Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-25 12:10:24

Marie Antoinette film, "A visual feast for the senses"

This is one of my favorite movies. People had some complaints about this film though, that it didn't portray all of her life, especially her horrible death. But this was Sophia Coppolla's view of how she wanted Marie Antoinette to be portrayed and remembered. She wanted to show the beautiful, happy, even fun life that Marie Antoinette lived, not her sad ending. The cinematography is superb. The colors are brilliant, bright and beautiful. Kirsten Dunst portrays Marie Antoinette as an elegant, fun-loving, sweet girl, someone you'd love to have as a friend. Sophia Coppolla adds modern music to the film, to make us imagine Marie Antoinette as a modern girl living today. Marie Antoinette in the film is someone we'd like to be. A beautiful princess, living a beautiful life in a beautiful palace, surrounded by beautiful things. Wearing the most beautiful clothes, and wearing very cool wigs and hairstyles, and enjoying the most luscious desserts, champagne, wearing beautiful shoes, and playing with her cute little dogs. This truly is a girl flick, and it just makes you feel good, and the acting isn't bad either. As far as cinematography goes, it's beautiful visually, and to me, that makes it a cinematographic masterpiece. This movie is a feast for the senses.

Robston 2012-05-25 06:26:36

A long long movie

Marie Antoinette looks lovely, the music is nostalgic (if you rememberthe 80's) and the performances from the actors are fine. So why doesn'tthe movie work? Sofia Coppola takes us into the closeted world ofVersailles where people gossip, eat fine food, wear lots of niceclothes and are generally oblivious to any national political activity.And that's about it. If Coppola's intention was to make us feel as ifwe were in Versailles i.e the routine, the royal protocols, the slowpace of life, then she succeeded. But it makes for a very dull movieindeed. How many times can you show Marie Antoinette choose a new pairof shoes, or a new dress, or the number of times she failed to get herhusband interested in making babies! At one point I thought the filmwas going to last as long as it took Marie Antoinette to conceive herfirst child (7 years into her marriage). Then in the space of tenminutes the revolution is here and the film is over, no epilogue, noexploration of her time in jail, no head losing.If the purpose of Coppola's film was to show how insulated the peoplestaying at Versailles were, and Marie Antoinette in particular, thenshe has achieved this. Unfortunately the slow pace of the film coupledwith the lack of any emotional involvement with the characters meansyou will be shouting Vive la Revolution after only an hour.

2012-05-23 14:17:51

American woman get away from me

[This is a rewrite of the review that caused the poster below to say that "Edward G. Nilges is right on", because I am Edward G. Nilges, and the review the guy liked got eradicated somehow. I will try to hit the major points. Here we go ah one and a two...]"The dreams have no dream. Just as the technicolour heroes do not allow us to forget for a second that they are normal people, type-cast public faces and investments, so under the thin tinsel of schematically produced fantasy emerges in unmistakable outline the skeleton of cinema-ontology, the whole obligatory hierarchy of values, th canon of the undesirable or the exemplary. There is nothing more practical than escape, nothing more fervently espoused to big business: we are abducted into the distance only to have the laws of empiricist living hammered from afar, unhampered by empirical possibilities of evasion, into our own consciousness. The escape is full of message. And message, the opposite, looks what it is: the wish to flee from flight. It reifies the resistance to reification."- Theodore Adorno, MINIMA MORALIAThis movie is an American TURKEY and is less about France of the *ancien regime* and more a Girl Gone Wild in costume (except when naked at the Austro/French border.)The only "beauty" is the existing artistry of the Louvre and Versailles, and a tourist could have recorded that. To this, the directors add a pointless "rock" score that doesn't work. A rock and roll sound track could have worked, but this one is basically the eternal (ewige) male voice of rock and roll, advising La Antoinette to put out.The dialectic is conspicuous by its absence. I would have felt sorry for Marie A had I'd got to see her dragged through the streets in a tumbril to the place of execution as drawn on the spot by David, but the directors of this execrable film were the sort of Californians who are like, who's David, man, is he a friend of yourn?The movie, pure Thesis, asserts that art 'n beauty 'n poetry, all that chick stuff, was created by the leading figures of the *ancien regime* and boo most assuredly hoo that the ignorant mob destroyed it. News fa lash. What Elvis Costello would and has called All This Useless Beauty was created by the proletariat and the middle class of the 17th and the 18th century. We retain the natural right to destroy it when it turns against us. Aristos and CEOs make NOTHING.The most musical of Marie Antoinette's contemporaries sponsored Bach (a middle class workadaddy) and Frederick the Great's sole composition seems to have been the Hohenfriedberger March.Hey, that's great, Fred.Marie Antoinette is presented as sponsoring the extension of Versailles. Movies often do this. Subconsciously limning capitalist relations as the only possible relations, they make it appear that "visionaries" create palaces by speaking to flunkies.What's the reality? The reality is that when Versailles was under construction, Marie's husband's great-grandfather Louie (Louie) quatorze wanted the first great French artist, the sublime Poussin, to work for him.Louie Louie wanted Nick not so much to paint the visions Nick began to see in his mind's eye, visions of a cold passion, but Louie's stupid demi-victories in Louie's stupid wars. Some of those "victories" were actually defeats when the British under John, Duke of Marlborough, got into the act!Poussin fled to Rome in the 17th century to work exclusively for *haute* bourgeois and minor nobility, creating French art from nothing.Marie probably knew nothing of Poussin.To represent the French revolution as pure offstage destruction like the sea monster in Racine's Phedre is to entrap the audience in an American ideology of hegemony, which in Bush's foreign policy has stunningly lowered my country's moral authority by admitting no outside to the American "dream", a "dream" that most Americans themselves can no longer afford!Don't waste your money! Watch La Nuit de Varennes, watch Wazjda's incomparable Danton, watch the classic silent film Napoleon by Abel Gance if that cute history teacher wants you to learn a thing or two about the French revolution before you get knocked up in back of the Steak and Shake, girlfriend.La Nuit de Varennes stars the incomparable Hannah Schygulla as an Antoinette clone of the minor nobility who Sphinxlike knows the jig is up, and Harvey Keitel as Tom Paine.In LNDV, Marie Antoinette is a shoe which stamps petulantly in the floor of an inn on The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. You must know, darling, American Woman, that this is the opinion of the sort of people who make this film of the sort of people like you and me babe who buy DVDs.About the only good part in this movie is a true star turn by Louis XV's mistress, the scandalous and hot Madame du Barry. When sent to the knackers, she glares backward at the palace with a look that scorns not only the Rococo but also this postmodern American rococo piece of utter nonsense.But all she is is someone's psycho Mom from the 1960s.Just then Tom Paine, himself,Came running from across the field,Shouting at this lovely girlAnd commanding her to yield.And as she was letting go her grip,Up Tom Paine did run,"I'm sorry, sir," he said to me,"I'm sorry for what she's done."- Bob Dylan (yeah baby)

Todd McCarthy 2012-05-22 20:16:20

Let them have eye candy pretty much sums up Sofia Coppola's approach to her revisionist and modernist take on the famous royal airhead who in the end lost her head.

2012-05-22 11:05:30

Splendorous

In terms of visual magnificence, I'd rank this alongside Moulin Rouge and Juliet of the Spirits as one of the loveliest films I've ever seen. It's even more stunning than Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, an obvious reference point for the images you'll see here. The dialogue is beautifully written and often times quite funny, and the actors' delivery is charming and lifelike. In fact, I haven't seen a more charismatic cast of characters assembled outside of a Fellini or Woody Allen film. Granted, it is very little of what one would expect a movie about a famous historical figure to be. This is no grand epic, but Sofia Coppola's aesthetic approach makes the experience both intimate and captivating in a way that an epic could not have managed.

Laura Clifford 2012-05-21 18:07:17

...like a girlified version of a Ken Russell period piece...Coppola mixes historical fact with Coppola's own perspective on what this young woman had to contend with.

Pasky 2012-05-19 22:00:27

Could have been great, but...

I've just seen Marie-Antoinette at a sneak preview in Amsterdam. I hadheard and read so much about this film that my expectations wereprobably 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 triedto give a modern twist to M-A's story (with Rock'n Roll music andDogma-style filming), but I found certain things quite... surprising,like the masked ball at the Garnier Opera, which was only built in1874, 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 thisaspect of the film, but more with the fact that it lacks rhythm, andthat it's much too long (almost 2 hours!). And there are huge gaps onthe 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 stopcomplaining for a moment. I gave this film a 7 because I still thinkthat some moments are of pure magic, like the part about nature, whenM-A seems to find peace in her little 'farm' next to Versailles. Inthose moments, I had the feeling of seeing Lux Lisbon from The VirginSuicides (also played by Kristen Dunst...) evolving in a sort oftimeless parallel world. Pure beauty! In those moments, I thought: Whata queen!

2012-05-19 15:13:44

Please enter a title for your review

The fact that she speaks english and giggles over a picture in a locket seemed to promise an endearingly silly revisionist angle, like A Knight's Tale or something, but that quickly fell to the wayside with the most distinct feature becoming the lack of dialogue, and what little dialogue there is hardly seems laboured over, lacking equally in historical insight and creativity. Presumably a lot of work went into set and costume design but nothing about it strikes me as anything beyond standard issue for a period piece. There don't even seem to be any pretentions to criticize the film for. It seems to have no ambitions at all. You could call it a minimalist mood piece, but it's too traditional in look and feel to set any distinct mood.

2012-05-16 20:12:14

Marie Antoinette for the MTV generation

I Really Love Marie Antoinette (the movie)Somehow I suspected that I'd like Marie Antoinette, written and directed by Sofia Coppola. I'd been confused by Virgin Suicides, and hated Lost in Translation. I wasn't sure what other people were seeing in her films. I heard enough about the film, especially about the soundtrack, that I thought Ms. Coppola might have come upon a character and story she could relate to and tell well. I saw the film the first time in a theater ¾ full and every person, but myself, was of the female gender. I though it was beautiful and touching. I was drawn back a couple of days later and I was mesmerized by Kirsten Dunst's acting. I was/am sure she deserves awards for her performance. The next time I saw it, I was astonished at how funny Marie Antoinette is. This could and will continue. I am so looking forward to owning Marie Antoinette so I can watch it at home as much as I like or need to watch it. Sofia, has made, at a very young age, a "Costume Drama," to rival, not supercede, Barry Lyndon, by the master Stanley Kubrick. I will enjoy seeing this film as much as possible. Watching it is like viewing an original masterpiece by a very accomplished artist. Thanks Sofia.

Hannah Edwards 2012-05-16 05:39:40

Intoxicating

This film seems to have earned a rather bad reputation, for reasonsthat I cannot really understand. True, it takes some liberties with history (and usually I am a sticklerfor accuracy!) but in this case it does not compromise the overallmessage or purpose of the film, instead helping to show MarieAntoinette, the doomed Queen of France, as a young woman caught up inevents that are completely out of her control, rather than the almostfairy-tale villain she has become over the years, seen to not care forthe starving French peasants and being said to have flippantlyproclaimed "Let them eat cake!"The actors are far better than you may have been led to believe; all ofthem humanise historical figures who seem to have faded to caricaturesof themselves in the centuries since their deaths. They embody thecharacters and conjure real feelings of pathos: Kirsten Dunst inparticular is superb as Marie Antoinette, making the audience reallyfeel her loneliness and sorrow throughout her life as well as the headydelights and pleasures of being Queen of France and having her everywhim catered to. The actors use their natural accents, leaving a mix ofEnglish, American, Scottish and more, but this does not distract fromthe film – indeed it is far less distracting than everyone merelyassuming the standard costume-drama English accent would have been!This film is a visual masterpiece, with the scenery, costumes, hair andset dressing all contributing to make an intoxicating feast for theeyes that paints a vivid picture of life at the French court, and Ifeel that Coppola's vision truly captures the almost ignorant decadenceand opulence of the French court at Versailles at this time. The filmlooks like a wonderful fairy-tale, dreamlike, beautiful, elegant andperfect and the music, whilst some criticise the use of modern new waveand pop music, seems somehow to fit in with the scenes used. Inparticular, I loved the use of Siouxsie and the Banshees' "Hong KongGardens" during a masked ball and New Order's "Ceremony" during Marie'sbirthday party. Overall, I love this film and whilst it is not the most accurate offilms, it captures the spirit of the time and gives a taste of whatlife at Versailles may have been like. Most importantly, it shows MarieAntoinette as a real person, showing you her life from leaving home tomarry a stranger, seeking acceptance in her new country and all thedifficulties her marriage and then her husband's ascension to thethrone brings and always leaving you feeling terribly empathetic andsympathetic for the poor, naïve Queen of France, who seems to havemeant well but been terribly out of her depth.

swilliams8251 2012-05-16 02:51:45

My DH and I were Mesmerized by the good quality

I felt so much like a young girl myself, how my younger life camerushing back to me with the portrayal of Ms.Kurnst as the Archduchess,the Princess, the Dauphine and the Queen. Kirstin was perfect, her faceso radiantly beautiful, and no guile there. I am surprised that theroyal family got her to do tedium things at all...So, the more bravo toMA.I thought I died and went to heaven, to the costuming of the 18thcentury, Rococo heaven. I wanted to touch, to look at the stitches andembroidery and the undersupport of each and every costume. I wanted tofeel the silk, since I knew it was silk, the way the gowns floated,were coloured and broke on the creases. I was mesmerized by the foldsand the ruffles, the incredible sheer amount of work, professional andauthentic recreation that went into every scene. I particularly enjoyedthe blue shoes in the closet....Her little black pugs'name was "Eggplant", "Aubergine" in French! Shelooked just like a little fat dog, a little fat eggplant.DH already asked me if I want this film on DVD and you betcha! What Iwould like to find is a book of sets and costumes and theirdescriptions from the wardrober. Maybe I will write and ask for them.The filming was first rate. Some of the scenes seemed a bit underlit,even though they were shot outside. Others were bright. I found thebeauty of the place was overwhelming. I was in total shock at theimmensity of Versaille, and the immensity of the château de Versailles.This is the first time France has ever allowed free rein to shootthere, and boy does it have that POW factor. That is not paintings onthe walls, people, that is actual woven silver and gold and blue fabricmade for her, with her cipher woven in all over the castle, on chairs,cement swirls, windowsills, everything.I don't think I will ever be able to view Versaille in person, so thiswas the closest that I can, and it was so different from seeing it inphotos and books. I really got a sense of perspective, and depth. I sawfor the first time the 100 foot high hedges, and the Neptune fountains.I liked the quietness of Versaille, and it was so secluded from theoutside world.I don't think MA was spoiled, she was just lonely and wanting to fit inwith the crowd, and having fun. So she gambled away her jewelry,clothing and money. She had to make it up in the long run, and she did.She reformed the household, but it was a little too late for the Frenchpeople. Poor Louis was such a stumbler, all these "ifs" and the royalswould still be in like Flynn yet. (possibly).Where did her little son go? I thought I had studied that he was sentto live with a bourgesoise family and made to live a paupers life, buthe was still known as Louis XVII, who did have heirs, but where arethey? Not in Burks Peerage. I vote this film for Oscars for screenplay, sheer delight and movieability to transport the viewer to within its realm, Many Oscars forcostuming and wardrobe and scenery, set direction, props....Bravo BravoBravo. I loved this movie a lot. I am tired of typical movies. Hurrah to SofiaCoppola!!!! love, sheri williams

lotekguy-1 2012-05-15 13:01:54

plenty for the eyes; not much for the head or heart

Kirsten Dunst stars as one of history's most infamous aristocrats in asplendid-looking, tediously dull account of her life from the arrangedmarriage to France's heir apparent (Jason Schwartzman. Really. Nokidding. Him), through their ascent to the throne and the start of LaRevolution.The script presents Marie rather sympathetically. Leaving her Austrianhome behind to forge an alliance by marrying another teenager is purelya matter of duty. Louis, poised to become #XVI, is a complete nerd, andpossibly gay. Her mission is to do whatever it takes to bear a child,since the union, and its vital political benefits, isn't a done-dealuntil a royal baby pops out. Heavy pressure.Director Sofia Coppola was obviously granted a budget for costumes andsets more lavish than the palace's legendary excesses. Too bad no onehad the clout to shift a few of those dollars or euros to the writingfund. She gets sole screenplay credit, and therefore deserves theblame. The cast (notably including Rip Torn's raunchy Louis XV and JudyDavis) and premise were in place for a witty, racy view of the playersand their fate. Versailles was cleverly dissed a few years ago in"Ridicule". Had they opted for more dramatic psychological tension,Willem Dafoe's "The Night and the Moment" would have served as a model.At the very least, they could have tweaked the nudity and debauchery upto R-rating levels for some cheap thrills. The only novelty is showingthe absurd formalities and protocols in every mundane daily function;for Marie, simply rising from her bed in the morning entailed arigidly-orchestrated ceremony - a far cry from being satisfied with"Folger's in your cup" as the bests part of waking up.Coppola tantalizes with anachronistic rock tunes over the credits andagain later in the film, but to no avail. That gimmick workeddelightfully in "A Knight's Tale", when the action and tongue-in-cheekstory meshed with the music (who didn't go nuts along with thatmedieval jousting crowd getting pumped for the battle by "We will, wewill rock you!!"). But Coppola, perhaps seduced by the opportunity toshoot her film at Versailles, chose to dote on shoes, clothes, jewelry,furnishings and pastries - essentially all the pomp of Marie'scircumstance - like one of those voyeuristic TV tours of rich andfamous folks' homes, with few laughs, less drama, and diminishingreasons to care about the heads beneath the wigs. After its theatricalrun, it should air on one of the home-shopping programs, rather thanthe premium movie channels.I won't say whether they show Marie's last gasp on the guillotine; butmany in the audience will have found their own heads nodding off longbefore the film reaches that point. I would have welcomed Mel Brookssigning off with "it's not always good to be the king".

A.O. Scott 2012-05-15 10:53:57

Highly theatrical and yet also intimate and informal, Marie Antoinette lets its story slink almost casually through its lovingly composed and rendered images.

Ed Uyeshima 2012-05-14 23:11:35

Another Misunderstood Monarch and a Dazzling Visual Recreation of 18th Century France

Director Sofia Coppola certainly takes an audacious look at the life ofthe legendary 18th century Queen of France who supposedly "let them eatcake" in this elaborately costumed 2006 film. At the same time, Coppolakeeps the dramatic focus relatively small versus the expansivepolitical backdrop of the story. The approach works to a point sincethe filmmaker has an obviously reflective handle on how a young girlcan feel when thrown unexpectedly into the spotlight and then mademincemeat by her critics (think of her aborted acting career when1990's "The Godfather III" was released).The downside is that the dramatic arc of the French monarch's lifefeels somewhat misshapen by this unique perspective since the film'sfirst three-quarters meticulously follows Marie's youthful ascent tothe throne and her wearying efforts to consummate her arranged marriageto Louis XVI. There are throwaway scenes of shopping sprees with herladies-in-waiting and an underdeveloped illicit romance with CountFersen, all of which would not look out of place in an episode of "Sexand the City". Once she conceives and delivers her first child, themovie starts to feel cursory about subsequent events with little of thehistoric context needed to make the climax resonate.For all the film's dramatic flaws, I have to say Kirsten Dunst isideally cast in the title role. Starting her role as a 14-year oldAustrian princess taken from her family, she captures not only thegiggly vacuity but the sense of self-possession and decorum that makesher viable as a queen. A curiously cast Jason Schwartzman gained weightfor the role of her bulbous, emotionally indifferent husband, Louis. Hesays relatively little but his natural awkwardness in period costumesucceeds in making the king an ultimately sympathetic figure. Otherscome in and out of the story though with little resonance, even withproved scenery chewers like Judy Davis as the instructional Contesse deNoailles, Steve Coogan as the advice-giving Ambassador Mercy, Rip Tornas the libidinous Louis XV, and Asia Argento as his blatantly whorishmistress, Madame du Barry.What does work well are most of the visual elements - the use of realVersailles locales augmented by K.K. Barrett's luxuriant productiondesign, Lance Acord's candy-colored cinematography, and MilenaCanonero's resplendent costumes. The anachronistic use of 1980's-eranew wave music, blended with the Baroque music true to the period andJean-Benoît Dunckel and Nicolas Godin's original score, turns out to bea daring choice that works well toward Coppola's revisionist view ofthe queen. Yet for all the creativity on display, one is left to lingeron the movie's unfulfilled possibilities of how the economic downturnand class disparities in 18th century France could be seen as a mirrorfor today. But that aspect obviously doesn't interest Coppola, whoshows as she did in "Lost in Translation", a deep affinity for womencaught out of place and the ways they handle their loneliness.

Celluloid_Rehab 2012-05-13 22:09:07

Let them eat Coppola cake.

Marie Antoinette is one of those historical figures that has beenmostly misunderstood and in which her "legend" has preceded the facts.What is interesting, is that which she is most remembered for (the "letthem eat cake" statement) cannot be historically linked to anything shehad uttered. What is even more interesting is her response to what wasattributed to her. In summary, she simply stated that the people ofFrance help to maintain the royal family's well being despite thepopulation's misfortunes and that she would work harder to make theirlives happier as well. After Sophia's Lost in Translation, I wasexpecting a lot. This movie has some moments, yet falls quite short ofexpectations. The fault lies partly in the movie and partly in thesubject matter.Marie Antoinette was born an Austrian Archduchess. At the age of 15 shewas married to the overweight and virginal-soon-to-become Louis XVI ofFrance. Marie was an outsider at the court of Versailles and wastreated this way throughout most of her life. The rampant gossiping,along with the rumors of a "cold bedroom" and no heir lead to even moregossiping (lets also not forget the Affair of the Necklace). Madame duBarry (Louis XV's common-born mistress - Asia Argento) did not makelife any easier for Marie, in light of Marie's dislike for associatingwith someone she felt was beneath her. In her youth, she spent andacted frivolously as she apparently did not know or understand theconcept of money. After the birth of her children, Marie became muchless extravagant and completely devoted to her children. It is in thelatter years that Marie Antoinette showed her truer character.The movie tries very hard to convey Marie's childhood innocence andsheltered lifestyle. She is shown as a bit ordinary and unschooled inthe ways of Versailles and France. This is partially successful. As themovie stands, the first hour and half are a tribute to Bacchus and thehedonistic lifestyle. The production value of the movie is really high.The costumes, jewelry, wigs and locations are amazing. Are we beingshown this as a contrast? Even the choice of music is appropriate tothis. The 80's music reminds me of the yuppie lifestyle and mirrorsmuch of Marie's youth. This depiction of the young Marie is theforemost cause of failure of the the primary goal : To depict MarieAntoinette in a more favorable light. This is of course, unless we aregiven an unabashed look at her. It is hard not to judge, however. Youthand ignorance cannot be an excuse for every deed. She was born intohaving everything. It is hard to sympathizes with someone who haseverything and squanders it callously. Some would say that she was only15 years old. Unfortunately, a 15 year old in the 21th century cannotbe compared with a 15 year old from 200+ years ago.The predominant focus of the movie and it's major flaw, is the relianceon showing Marie's youth. It is not in her youth that her saving gracecan be found, but rather in her maturation as a mother and monarch.Unfortunately, only the last 20 minutes of the movie focuses on thisand is so rushed as to seem unfinished. If this movie wanted to trulyshow the character of Marie, it should have focused on the 4 years fromthe fall of the Bastille to her execution. During this time, she showedher character in the face of an angry and blood-lusting mob. Instead weare left with a miss-paced, long, stylized, summer-like nostalgic rompthough the 18th century. It's nice, but I wouldn't want to live there.

loucrunch 2012-05-13 05:01:26

bored by boredom

This movie had so much potential. It started well with the changeoverfrom a princess of Austria to a future queen of France and showing usher intimidated perspective as she's escorted into Versailles. And theelaborate -- and ridiculous -- rituals of dressing and undressing. Butthen it goes nowhere.I was bored by the boredom of it all. The movie was pointless, thecharacters never developed, we never understood the relationship of MAand Louis, or how her friendships developed. If the point was thebelated consummation of the marriage which happened I think two-thirdsthrough the movie, why not end it there instead of fast-forwardingthrough the last few years of her life? The cinematography andcostuming were great, the rest not so much.

Mark Pfeiffer 2012-05-13 00:12:18

The fashion-conscious Marie Antoinette looks great. Imagine what this attractive but empty shell of a movie might have been with something inside it.

James Sanford 2012-05-12 06:24:36

The real-life Marie Antoinette lost her head. The sunshiny-day-dreaminess of 'Marie Antoinette' may make you wonder if writer-director Sofia Coppola has lost her mind.

2012-05-07 22:50:12

All Style No Substance

Very colorful scenes that are esay on the eyes, but this movie had little if any substance. They could have brought the point across of how boring and shallow her life was without making the movie boring and shallow itself. At one point I was hoping someone would have dragged me to the guillotine and away from this movie.

pillowy_soft14 2012-05-07 08:58:29

Why Sofia Coppola did a great job with this movie!

Now everyone has a right to their opinion but when it comes down toperceiving this movie as a piece of comedy, thats just not right. I'veonly seen this movie yesterday and already I've read so many hatecomments towards it... what were these people thinking!? its wasfabulously well done film that no one should be able to criticize it.Sofia Coppola rolled a modern twist, thoughtful and emotional plot andwonderful characters all into one movie. She chose not to incorporateher beheading into the movie for the sole reason that its not supposedto be an exact replicate of the historical story. God when people say"oh its not the same, why would she do something like that....", itjust makes me angry to think that they just can appreciate somethingfor how it is and how someone else perceived the situation. And! plusshe wrote the screenplay off of another story from another author...she did not just twist around the history of the story of MarieAntoinette but made it a much more enjoyable piece of historicalfiction!!