The retelling of France's iconic but ill-fated queen, Marie Antoinette. From her betrothal and marriage to Louis XVI at 15 to her reign as queen at 19 and to the end of her reign as queen and ultimately the fall of Versailles.
After withdrawing to the Chateau Marmont, a passionless Hollywood actor reexamines his life when his eleven-year-old daughter surprises him with a visit.
A mature Queen Elizabeth endures multiple crises late in her reign including court intrigues, an assassination plot, the Spanish Armada, and romantic disappointments.
In late-19th-century Russian high society, St. Petersburg aristocrat Anna Karenina enters into a life-changing affair with the dashing Count Alexei Vronsky.
"All eyes will be on you," says the Austrian Empress, Maria Theresa to her youngest daughter Marie Antoinette. The film, marketed for a teen audience, is an impressionistic retelling of Marie Antoinette's life as a young queen in the opulent and eccentric court at Versailles. The film focuses on Marie Antoinette, as she matures from a teenage bride to a young woman and eventual queen of France. Written by
Scrltrose83
When Marie Antoinette is choosing shoes, at the end of the line of exquisite creations, a pair of well worn converse baseball boots are seen. See more »
Sofia Coppola's "Marie-Antoinette" is one of the worst films I have seen in recent memory. She tries to make Marie-Antoinette out to be some innocent and light-hearted woman who was forced into becoming a queen. Coppola does not make the fact that she loved to spend millions on her material possessions (while the masses starved, no less) a bad thing at all—it's what any 20-something year old spoiled monarch does, so it's probably easily justifiable, especially coming from the eyes of someone who grew up on her father's laurels. Only could someone like Sofia Coppola make such a self-indulgent film that tries to empathize with a queen so completely out of touch with her own subjects. I sympathize with Marie-Antoinette that yes, she was incredibly young when she became queen. I don't know how much of a monster she was or wasn't, but I know she was excessive in everything and did not do the best that she could have. An attempt to humanize her isn't an evil attempt, but to make her out to be a martyr is ridiculous. I know a lot of accounts describing her negatively are exaggerated, but this is no better..
People have been praising the film for its aesthetic merits. Wouldn't it be arguable that it's all too easy to create a pretty movie when the film takes place in extravagant parties in 18th Century Versailles? I found all the soft pinks, greens, and blues to be a bit too much by the end of the film. Half the shots weren't even necessary..
Being an American film, the actors were American. That's a given. But then parts of the French Court had English accents, others American, Marie-Antoinette's daughter spoke English and perfect French, but Marie-Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst, that is) herself couldn't pronounce a French word if her life depended on it. Regardless of accents, the limited dialogue and acting was generally bad. Not to mention that there were whole conversations that went unheard because of overpowering music.
Is anyone else tired of hip directors basing the soundtracks of their movies off their Top 25 songs on iTunes?
Kirstin Dunst is a mediocre actress, I've always thought that. Jason Schwartzman (another son of, surprise?), not who I'd imagine as Louis XVI. Molly Shannon?
The movie isn't about politics, it's about Marie-Antoinette. However, when the film did decide to discuss politics, it always talked about funding the American Revolution. Why not spend those few minutes discussing something more pertinent to the film and subject at hand—maybe the fact that the Estates General was going to meet for the first time in 175 years? That was one of the biggest events that led to the French Revolution...
With the amount of money spent on rights obtained to film throughout Versailles and all the lavish costumes, you'd think they could spend some money to make Kirstin Dunst look like she actually ages.
If Coppola wanted to create a portrait of a courageous Marie-Antoinette, maybe she should have followed her to the Conciergerie until her execution in 1793. Coppola crafted a film that loosely follows 19 years of partying, she might as well show the last (and most important) 4 years of her protagonist's life. The ending Coppola provided is just a cop-out.
There were just too many bad things and inaccuracies in this movie to list. l'Opéra Garnier wasn't built until the 1860s under Napoleon III's Second Empire. Converses?
The movie was also incredibly slow and tedious. The narrative structure was all over the place. To have 3/4 of the movie be a gigantic party and then nonchalantly throw in the fact that the masses were angry and calling for change is just bad story telling.
Lame.
85 of 162 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
Sofia Coppola's "Marie-Antoinette" is one of the worst films I have seen in recent memory. She tries to make Marie-Antoinette out to be some innocent and light-hearted woman who was forced into becoming a queen. Coppola does not make the fact that she loved to spend millions on her material possessions (while the masses starved, no less) a bad thing at all—it's what any 20-something year old spoiled monarch does, so it's probably easily justifiable, especially coming from the eyes of someone who grew up on her father's laurels. Only could someone like Sofia Coppola make such a self-indulgent film that tries to empathize with a queen so completely out of touch with her own subjects. I sympathize with Marie-Antoinette that yes, she was incredibly young when she became queen. I don't know how much of a monster she was or wasn't, but I know she was excessive in everything and did not do the best that she could have. An attempt to humanize her isn't an evil attempt, but to make her out to be a martyr is ridiculous. I know a lot of accounts describing her negatively are exaggerated, but this is no better..
People have been praising the film for its aesthetic merits. Wouldn't it be arguable that it's all too easy to create a pretty movie when the film takes place in extravagant parties in 18th Century Versailles? I found all the soft pinks, greens, and blues to be a bit too much by the end of the film. Half the shots weren't even necessary..
Being an American film, the actors were American. That's a given. But then parts of the French Court had English accents, others American, Marie-Antoinette's daughter spoke English and perfect French, but Marie-Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst, that is) herself couldn't pronounce a French word if her life depended on it. Regardless of accents, the limited dialogue and acting was generally bad. Not to mention that there were whole conversations that went unheard because of overpowering music.
Is anyone else tired of hip directors basing the soundtracks of their movies off their Top 25 songs on iTunes?
Kirstin Dunst is a mediocre actress, I've always thought that. Jason Schwartzman (another son of, surprise?), not who I'd imagine as Louis XVI. Molly Shannon?
The movie isn't about politics, it's about Marie-Antoinette. However, when the film did decide to discuss politics, it always talked about funding the American Revolution. Why not spend those few minutes discussing something more pertinent to the film and subject at hand—maybe the fact that the Estates General was going to meet for the first time in 175 years? That was one of the biggest events that led to the French Revolution...
With the amount of money spent on rights obtained to film throughout Versailles and all the lavish costumes, you'd think they could spend some money to make Kirstin Dunst look like she actually ages.
If Coppola wanted to create a portrait of a courageous Marie-Antoinette, maybe she should have followed her to the Conciergerie until her execution in 1793. Coppola crafted a film that loosely follows 19 years of partying, she might as well show the last (and most important) 4 years of her protagonist's life. The ending Coppola provided is just a cop-out.
There were just too many bad things and inaccuracies in this movie to list. l'Opéra Garnier wasn't built until the 1860s under Napoleon III's Second Empire. Converses?
The movie was also incredibly slow and tedious. The narrative structure was all over the place. To have 3/4 of the movie be a gigantic party and then nonchalantly throw in the fact that the masses were angry and calling for change is just bad story telling.
Lame.