Marie Antoinette (Widescreen)

Refreshing take on the most notorious Queen in the history! Glamorous and yet tragic story

Great movie, I could watch it a hundred times!

This was a very good movie. The acting is well done, but my favorite part was the incredible settings and interior details. The costumes are also beautiful.

One of my favorite movies ever! From the acting to the costume design everything in this movie is phenomenal!

The costumes, locations, even the food is lavish and the filming beautiful. It is historically accurate, for the most part. I was glad the story ended when it did. I kept feeling bad for the little boy because I am aware of how his life ended, tortured and dead in prison. I didn't need to see it in a movie. The only complaint I have is the use of modern music in some parts of the movie - very jarring. For those who don't know the story, it would have been nice to have an announcer sum things up at the end.(The only member of the family to survive the horror was the daughter.) I enjoyed this movie.

Those who hate it are usually the ones who come to it expecting a BBC-type production chronicling Marie Antoinette's life as accurately as possible, with every detail double-checked and the music accurate of the time period. If they actually watched the trailer beforehand, they'd realize that it's a stylish adaptation that contains modern music, so no excuse there.I've heard many criticisms of this film, so I'll attempt to address them.Criticism #1: Not every detail in her life is shown. ...such as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace incident, her imprisonment, and subsequent execution, though once again, this is NOT a BBC miniseries or History Channel biography. Sofia Coppola herself has stated in numerous interviews that she was never trying to make a historical biopic.As Roger Ebert brilliantly put it: "No, the picture is not informative and detailed about the actual politics of the period. That is because we are entirely within Marie's world. And it is contained within Versailles, which shuts out all external reality. It is a self-governing architectural island, like Kane's Xanadu, that shuts out politics, reality, poverty, society."Criticism #2: None of their accents are the same/ Why aren't they speaking like Hugh Grant?/ Ew they are using American accents!I don't really know what accent people assume they're supposed to adopt, a stereotypical posh English accent? That would have been just as inaccurate, for the majority would have spoken French at court. Might as well let the actors keep their natural accents, for then the audience won't get distracted by attempts that fall short. And really, one can argue that the differences in their English-speaking accents could translate well for differences in French accents, since English is standing in for French.Criticism #3: Modern music is used.The most popular criticism I've heard is over the use of modern music, though this is probably what really made me love the film. Sofia Coppola was trying to capture a teenager's world and feelings, and I think she hit the perfect note. Some feel that this made it too catered (or even dumbed down) for the younger audience, but really, what's wrong with making a connection to that particular age group? This is, after all, a film about a teenager. A teenager from the 18th century born into royalty who lived a life of wealth, privilege and influence, yes, but a teenager nonetheless.Roger Ebert continued to say in his review: "Coppola has been criticized in some circles for her use of a contemporary pop overlay -- hit songs, incongruous dialogue, jarring intrusions of the Now upon the Then. But no one ever lives as Then; it is always Now. Many characters in historical films seem somehow aware that they are living in the past. Marie seems to think she is a teenager living in the present, which of course she is -- and the contemporary pop references invite the audience to share her present with ours."Criticism #4: It's boring.Well, go watch Transformers then. If you were bored through this, then period pieces in general must not be your thing. I don't think your dislike has anything to do with Coppola's direction then.Seriously though, this whole movie was such lovely eye candy; so full of color and life. I could go on and on about the clothes and locations and flowers and pastries and champagne featured throughout. It's very aesthetically-pleasing. Coppola perfectly captured the youthfulness and decadence, as well as the gossiping, sycophantic society of that era, and managed to make it accessible and pleasurable to watch. I think Marie Antoinette would have approved.

Sophia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” is a girly movie about a girly girl, aka the Austrian-born dauphine of France, who at a very young age was confronted with the harsh reality of being away from her mother, her country, her family and even her pug. It is an idealized portrayal of what it must have been like to become Marie Antoinette, the much talked about, and much maligned Queen of the French.Though normally I am very strict about the historical accuracy of period films, I feel that it is not the intention of this movie to take you to the classroom. Instead, it is intended as a fictionalized representation of the luxurious life in Versailles, with a glimpse of the intrigue, the gossip, the scandal, and the licentiousness of the French court of the late XVIII century.The first thing that called my attention is the scarcity of substantial dialogues. This could very well be a silent film; just a few text screens to describe the situations would have sufficed. Many scenes are plagued by irrelevant phrases such as “good morning”, “thank you” and others of the kind. A few historical facts are thrown here and there to provide us with chronology, and though I did not find any noteworthy historical errors, if you really want to learn about the politics of the time of the French Revolution, I suggest looking elsewhere. You will not find much here.The costumes and set in the palace of Versailles are total eye candy and remain my main reason to watch the movie over and over. No effort was spared to recreate the most minimal details to produce a stunning visual feast.The music, contrary to what many here think was, in my opinion, entirely appropriate. In fact, it’s part of what makes this movie so distinct. Sophia wanted to make us experience what Marie Antoinette’s parties, shopping and dessert binges must have been like, and the anachronistic music —as strange as it may seem— is perfect to produce that effect in a modern audience. It was a bold approach and a brave move, but very well done.There are also a couple of very powerful scenes in this movie. One of them, the Queen’s bow in front of the demanding peasants; or her sorrow after the birth of her nephew, before she could get pregnant; or take her loneliness at the Parisian opera, when other attendees refuse to join her claps. It takes an actress such as Kirsten Dunst to remain credible during such intense moments, after all the frivolity —and sweetness— of her character in the rest of the film.I read somewhere that this movie was booed in Cannes by French reporters who wanted to see Marie Antoinette portraited as the evil queen they have been led to believe she was. Remember folks, if you are looking for historical depth, this is not your place. Ironically, Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette may be closer to the real character of France’s last queen than what many history books teach.

Coppola reprises LOST IN TRANSLATION but as an exercise in mistranslating the French Revolution. This is a huge pity. Kirsten Dunst is well-cast in this tale but her effects are muted because the context provided by the dramaturgy offers almost no contrast. It's beautifully coloured, styled and gorgeously optically printed to express natural light but nowhere are there the shadows of revolutionary ideology nor the suffering of the old and new poor of France of the period. The fishwives, when they arrive, are scarcely credible. It is almost as if Coppola ended up shooting her own footnotes and marginal scribblings for film ideas as they loosely related to the period, rather than a comprehensive human survey of one of the most gruesome stories every told to us by history. The various Coldplay-backed mash-ups on Youtube which take an idea somewhere inherent in this telling (modern music, pathos and great visual richness) serve that possible dynamic much better than the film is actually served by its own score. Musically, the movie underplays its musical touches and pulls most of its dramatic punches. What is frustrating is that the young cast, (playing a young king and queen) could have very credibly portrayed the 'snow falling on blossom' that the Revolution was memorably described as being. Dunst is photographed lovingly, compassionately, against all the right furniture and baroque cakes and sweets. Coppola even takes the time to detour via the fad for simplicity but lately affected Marie Antoinette in her final decade. But there isn't really a sense of the protagonist's life against a real world, against real feelings. In reality, the queen was very aware of the politics and leading figures of her time. She was the target of brutal defamation and ugly misogyny. That should have been and could have been easily part of the story here. But, there is none of the real spite, savagery, calumny and class-hatred of the pre-Revolutionary period that flared up like psoriasis ion 1789 and which that still runs like a vivid scar through our own European politics. A huge and missed opportunity.

A strange confection, never really gets going. I guess they blew the budget on sets & costumes, so couldn't afford a decent cast - the completely wooden Kirsten Dunst, and the likes of Steve Coogan, Rip Torn & Marianne Faithfull !!!

Having read and enjoyed the biography used as the source for this movie I was keen to see it. I don't mind the modern music used in parts - it really does help make the point that the Queen was a teenager at the time - and the sets, costumes and performances are all good. What annoyed me was the movie only tells half the story.For all her faults, Marie Antoinette comes into her own as a human being, mother, wife and - least we forget - victim after she and the Royal family leave Versailles, yet it is this moment that Sofie Coppola chooses to end the film. Was it a lack of budget - like the animated Lord of the Rings from the 70s - or an attempt to rob the central character of her redemption?All in all, better to read the book.

As a researcher of the life of the Queen I didn't expect to like this, but I did! Kirsten Dunst pays the part well, though the writers fail to show how the Queen changed and grew as a person during the period of time covered by the film. She helps us identify with the Queen who was so unjustly maligned and misrepresented during her lifetime, and who suffered so terribly during the revolution. Having Versailles as a film set is wonderful, spoiled only by the bizarre and inappropriate choice of music. Worth watching.

I wasn`t expecting much after reading some of the low reviews...but I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Its a modern, fun & artistic take on Marie Antoinette`s overly indulgent early years, with lots of stunning sumptuous clothes, shoes, flowers, gardens and yes - cakes.Its fun to watch and yet at the same time, the film sticks closely to the basic known facts about her early life.It`s a strange mixture of early 80`s music and historic imagery, but if like me, you love fashion, art, design, music & history, lose yourself in this film, Its delicious!