antonia Fraser's source novel. Wigs, footmen and finery are more often than not filmed to the strains of 80s pop and punk and a pair of Converse shoes even sneaks onto the screen (though viewers will have to be sharp-eyed to spot them). It's the 18th century, Jim, but not as we know it. Marie Antoinette the film shares the obsessions of Marie Antoinette the character – shoes, cakes, finery and having fun. It even finishes before the dark conclusion to Marie Antoinette's tale – her arrest and subsequent death by guillotine for treason. Sophia Coppola's last film, Lost in Translation, won an Academy Award for Best Screenplay but it's safe to say she won't be receiving any such plaudits for this script. There's barely any dialogue for the first twenty minutes, and most exchanges thereafter are pithy and shallow. Great actors – Rip Torn, Danny Huston, Shirley Henderson – are given nothing much more to do than push the narrative along its slow path. Dunst's role is mainly to giggle, roll her eyes, and run around in period costume. O.C. characters have more depth. Visually, however, the film is stunning. No, better than that: it's luscious. Coppola was given special dispensation to film in Versailles and all the extravagant finery of the palace's rooms unfolds across your screens. When Dunst has a shopping spree – to the anachronistic sounds of I Want Candy by Bow Bow Bow – you go with her, feasting on cream-stuffed cakes, delicately stitched shoes and beautiful, patterned fabrics. The film is an orgy of materialism, filmed with the sharp editing and honed soundtrack of a television advert. All of which makes it difficult to see what point Coppola's making. The camera's fetishises the spoils of wealth and yet we're encouraged to feel sympathy for her as the revolutionaries close in on the palace at the film's end. She wants us to think Marie Antoinette's character was misrepresented – 'I never said that!' she claims of the famous 'Let them eat cake!' reports – but shows us enough debauchery to reinforce the common perception. In fact, it's difficult not to see the director herself mirrored in her central character as it was in Lost in Translation – the spoiled Hollywood royalty reaping the benefit of her connections to stuff herself (and her film) with profligate confectionery. Your enjoyment of Marie Antoinette will depend on how you go in. If you're expecting Dangerous Liaisons you'll hate it. If you think you'd enjoy an 18th century hybrid of A Knight's Tale with Clueless, kick off your Converse, stock up on fairy cakes and indulge.

A sensory delight

[jmb360 · 8/10 · 27 May 2006]

Based on the recent Marie-Antoinette biography by Antonia Fraser, Sofia Coppola's film focuses on the personal qualities of the character of Marie-Antoinette and thus participates in the character's historical rehabilitation. Antoinette is seen as a respectful loyal daughter, a loving mother, a patient wife, who had to withstand a flood of vindictive criticism since the moment she set foot in the French court. This depiction contrasts strongly with many prior representations of the character in film ("The Affair of the Necklace" for example), which show her as superficial, selfish and vain.

The visuals and auditory elements, which evoke a powerful image of 18th-century Versailles, are the movie's forte. And their effects linger in one's mind (or at least they did in mine) long after one's exit from the theater. As a budding art historian, I was stunned by the intensely lush visual spectacle the film has to offer: the pomp and circumstance of ritualized and regimented 18th-century Versailles. The semi-private world that Antoinette builds for herself to escape Versailles's codified, quasi-totalitarian atmosphere, is evoked through a sequence of fast-moving images of champagne-guzzling, beautifully-decorated cake-eating, and Manolo Blahnik shoe buying. Thus Antoinette's fantasy world is likened to a world recognizable to you, me and Carrie Bradshaw. Some people may scoff at this 21st century world transposed to an earlier time. But as the center of the world in 18th-century Europe, Marie-Antoinette's "secret Versailles" would certainly have been as "hip" as this, and Coppola has found effective means through sound and image by which to make this hipness accessible.

The story zooms in on the character of Marie-Antoinette, played by a ravishing Kirsten Dunst, who arrives at Versailles at the tender age of 14, to become queen of France a mere 5 years later. Coppola emphasizes the loneliness of Antoinette throughout the film: most important is her alienation from the French court by the fact that she is a foreigner (something that made her a scapegoat for all of France's problems during the 1780's). Her powerlessness to "fit in" is emphasized also through her sexual alienation from her socially-awkward husband (played by Jason Schwartzmann), her mother's chidings that she has not yet produced an heir to the French throne (and thereby has not secured Austria's political place in Europe), and the bitchy gossip that goes on behind her back at court.

Marie-Antoinette is depicted as an intensely personable, friendly and playful person. Coppola fashions a Marie-Antoinette who is a dutiful daughter, a patient wife to Louis (who eventually overcomes his shyness and becomes a loving and protective husband and father), and a caring and tender mother. She is shown as both bold and humble, two qualities which had quasi-miraculous effects on both the court and the angry mob, as is shown in some of the film's most touching moments.

Equipped with these "essential" personal qualities, the charges traditionally made against Marie-Antoinette fade completely. It is precisely Antoinette's ill-fated attempt at fitting into French court society that causes her escape into a world of idle futility and libertinage. Her escape into the world of "playing shepherdess" in her pleasure-house of Le Hameau is shown not as a silly escape from responsibility but as the simple human need to be surrounded by the natural world. This place appears to us as it does to Antoinette: as a refuge from the backbiting, totalitarian regime of Versailles. Even the legendary "let them eat cake" statement allegedly made by Marie-Antoinette is discarded as fiction.

There is almost no place in the film for the 18th-century reality as it existed outside the bubble-like world of Versailles. This is not the movie's purpose. The end of the film is a bit abrupt: the last image shows the royal family heading to Paris to be imprisoned in the building of the Conciergerie. There is no mention of the guillotine anywhere, which again can seem surprising, but which shows that Coppola deliberately tried to eschew stereotypes and do something different. And it is all to her credit.

beautiful but meaningless

[s_laughl · 6/10 · 25 September 2006]

I was so blown away by Lost in Translation in 2003 that I was really looking forward to Marie Antoinette, and I was thrilled to discover when i was in Paris this summer that i could catch it before it opened in North America. While the film is beautiful looking and witty with its pop punk soundtrack, I was ultimately disappointed. I couldn't understand what Coppola was trying to say about Antoinette showing what felt like a hundred scenes of her trying on shoes, wigs, and frolicking in the grass. Are we suppose to pity her, like her, or hate her? Kirsten Dunst performance while strong in Coppola's first film The Virgin Suicides is incredibly weak here as she herself seems to have no idea how she's suppose to play the queen. And while I love Jason Schwartzman in wacky indie movies like Rushmore and I heart Huckabees I just didn't feel like he had the acting chops required to pull off this pretty serious role. I think that Coppola should avoid big flashy films like this in the future; small personal pieces are definitely what she's best at.

Good Idea, Bad Execution (no pun intended)

[cinematikk · 3/10 · 23 October 2006]

Much like its titular subject, "Marie Antoinette" seemed to have run out of money in its final stages and suffers from a terrible ending. Coppola continues her exploration of beautiful bored girls, and to her credit, no one does boredom like Sophia Coppola. I like how she compares the opulence of 18th century France to 1980s US/UK. But the film doesn't have the zippy pacing necessary to pull off what was intended to be a fun and frivolous ride. Instead we are left with a tedious and frivolous ride...a disappointing combination considering the wealth of talent involved in the production. On top of that, I will never understand the decision to end the story with Marie's exile and not her execution. We're not even given a HINT of what's to come! No arrest, no explanation of her treason. Sure, many of us know what happened in the end; we don't need to see the guillotine drop. But honestly, if you came into this film without any knowledge of the full story, you would probably leave thinking, "How sad! Paris Hil---, I mean Marie Antoinette had to leave behind her pretty palace and all those cakes and shoes!"

Sofia Coppola's Soap Opera

[Chrysanthepop · 22 May 2010]

Sophia Coppola really seems to know how to ruin a potentially great movie concept. Marie Antoinette is a fascinating figure in European history and one would expect the movie to account for at least a few interesting things that happened when she came to France to live with the prince. What we see is another sugarcoated Hollywood movie which is pretty much exactly like those teen highschool movies where rich young girls gossip, obsess with fashion and popularity etc. The only difference here are the costumes and the fact that not all the women in this movie are as young.

To top it off, the soundtrack...well, let me first put it this way, as a stand alone compilation, it's terrific to listen to but the way the modern tunes and songs have been incorporated in the sequences looks ill fit. It looks like a the characters have gone to a current day costume party rather than a movie of the period. Moreover, Coppola fails to draw the body language and nuances of the French culture from her actors. Not once does one get the impression that this is a story about France. As a result of bad direction and terrible writing, the performances of the actors suffer even though Kirsten Dunst does the best she could with the given material.

The director portrays Antoinette as naive and frivolous. There is no mention of her historical accomplishments or failures. Now it isn't an easy task to convincingly tell the story of a historical figure in two hours but Coppola focuses the entire two hours on Antoinette being fascinated by her riches and partying around. A competent director and writer could have done so much more with the storytelling. In the current case, only near the very end things start to move along but here too the story speeds up at such a superfast pace that the ending is extremely abrupt and contrived.

'Marie Antoinette' is like a bad birthday present that is wrapped beautifully but once unwrapped, the gift itself is far from satisfactory.

No idea what this movie is about

[westwall-145-275285 · 6/10 · 23 December 2020]

This movie simply has no storyline. It's like glimpses of her life in France. The scene of having meal at the same dining table repeats over and over again like 10 times. Nothing propelled a story forward. The ending was just a quick wrap up. Nothing explained.

Struggles badly with pacing and aesthetic

[tobyrob · 6/10 · 11 January 2024]

I like what this film was trying to do, in terms of rethinking the way we remember and treat marie Antoinette, as the villain who said "let them eat cake" and not as a real human, doing what seemed right to her. However, I don't actually like this film, for my many reasons, the worst of which being pacing.

I don't mind a slow film with lots of shots of very little that help establish emotion and tone, however this film featured many long shots of large buildings and halways, with little emotion, to indicate a grand, formal atmosphere that just make the film really boring.

The second problem I have is aesthetically this film won't commit, with some scenes being set to peruod accurate irritating music and ooccasionally others being shot to upbeat modern pop songs. This leads to every pop music scene feeling strange and out of place.

On a similar note, the film can't decide ehich language it's using, with some people speaking english, some english with american accents, some english with obviously fake posh accents, some people french and occasionally people saying french phrases in an american accent, which is just wierd.

Accurate for the most part, but wastes time on unimportant things, like the queen.

[Avwillfan89 · 6/10 · 29 December 2022]

The plot elements that happen in this film are indeed historically accurate. However, despite the grandiose display of opulence, food, wealth and champagne, we never actually see the consequences of what the spending does to the public, which ultimately turned more violent and nasty towards the monarchy, but especially its queen.

The events and the escalation towards the royal family's eventual downfall are hardly seen, only mentioned in passing, despite it being extremely important. The affair of the Diamond Necklace is omitted completely. While the public immensely disliked Marie Antoinette for her overspending and the false quote "Let them eat cake" attributed to her (which is dismissed by Marie in the film immediately) after the failed con of Diamond Necklace affair, people absolutely loathed her, despite her not having anything to do with it.

The film ends just as the family leave Versailles. It would have been much more powerful if we could at least get a glimpse of the very low fall from the high.

I was also put off by the modern music. At one point, a song is played as though someone is blasting it through a speaker, which makes no sense whatsoever. It isn't like in Bridgeton, where musicians play classical renditions of pop songs, as they are playing it live.

I definitely think a better version of this story exists out there. Although Kristen Dunst plays the part well, she could have really benefitted from a better script.

No masterpiece

[fotlguy · 6/10 · 26 October 2006]

When I was half-way into the film I began to wonder how they would tell the whole story in the time that remained. Then of course the film ended with the Louis and Marie Antoinette leaving Versaille with their children for safety. Had the film continued on to their execution it would have included their harrowing attempt to escape only to be recognized and caught at the border. What a scene it would have been. Also Kirstin Dunst would have had to expand her acting abilities to portray quite a different queen dealing with her jailers and bearing up stoically not only with her impending death but with the knowledge of her son languishing neglected after having been removed from her protection. Would Dunst be up to that?

No way the film will escape being nominated for the costumes and possibly the sets. What textiles! What an array of shades of blue! One could feel the fabrics.

Marianne Faithful was surprisingly good as the august Hapsburg Empress Maria Theresa. It is always a delight to see Shirley Henderson. I thought Jason Schwartzman brought the right measure of languor and debility to the youthful Louis XVI.

I Thought I'd Like It and...Ta Dah! I Did! Not Only That, I Love It!!!

[binaryg · 10/10 · 11 November 2006]

Having trashed two of the three movies Sofia Coppola has directed (I didn't see Lick the Star, yuck!) what made me think I'd enjoy Marie Antoinette? I'm old and worse yet, a male. Certainly not the demographic Marie Antoinette is aimed at, so I found when I ventured out to my local Cineplex to check out Ms. Coppola's 4th go at directing. I figured to use the theater as my personal screening-room on a Friday at noon. Oops! It was a school holiday and I entered one of the smaller of the 14 "theaters" into a crowd of a dozen or so chatting high school girls. I had mistakenly arrived 20 minutes early so I had an opportunity to eavesdrop on their discussion concerning the ethics paper they were required to write and what they were considering giving up for a week as required by their class. These must have been students at the nearby parochial high school. What public high school has ethic courses? They seemed a perfect audience for a film on Marie Antoinette. The theater continued to fill as film time approached. It filled to approximately ¾ capacity and I was, as best as I could determine, the only male person of my gender.

So why did I think I'd enjoy a film by a director whose films seemed directed by a person with a spoiled child's view of the world? Well, what I'd read about Marie Antoinette resonated close enough with Moulin Rouge, Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge which blew me away. "Lavish imagery and a daring soundtrack set this film apart from most period dramas; in fact, style complete takes precedence over plot and character development in Coppola's vision of the doomed queen" should sound familiar to Moulin Rouge fans.

Well, as soon as the black and shocking pink credits showed up to the sound of The Gang of Four's "Natural's Not In It" I knew I was in the right place. Kirsten Dunst was, in my opinion, a perfect choice. She's beautiful but not too beautiful. She has an aura of mischievousness which worked from start to finish. Ms. Dunst, at the young age of 24 or so, already has a long career in Hollywood. And she was only one of many. From Marianne Faithful, to Judy Davis, to Rip Torn, to Jason Schwartzman, to Asia Argento, to many others perfectly cast.

For me, the film never dragged or bogged down. The sets were beautiful. (What can you say about Versailles and the French countryside?) The food was reminiscent to me of Wayne Thiebaud paintings, but more colorful. The costumes, the music, added to the sense of decadence I think the film aimed for.

Yet Marie Antoinette's character never seemed decadent. Ms. Dunst's openness and delight in all presented to her, came across. Despite her loss of freedom and the difficulty in eventually becoming the Queen of France she was able to "Party On!"

What made the film, for me, exceptional, was how Sofia Coppola was able to make both Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI living, breathing, human beings, rather than grotesqueries. I was moved several times by their connection or lack of the same.

There is a lot to see, hear and experience in Marie Antoinette. It is an accomplished and stimulating cinematic experience. I shall view it as much as I am able. This film has prompted me to review both The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation. The world is certainly in need of feminine perspective and Sofia Coppola has made a statement that she has the potential to be a very Great talent.

Pardon my verbosity.

Marie Antoinette—not an airhead but not insightful either

[jkbonner1 · 7/10 · 9 November 2006]

Marie Antoinette was fifteen when she married Louis Auguste, dauphin of France. At the death of Louis XV (1774) she became Queen of all France at the age of nineteen. She has generally borne a bad rep, mostly undeserved. Supposedly when told that the Paris mob demanded bread, she is said to have replied nonchalantly "Let them eat cake." The movie makes the point, which is assuredly accurate, that this story was a complete fabrication by one of Marie Antoinette's many enemies. As a foreigner and of Austrian birth (a traditional enemy of France), it is well known that she was often a convenient scapegoat for the discontent and restlessness of the French people, particularly as the political situation preceding the revolution deteriorated.

The film accurately depicts the intricate and rigid court protocol surrounding Louis' and Marie Antoinette's daily rituals, beginning when they awoke and unceasing throughout the day until they went to bed. It also delves into the glitter and intrigues of the court of Versailles and the wasted lives of the courtiers. One inaccuracy: the film implies that Louis suffered from premature ejaculation, thus preventing him from producing a child with Marie Antoinette. It seems more likely that he suffered from phimosis, a condition that can afflict an uncircumcised male, making an erection very painful. Although not known for certain, apparently this was the case. Once an operation was performed to correct the condition, Louis performed fine. It might be pointed out that unlike his great-grandfather, Louis XIV, and his grandfather, Louis XV, Louis XVI was a loving husband and father and had no mistresses.

We are often told that as humans we can create our own history. This is only partly true. Many individuals often find themselves overwhelmed by events not of their own choosing that are totally beyond their control, thus negating the idea that we create our own history. We can however choose how to behave even when events are overpowering. Both Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were loving parents who were swept up by the vagaries of history and destroyed by processes and events beyond their control. Unfortunately the film stops short of showing us Louis' and Marie Antoinette's final days and their courage in facing the Paris mob and their untimely deaths by the guillotine. All we are allowed to experience in the film is the vague premonition by Marie Antoinette that yielding to the demands of the Paris mob to leave Versailles and take up residence in the Tuileries in Paris sealed their fate.

Ultimately Marie Antoinette was a victim of history. Only one of her four children (all by Louis XVI) survived into the nineteenth century. Although not an unfeeling monster as she has often been depicted, she wasn't especially prescient either regarding what was happening in France at the time. A much more interesting movie might have focused on someone more insightful of the events that were unfolding.

A 2 Hour Music Video of Kirsten Dunst in Great Costumes

[andestrega · 3/10 · 30 August 2021]

A great cast with incredible wardrobe and makeup. Unfortunately, it lacks any plot and storyline, and focuses far too much on the repetitive nature of the start of Louis XVI & Marie's failed romance attempts. Essentially, that's the entire first hour of the film. (Going to bed, no sex tonight, breakfast, go to bed, no sex tonight, breakfast, and repeat... For an hour.)

The rest of the film are very stylized glimpses into Marie Antoinette's lavish and extravagant outfits and socializing sessions with her friends, none of which have much dialogue, with various shots of Kirsten Dunst draping herself over couches and beds giggling to a modern 80's punk soundtrack.

The story focuses so much on the parts mentioned above, that it completely leaves out any actual storyline, which should have been the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette's part on it.

When the story finally starts to get interesting, the movie stops short and ends! I couldn't believe it. I was shocked that in this 2 hours, we did not get to see the end of Louis and Marie's story, which is undoubtedly some of the most interesting parts of the story.

It felt like a complete waste of time. =(

absolutely gorgeous

[matt_coody · 10/10 · 28 June 2006]

i know some people have said that it is entirely eye candy (and what amazing eye candy at that) but it actually does an artful adaptation of the book, which i read before seeing the film. it includes many of the important, beautiful, and sad parts of the book without getting bogged down with all the particulars and names like many of the period movies do. the soundtrack is great, a clever blend of 18th century and modern...the parts are well acted and the American accents rarely detract. If you want a historical account of her life, read the book...if you want Versailles and Marie Antoinette brought to life in a heart-breakingly beautiful fashion, go see this film...it is truly one of the most visually stunning movies i have ever seen.

Surprisingly good

[Antagonisten · 7/10 · 1 January 2007]

I must admit the subject-matter of this movie didn't interest me much. The only really interesting historical facet for me was how the film-makers handled the love-affair with Axel Von Fersen, whom i wrote an essay about in a distant past. Anyway, the attraction for me was undoubtedly Sofia Coppola, mostly since "Lost in Translation" proved to be such a magical experience.

What i expected from this movie was something infinitely lighter. A minor and pleasant distraction. A beautiful little film with wonderful costumes, nice visuals and fair acting. Actually the movie surpassed my expectations. While it was not a masterpiece or a movie i'm likely to remember on my deathbed, it was still a lot more entertaining than i imagined it would be. The actors all do a fine job, Jason Schwartzmann surprising me the most as Louis XVI, and the visuals are wonderful. So the movie delivered where i thought it would. The bonus was the fact that the story was more engaging than i expected. The beautiful and frail Marie Antoinette feels like a real person and i actually cared about what happened to her. Sure in retrospect it might be difficult to feel any true sympathy for someone like her, someone who lives in extraordinary luxury while the masses starve. But it's hard not to see her as somewhat a victim of circumstance. A person placed in a time and place she doesn't fully understand, and who tries to make the best of it.

Marie Antoinette is sure to please those mostly interested in the beautiful surface. There is definitely enough of that since this is a beautiful-looking movie. It also has a very nice soundtrack to match the visuals, a mix between modern music and more period-like pieces. Surprisingly though there was also more to like beneath the surface, which made this movie that much more enjoyable. Worth watching! 7/10

Gidget Goes to Versailles

[cnewf · 4/10 · 26 May 2006]

and when she gets there, she gets bored, gossips, reads Rousseau, and has beach-blanket pot parties in Amadeus outfits. I did like the music, there is one inspired masked ball and a good "watch the sun rise" scene - the strength of this film is its connection to high school culture, seen through the eyes of a sweet, utterly conventional and finally boring teenage girl, projected from the California suburbs onto 18th century France. This is obviously also the film's weakness: this movie is a beautiful, expensive still life that knows nothing at all about French history, Europe, the Revolution, the Bourbons, how the ancien regime worked, how incompetent wars and not Marie Antoinette's Imelda-Marcos-like shoe fetish ran up the debt, about the conflict in North America with England and Spain, about how leading members of French government actually had brains - the films displays a nitwit, decadent, wig-loving, golden-furniture France as though seen by a France-hater in the Bush administration. As my brother pointed out, the movie also blew the subject of a potentially great movie, which is Marie Antoinette's inspired, sometimes brilliant defense of herself at her later trial. Trying to learn about what happened to the French court from this film is like trying to learn about American corporate culture by watching J.R Ewing's 30 second business deals at the Cattlemen's Club on Dallas. Well sure, politics wasn't the subject of the movie, but why is the "chick stuff" buried in diamonds and champagne? That makes these women seem way less tough and intelligent than they actually were in the bloody contact sport of French court politics. As an American watching this in Paris I was struck by the film's lack of historical, political, and cultural sophistication, in which Dunst is in every single frame and it's all one gigantic royal slumber party until the peasants show up in an illiterate wordless mass baying for bread and blood and shaking their satanic harvesting tools. Ouch: The film makes the most sense as a weird allegory of Hollywood inbreeding.