Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Panamint Probably the best word I can use to describe this film is "splendid". It was meant to be, and it is probably the most opulent and lavish film ever produced by Old Hollywood, and undoubtedly one of the most expensive. Incredibly, Norma Shearer manages to dazzle over and above the glittering jewels in an outstanding Oscar- winning performance. Tyrone Power is dashing and John Barrymore is great as aging monarch Louis XV. Robert Morley steals the show creating an unforgettable character as the Dauphin and later King whose reign ended tragically but inevitably in a bloody manner. The history seems generally accurate although necessarily somewhat speculative and condensed because it spans two decades and a great number of events. It is of course impossible logically to feel any sympathy for the pampered remnants of a cruel old royal society. Nevertheless, everyone should view this film for Shearer and Morley and their tremendous acting accomplishments to see how logic can be overcome by emotion. This film is a classic Hollywood demonstration of how superb technique and style can soften and twist the ugly truths of aristocratic privilege into something more sympathetic, at least as far as empathy for individual characters in a script. Hollywood was very talented at such twisting of the optics of myth and did it frequently.

jazerbini It is certainly one of the best movies I've seen. Norma Shearer is perfect in the role of Marie Antoinette and the reconstitution of the 18th-century is something rarely seen in cinema. Tyrone Power has a great performance as Fersen. And Robert Morley as Louis XVI must have come very close to the real character. The beautiful Anita Louise shines in every scene that appears. And Gladys George managed to incorporate all the dislike of Mme Du Barry. I read the book by Stefan Zweig and really the film which was based on the book is perfect. It is a great and stunning spectacle. It is even more valuable considering the time that has elapsed since its production in 1938 is 77 years. It really is amazing. Wonderful movie.

richard-1787 This movie is more interesting to watch if you have a decent knowledge of the history that is being changed by it. I don't think I have ever seen such a sympathetic portrait of the French queen. She is truly presented as without flaw, a wonderful, warm woman. This makes her end truly difficult to bear, especially given the highly emotional final scenes of the movie. When they take her son from her, it is hard to hold back the tears.The truth, of course, was otherwise. This is, therefore, a whitewashing of the historical Marie Antoinette, and it is worth asking why.In part, it seems to be a conservative's rewrite of history. The revolutionaries are portrayed as uniformly bad, so this is a condemnation of revolution and a positive presentation of absolute monarchy. MGM had done the same sort of thing just a few years before with the much better A Tale of Two Cities, which also centers on the French Revolution.I suspect MA is also whitewashed so that Norma Shearer would have a sympathetic character to portray. That backfires, though, at least from hindsight. A good actress could do more with a complex character who has merits but also flaws. Here, MA is less difficult to portray, and comes off as less interesting than, say, Shearer's portrayals in "The Women" or some of her other better-remembered movies. She may not have been the greatest of actresses, but she would have been more interesting, and more memorable, if the character had not been written in such a one-dimensional fashion.There are lots of lavish ballroom scenes, lots of magnificent costumes, by Adrian. If you like that, you will love this movie. It's just a shame that the characters so beautifully costumed don't come off as more interesting, especially given the exceptional length of this movie.

romanorum1 Marie Antoinette, born in 1755, a daughter of Austrian empress Maria Theresa, was 15 years old when she was told by her mother that she was to be betrothed to the French heir to the throne, the future Louis XVI. Maria Theresa's ultimate reason was to secure strategically the Austrian-French alliance in balance of power Europe. Marie was of course excited in a little girl sort of way. She was to leave home forever and travel to France with a small entourage (1770). The first meeting with Louis XVI was awkward, to say the least ("I like to be alone."). The king, although well-meaning and moral, was dull, fat and introverted; he was far too awkward to preside over a worldly-wise royal court. His main interest was in clock making and repairing. In fact, it was said that the marriage with Marie Antoinette was not consummated for quite a few years.The French court at Versailles was flamboyant, to say the least. There were gilded furniture, expensive paintings, and many amusements. (The movie itself is of lavish scope and sets.) Minuets were danced and childish games were played. The men were dandies: they had perfumed wigs, ruffled shirt cuffs, silk stockings and knee breeches (culottes). The women used heavy makeup, powdered their cheeks, wore jewelry, and had grand wigs and huge gowns that barely could cross an open doorway. Oh, their attire is something to behold! There certainly was no lack of intrigue and back-stabbing. In such a degenerate atmosphere the naïve Marie Antoinette was seduced; over time, Marie became known for her extravagance. France was really a rich country, but the good life was not shared. The French populace demanded attention to their wants; they were hungry and wore rags. They grumbled over the high taxes need to run the government, especially the court. Relief was not forthcoming for a variety of good reasons. After a series of scandals and odd events, especially the startling "Affair of the Diamond Necklace" (1785, see additional information below), the royal family's situation was doomed. On 14 July 1789 the fall of the Bastille to the uncouth and unwashed people began the two-year process whereby the king's power was first reduced then revoked entirely. Had he been smarter and sophisticated, the king may have been able to broker a deal that would have made him a constitutional monarch (instead of an absolute one). The people's leaders ran the courts, and they were none-too-merciful. The royal family was moved from the Palace of Versailles to the Tuileries Palace in Paris (1789). But after the royal family's failed escape (June 1791), they were housed in a Paris prison known as the Temple. First the king was stripped of his power, and then the queen's son was taken from her (he would mysteriously die in 1795 although his sister did live a long time). The last royal dinner in prison consisted of onion soup and bread; and the entire scene was heartbreaking. It occurred the night before the king's execution. First the king, then the queen, was guillotined (in 1793, about nine months apart); both did actually go to their deaths bravely. Count Axel Fersen survived and went back to Sweden; his end would come in 1810.Norma Shearer sympathetically portrays Marie Antoinette, and Robert Morley does the same for Louis XVI. The gorgeous Anita Louise plays the Princess de Lamballe, who, loyal to the royal family to the end, dies cruelly at the hands of a mob. Tyrone Power, Count Axel Fersen, was the loyal lover to the end who unsuccessfully engineers the escape of the royal family. John Barrymore portrays the unpopular and unlikeable Louis XV, who has the famous quote: "After me, the deluge." Joseph Schildkraut is the Duke of Orleans, an untrustworthy and ambitious radical who is in a powdered wig and heavy make-up. Gladys George is Madame du Barry, a putty-headed mistress who was later guillotined for treason (her inglorious end is not covered in the movie). Like other court mistresses she had no foresight to understand that her days were numbered once her king and benefactor died. BONUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE AFFAIR OF THE DIAMOND NECKLACE (an historical fact): The discredited adventuress, Countess de La Motte, duped Louis Cardinal de Rohan into believing he would regain his long lost court favor with Marie Antoinette if he would broker a deal for an extremely valuable necklace worth 1.6 million livres (originally intended for Louis XV's mistress, Madame du Barry). Mme. La Motte and her accomplices then engineered a sham correspondence between de Rohan and the queen. Mme. La Motte forged letters from the queen to Rohan attesting to her interest in the necklace. There was even a brief, sham meeting in the Gardens of Versailles between de Rohan and a woman impersonating the queen (the impersonator was really a prostitute). When de Rohan did obtain the necklace from the jeweler, he turned it over to Mme. La Motte. Her husband then took it to London where it was broken down and sold. The scandal became public when de Rohan, left on his own, could not make the payments on the necklace. De Rohan was acquitted of larceny although he lost his position in court. Mme. La Motte was found guilty and imprisoned, but later escaped. Unfortunately, as the affair came at a critical time in the reign of Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette was unjustly implicated by the French public. When the verdict of Rohan's acquittal was announced in the packed Paris Opera House in the presence of the queen, the crowds cheered as Marie Antoinette left in dismay (1786). Never again would she regain a semblance of public favor.