Marie Antoinette

First 25 minutes. Nothing happens. Can she speak French before coming to France? We don't know. What kind of personality does she have? We don't know. Film says nothing about the history. Film says nothing about reality. French people have Yankee mimics and dialect. What kind of comedy is this? Film is English. Why? Novel is about France, not USA. Terrible Kirsten. Awful acting. This is a real 'kitsch' film. How did they give the prizes? God knows. How did they take the prizes? This is absurd. These are real Yankee idiots.

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.

There are absolutely stunning sets here, truly amazing recreations of Versailles. There are costumes - and shoes, oh, yes, shoes! - so sumptuous you may pass out. There are some very fine actors involved, and there is excellent art direction. But there is, sadly, no movie. No movie at all. What there is, is a solid 90 minutes of waiting to see if MA's marriage gets consummated, and even this is a tiresome, completely not erotic affair. That's about it. Oh - Dunst really does play the role like a Valley girl, all the way, which I hear was meant to 'modernize' the subject for young audiences. It's an adolescent contrivance in a pointless film, and what burns me up the most is this kind of budget spent on a laughably inept script, in the hands of a director better suited to MTV. This is the hopelessly juvenile 'Moulin Rouge' school of filmmaking and, if you can sit through this insulting garbage easily, you are far more patient than I.

This could have been a good movie but it was really disappointing. The good part beautiful sets and costumes. Dunst is actually not bad and she is Austrian looking as Marie Antoinette was. Judy Davis is good but under used. The story seems cut short. It would have been better to show her life till the end for some balance and poignancy. The rock music score is totally wrong. Even if they didn't want a period style biopic - the brash heavy metal sound was just jarring and distracting. Jason Schwartzman is totally wrong for the king. Nepotism in casting can ruin a movie. Sophia Coppola has a lot to learn.

Rumors came back from Japan during lost in translation that Sofia had no clue what she was doing. Many actors on set were frustrated and feeling sick to their stomachs. Bill Murray improves every line in the film and Sofia walks home with an Oscar as best writer. Now she believes in her self so much that out comes this smug effort of self-indulgence. In this one Dunst is as always nothing special and Jason Schwartzman (another son of) should focus on his diet and stay out of films. Even with the giant budget that allowed her to hire top folks in their field. (Again to make the film for her), this film is still too long, too dull, poorly acted and worst of all smug. Boo Boo to Sofia Boo to the Oscars and Boo to you if you go see this

Sofia Coppola certainly has style and an eye for sensual beauty. Kirsten Dunst is an ideal prop for Coppola's images. However, don't go looking to this film for anything deeper than a classy MTV video in corsets and hip padding. Like her supremely better Lost in Translation, Coppola employs deep silences, sparse conversation, and long close ups--unfortunately here it falls flat. Where Lost in Translation was a touching portrayal of love and loneliness, Maria Antoinette is every girl's daydream of being a princess. Jason Schwartzman seemed an odd choice, however he turns in a fantastic portrayal of Louis--quirky and a tad homely, his struggles are very sympathetic.

...that hasn't already been said? Historically inaccurate, poor scripting, poor dialogue, poor acting. While others have commented that it may not have been S. Coppola's intent to create a historically accurate piece, why create a historical piece if you don't plan to make some effort to represent the events accurately? And the musical score? It's great -- if the movie had taken place in the East Village in 1985. Kirsten Dunst's performance in the film is wooden at best. While she wasn't given much to work with in the way of dialogue and character development, still, her performance left much to be desired. Loved the visual aspect of the movie, but basically the movie is all style and no substance. All in all, the film is a pretentious waste of time and money.