Marie Antoinette

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".