haltoy I have seen this movie for second time on tv and again couldn't find anything wrong with it. I consider myself a cinefil, regarding number of movies of different kinds I've seen in my life so far. Someone here wrote, this movie will get more appreciated in the future. I agree. Don't understand negative reviews about historical inaccuracies if French education association awarded the movie. Also, you often have documentaries on the subject on tv, if you want. There I found out, that king demanded all of the aristocracy to move to Versailles after it was built, to surround the king and entertain him. Maybe this also contributed to revolution, if this remained the case 100 years later, because the "upper management" was removed from different parts of France and maybe this also showed in economy? Just my thought.. From first time I have seen this movie, I remembered especially the excellent dinner scene at the end, when royals were dinning in mortal silence, still following court protocol, while the angry mob on the other side of windows was shouting for their heads. It makes you relate to that moment in history, how the disliked couple must have felt..The modern soundtrack is very innovative approach and probably also brought more youth to the cinemas to see historic drama. The birthday party scene stands out. Kirsten Dunst is lovely and witty with her facial expressions in this role. She should have received some awards for it. She's shown also in Fargo she's an interesting actress..Pitty Sophia Coppola doesn't make more movies, I very much liked Lost With Translation as well.

Artur Machado Biographical drama written and directed by Sofia Coppola. Unfortunately this film teaches nothing and what we have here is nothing more than a farce and an insult to Marie Antoinette. With all the social circumstances of the time that shaped the world, we see none of that nor the public consequences of the queen's behavior, just a teenager always living in whoopee boredom and luxury of Versailles, accomplished in such a way that nothing happens, although admittedly the colorful extravagant scenarios and costumes are the only redeeming factor in this long modern pop music video with images of the XVIII century. Sofia Coppola has to be the worst filmmaker/writer ever: even Ed Wood could do better.

Robb C. Bedazzled by an array of chatoyant gowns and prismatic production value, Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette never gets past its stylish frames. The color pink is heavily used in its luster; a traditional symbol of reign and Dunst's autonomous lust, but these kaleidoscopic images rapidly putrefy in the hands of a shoddy plot and weak characterization.The plot is a museum of ravishing shots; the dialogue is very minimal, and the portrait of Marie Antoinette's ill fate never reaches its pinnacle as her character is nothing more than a beautiful figure in a ravishing dress. The problems she faces are more so caused by her capricious nature, and the film doesn't establish a profound statement about her mingled entanglement in life's promiscuous pleasures; thus, empathy for the character is difficult to obtain. This applies the same for the rest of the cast; the acting will do, but they never just get interesting. This may be the result of the lack of a proper screenplay, but as exquisite as the film looks, this is as bland as it gets. The last 15 minutes are handled better (as dire consequences are met), but as a whole, this biopic was quite forgettable.A supposed narrative about the intricate chain of thoughtless decisions leading to the fall of Versailles turns into a game of frocks and garments. The cinematography and production are indeed beautiful, but as far as substance goes, this doesn't reach its maximum potential. I can see the themes of regal expectations and irresponsible teenagers not blending well, but the representation of the characters in a clunky plot make this film a snoozy and uninteresting watch.

michaelmunkvold Historical costume dramas suck. With one or two exceptions ("Amadeus", "Elizabeth") they're stuffy, pompous and boring. That's why I had such high hopes for "Marie Antoinette", Sofia Coppola's punk rock take on the doomed French queen's reign. It sounded like such a great idea: French aristocrats kicking it to Siouxsie and the Cure! Day-glo royal wigs! Rock'n'roll, French Revolution-style! But when I saw it, my high hopes were crushed. "Marie Antoinette" has all the affectations of rock'n'roll, but none of the energy and passion. It's just a stuffy, pompous and boring historical costume drama, with Manic Panic hair and a decent soundtrack.In 1770, Marie (Kirsten Dunst) is married off to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) to create an alliance between France and Prussia. She feels lost and alone in her new kingdom, where she is disliked by the Royal Court and ignored by her manchild husband. She numbs her unhappiness with extravagant parties and expensive toys, which take a toll on the French economy and anger the starving peasantry, ultimately setting the stage for a bloody uprising. And yes, she listens to cool bands and dyes her hair. But there the fun ends; the majority of this movie is spent watching Marie lounging around the palace and having lackluster affairs with people who look just as bored as she does. The characters are given little to do but stand there and look pretty and go through the motions of a flat, boring story. My God, this movie is dull, and all the hair dye and mix tape soundtracks in the world doesn't make a bit of difference.As the title character, Kirsten Dunst has an air of sweetness and charm, but it's stifled by a one-dimensional character. We want to like her, but the script never gives us the chance - we never meet the person behind the crown, because there doesn't seem to be one. She's a Barbie doll, pretty but plastic, with nothing beneath her shiny surface. The supporting cast goes to waste, as well. Schwartzman seems bored with the only part in the film more underwritten than Dunst's; the great Steve Coogan (as Her Majesty's royal adviser) has maybe 10 lines, none of them funny; and Rip Torn (as the young king's father, Louis XV) looks flustered, as if he doesn't know what he's doing there. Watching the film, I could relate.To call "Marie Antoinette" a failed experiment gives it too much credit: the word "experiment" implies that someone took a risk in trying something new. This movie just trudges through the motions of being a boring historical picture, with the occasional stream of neon and a Blondie or Gang of Four song in the background. That's not experimentation; that's putting Day-Glo lipstick on a pig.